Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: copyright amendment bill

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: copyright amendment bill

 
 
Philip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2007
Peter wrote:
> There was an interesting article on National Radio today, about the
> copyright amendment bill currently before a select committee and open for
> submissions.
> From the radio, it seems the main features are
> - we'll be allowed to copy (format shift) music that we lawfully own, but
> NOT video and only for 2 years. Why not video - makes no sense? And why
> the 2 year period, meaning we can't copy anything after that?
> - copy protection (= TPM) is ok. I reckon this should only be permitted if
> there is no further condition or payment attached. Otherwise, it traps
> users into certain suppliers (and so provides monopoly, stiffles choice and
> shuts out competition and innovation).
> Also, the onus should be on the party imposing the TPM to make it safe, and
> they should be liable for any damages or loss due to its use. Remember the
> recent software Sony hid in music CDs that created a backdoor trojan on any
> PC that ran it? Consumers should be protected from this sort of thing.
>
> http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Su...dafae8a43d.htm
>
> Looks like the foreign media corporates have influenced NZ govt to their
> benefit, so we need some input in support of NZ artists and consumers.
> Are there any forums or blogs on this topic?
>
>
> TIA
>
> Peter
>


You have until next Friday to set out your views on the proposals and
submit them on-line to the Select Committee.

Internetnz has organised public meetings in Auckland on Wednesday
14th, and Wellington Tuesday 13th with an impressive list of speakers.
You can see the programme at www.internetnz.net.nz. I certainly plan to
be there.

For me some of the main issues are:

1. The attempt to introduce aspects of the US DMCA law to New Zealand,
specifically those provisions that make criminal offences out of
de-scrambling or undoing any 'technical protection measure' (TPM) that
has been included in the product.

This section also criminalises 'conveying information about means to
overcome TPMs, which makes it a crime punishable by disproportionately
high penalties merely to tell someone how to make a copy. My concern is
that this is moving one step back from the unwanted copying, and extends
the reach of copyright much further than it should be allowed to go.

I accept that copyright owners have a right to control copying of their
material - but not for my private use in my house. Our copyright law is
deficient compared to the US law in that it has no 'fair use' provision.
We need to argue for such a provision if we are not to see the heavy
hand of the content industry dropping on harmless family and hobby
activities as it has in the US and Europe.

The TPM clause as it stands is a direct attack on traditional Kiwi
ingenuity - the idea that you can take anything apart and see how it
works, and maybe make it better. Burt Munro would not have been allowed
to re-manufacture his Indian if that law had been in force back then.
Sony would not have been allowed to reverse-engineer Telefunken's
patents and create the Trinitron TV picture tube. It's an attack on
after-markets - it encourages manufacturers to include some
non-essential trivial aspect in the product specifically to prevent it
being reverse-engineered.

2. The ludicrous 'sunset clause' that gives people the right to format
shift, but only for two years unless the GG signs an extension for
another two years, ad infinitum. This time limit is clearly there to
please RIANZ and APRA, and just as clearly needs to be taken out whether
it displeases them or not.

It's against public policy to pass laws that are unenforceable and try
to micromanage peoples' lives as this draft does. There should be quite
simply a permanent right to format shift material you already own. Not
sell it, not trade it, not even give it away, but to copy it from a
format that play on one machine to a format that plays on a different
machine, for your own purpose.

A related issue, not addressed in the draft, is archive material
recorded in formats that aren't any longer supported - like 78 rpm and
45 rpm disks. I suggest there should be an automatic right to transfer
any and all analogues audio and video recordings in these and any other
disused formats to more durable digital formats. Transferring the
content should confer no inherent right of ownership or trading, just
the right to continue to be able to enjoy content already paid for.

There should also be a blanket exemption for copying material whose
copyright ownership is unknown and cannot be established after
reasonable inquiry - so-called 'orphan works'.

3. There should be no protection for TPMs applied to material that is
already in the public domain or has been issued under a permissive
licence such as Creative Commons or the GPL. There have been several
cases of public domain and other freely available material being
infected with DRM by MS Zune players.

Similarly there should be no protection for TPMs that have become public
knowledge, such as the CSS code used on DVDs.There has never been a
successful prosecution for its use anywhere in the world, and it is now
used merely to restrict and restrain trade, and particularly to try to
limit functionality of the Linux operating system as compared with
Microsoft and Apple products.

4. New Zealand has accepted the value of parallel importing, and has
already rejected the imposition of 'region codes' on DVDs. I propose a
new clause stating simply that no offence is committed by anyone that
bypasses, unscrambles or decodes any TPM, part or all of whose purpose
is to restrict functionality of a product according to geographical
location.

