Polity: TPP, eh?
216 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
.but anyone from a TPPA country can buy such homes “without restriction” – whatever that means – provided they are resident in NZ. I don’t see the residency requirement as discriminatory or restrictive.
Having to be a resident would be a restriction, however, the new rules state…
- A New Zealand IRD number will be required as part of the land transfer process.
- As part of the land transfer process, non-resident buyers and sellers must also provide their tax identification number from their home country.
- Non-residents will also need a New Zealand bank account before they can get an IRD number in order to buy a property.So yes, there are restrictions but they affect all NZ property sales too.
-
SteveH, in reply to
Aren’t we allowed to make any distinction at all between citizens and non-residents? If we can tax them – as the government has suggested – how is that any different?
My understanding is that the TPPA similar existing agreements (notably the China FTA via the Korea FTA) require us to treat citizens of those countries no worse than our own citizens. So we can make laws that restrict non-resident foreigners' ability to purchase of property, or that create taxes on non-resident foreign owners, but those laws will have to apply to non-resident NZers in the same way. Which is not a significant problem, IMO.
-
Is Matthew Hooton just stirring things up here? Or do several prominent Labour MPs actually support the TPPA?
He said he had been told Phil Goff, David Shearer, Stuart Nash, Kelvin Davis, Peeni Henare, Clayton Cosgrove, Damien O'Connor, and Rino Tirikatene would all potentially vote with the Government and against Labour if it decided to oppose the deal.
While the matter is currently hypothetical, with Parliament due to debate the deal but not vote on its approval, Hooton said there were other ways for the Government to make Labour MPs show their hand.
"I've got no information about what might going through John Key's mind...but it must be sorely tempting to put this to a confidence vote in Parliament."
-
Yay, life plus 70 years.
Because it's super-important that people who died in the 1950s can have some shitty heartless multinational wreck your creative works by claiming you've violated their copyright (you know, because you can sort of make out a radio playing in that house they walk past for eight seconds, or glimpse a logo of something out of focus in the background) in order to encourage the creativity of ... corporate lawyers.
Creative people? Sorry, it's called work-for-hire, you get nothing.
TPMs! Yay! That's where you buy a game and they install spyware on your computer, as a "technological protection measure". Telling people that it exists and how to get rid of it will become a criminal offence. Huzzah. You know what a TPM is? It's whatever the fuck they want it to be, so good luck.
Who needs medicine anyway. Generics? That's like exactly the same thing only cheaper; but why buy a pill for 20¢ when you can pay $10,000, or whatever the fuck they choose to charge for their extended monopoly on your well being. For the drugs discovered, almost all the time, in state-funded research labs, and then sold to the highest bidder. With the actual creative people doing work-for-hire and getting nothing.
And of course Labour will vote for it. It's a "trade" bill. Labour and National have voted together on "trade" bills forever, their main point of difference is still if the top tax rate should be 33% or 37% (and thus the rate at which public services will be cut and replaced with private for-profit statute monopolies and the infinite glory of user-pays, where they mean poor people paying and giant companies getting billions in handouts). -
Sacha, in reply to
He is merely listing the right of Labour's caucus.
-
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have commentary on the leaked IP chapter of the TPP. It seems rather one sided to them.
-
Rod Oram's analysis.
-
Jane Kelsey reflects.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Matthew Hooton just stirring things up
Now that Slater is toxic, Hooton is the last working channel for injecting noise. See, here we have a Stuff story about a claim by Hooton that a claim was made by unnamed insiders. There is no news value and no evidence. Ask yourself, how much trust you would like to place in Hooton.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Ask yourself, how much trust you would like to place in Hooton.
Be gentle with Hooton, he's easily confused:
"there is a great story about Mandela wanting a flash suit in which to leave prison, in order to send an important political message to the financial markets, the military and white South Africans. I can’t remember if I had any pre-release impression of Mandela back then, but I probably assumed he was a Castro or Che Guevara type figure. The Armani suit (or whatever it was) confused me."
-
David Hood, in reply to
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Now that Slater is toxic, Hooton is the last working channel for injecting noise. See, here we have a Stuff story about a claim by Hooton that a claim was made by unnamed insiders. There is no news value and no evidence. Ask yourself, how much trust you would like to place in Hooton.
Here’s an idea: for every mention of “Labour split”, we actively promote the fact that Judith Collins keeps a sharp set of knives.
-
David Farrar offers a (non-ranting) insider account of how some NZ organisations lobbied against the worst proposals in the IP chapter of the TPP. I still wouldn't read the comments.
-
izogi, in reply to
John Barnett of South Pacific Pictures has been on a soap-box in the last few days, arguing the same-old “why shouldn’t they be paid for an extra 20 years??” line. Invoking Shortland Street, Sione’s Wedding, Whale Rider, Footrot Flats, and so on. There’s a similar line from Mike Sayes of the Publishers’ Association, claiming that few works build on previous ones and copyrighted works are readily available anyway, and people pass their farms to their kids and so .. blah blah…. effectively trying to imply the idea that copyright should really last forever because …..
But it doesn’t last forever, and never has. So why should we extend it?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
John Barnett of South Pacific Pictures has been on a soap-box in the last few days, arguing the same-old “why shouldn’t they be paid for an extra 20 years??” line.
Presumably the same Barnett who was involved as an editor in compiling a pair of "NZ jokes" collections for Penguin. While I could happily exit this world without sighting the second volume, he freely admits in his intro to the 1996 Penguin Book of New Zealand Jokes that many were gleaned from the internet. Certainly there was no suggestion that any kind of copyright was due to anyone but the harvesters of a bunch of up for grabs material.
-
Bruce Ward, in reply to
Thanks for that link David. A very interesting and concerning analysis.
-
EFF's analysis in more detail via Reddit.
-
izogi, in reply to
Really? If true it seems to touch on one of the existing issues with copyright generally – trying to track down owners who are completely unknown or cannot be found.
Browsing the NZ Copyright Act, 22(3) seems to deal with “unknown authorship” by setting the out-of-copyright date at 50 years after being first made available. (Soon to be 70 years?)
I haven’t seen the book but unless all jokes were shown to have been published more than 50 years earlier, can anyone see a way by which the publisher could have deemed it legal to publish at all? I can’t see how Fair Dealing would apply.
-
izogi, in reply to
people pass their farms to their kids
Oh and I’ve written my little rant under that RNZ article about why the family farm analogy doesn’t add up, at least in my own view.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I haven’t seen the book but unless all jokes were shown to have been published more than 50 years earlier, can anyone see a way by which the publisher could have deemed it legal to publish at all? I can’t see how Fair Dealing would apply.
My only beef at the time I received The Penguin Book of New Zealand Jokes - it was a well-meant gift - was that very few had a genuine NZ connection. It did have a chapter specifically dedicated to stuff sourced from the internet, which possibly had a novelty value back then. If this effort by ABC stalwart Phillip Adams is any indication, there's a publishing market catering to folks who prefer reading to going online.
-
Gareth Hughes was speaking on Morning Report this morning. He sounded very tired for the whole interview.
-
Wikileaks has released the final negotiated text for the TPP intellectual property rights chapter.
-
What's interesting there is that NZ has apparently ceded subpoena rights to foreign courts
Also interesting over the weekend was Grosser admitting that there is no treaty document at this time, who knows what it was that he signed.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
What’s interesting there is that NZ has apparently ceded subpoena rights to foreign courts
So FBI can come and arrest DotCom without incident. How the fuck is any of this good for NZ? What will we have left? As someone wrote, once you cede any thing ,very rarely can you get it back.
-
Sacha, in reply to
just a 12-way handshake :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.