This is proposed in light of a recent Philips patent for a system of
encrypting region codes along with the program material, so that the
mere act of descrambling and reading them would be unlawful under the
DMCA, and the NZ Draft. Having refused region codes at the front door,
we do not need to let them in at the back.

I've posted this for discussion too at

http://puriri.blogspot.com/:

Opinions welcomed.

Philip

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Barry Lennox
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:45:21 +1300, Philip <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Peter wrote:
>> There was an interesting article on National Radio today, about the
>> copyright amendment bill currently before a select committee and open for
>> submissions.
>> From the radio, it seems the main features are
>> - we'll be allowed to copy (format shift) music that we lawfully own, but
>> NOT video and only for 2 years. Why not video - makes no sense? And why
>> the 2 year period, meaning we can't copy anything after that?
>> - copy protection (= TPM) is ok. I reckon this should only be permitted if
>> there is no further condition or payment attached. Otherwise, it traps
>> users into certain suppliers (and so provides monopoly, stiffles choice and
>> shuts out competition and innovation).
>> Also, the onus should be on the party imposing the TPM to make it safe, and
>> they should be liable for any damages or loss due to its use. Remember the
>> recent software Sony hid in music CDs that created a backdoor trojan on any
>> PC that ran it? Consumers should be protected from this sort of thing.
>>
>> http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Su...dafae8a43d.htm
>>
>> Looks like the foreign media corporates have influenced NZ govt to their
>> benefit, so we need some input in support of NZ artists and consumers.
>> Are there any forums or blogs on this topic?
>>
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Peter
>>

>
>You have until next Friday to set out your views on the proposals and
>submit them on-line to the Select Committee.


Excellent, I will thank you.

If recording of any copyright video for time-shifting is not allowed,
does that mean that 99.999999% of those that owning a HDD/DVD recorder
will probably be breaching the new act?

And it seems that even if I "chase-play" a program largely to get rid
of adverts, but there's other reasons as well, I will also be
breaching the new act?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
a_l_p
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007
Barry Lennox wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:45:21 +1300, Philip <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>
>>>There was an interesting article on National Radio today, about the
>>>copyright amendment bill currently before a select committee and open for
>>>submissions.
>>>From the radio, it seems the main features are
>>>- we'll be allowed to copy (format shift) music that we lawfully own, but
>>>NOT video and only for 2 years. Why not video - makes no sense? And why
>>>the 2 year period, meaning we can't copy anything after that?
>>>- copy protection (= TPM) is ok. I reckon this should only be permitted if
>>>there is no further condition or payment attached. Otherwise, it traps
>>>users into certain suppliers (and so provides monopoly, stiffles choice and
>>>shuts out competition and innovation).
>>>Also, the onus should be on the party imposing the TPM to make it safe, and
>>>they should be liable for any damages or loss due to its use. Remember the
>>>recent software Sony hid in music CDs that created a backdoor trojan on any
>>>PC that ran it? Consumers should be protected from this sort of thing.
>>>
>>>http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Su...dafae8a43d.htm
>>>
>>>Looks like the foreign media corporates have influenced NZ govt to their
>>>benefit, so we need some input in support of NZ artists and consumers.
>>>Are there any forums or blogs on this topic?
>>>
>>>
>>>TIA
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>

>>
>>You have until next Friday to set out your views on the proposals and
>>submit them on-line to the Select Committee.

>
>
> Excellent, I will thank you.
>
> If recording of any copyright video for time-shifting is not allowed,
> does that mean that 99.999999% of those that owning a HDD/DVD recorder
> will probably be breaching the new act?
>
> And it seems that even if I "chase-play" a program largely to get rid
> of adverts, but there's other reasons as well, I will also be
> breaching the new act?
>
>


Is ANYONE going to change their behaviour for fear of this dingbat law?
Legislation for the sake of legislation, that's what it is. Occupational
therapy for legislators who can't knit.

A L P
 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007

"Barry Lennox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:45:21 +1300, Philip <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>> There was an interesting article on National Radio today, about the
>>> copyright amendment bill currently before a select committee and open
>>> for
>>> submissions.
>>> From the radio, it seems the main features are
>>> - we'll be allowed to copy (format shift) music that we lawfully own,
>>> but
>>> NOT video and only for 2 years. Why not video - makes no sense? And why
>>> the 2 year period, meaning we can't copy anything after that?
>>> - copy protection (= TPM) is ok. I reckon this should only be permitted
>>> if
>>> there is no further condition or payment attached. Otherwise, it traps
>>> users into certain suppliers (and so provides monopoly, stiffles choice
>>> and
>>> shuts out competition and innovation).
>>> Also, the onus should be on the party imposing the TPM to make it safe,
>>> and
>>> they should be liable for any damages or loss due to its use. Remember
>>> the
>>> recent software Sony hid in music CDs that created a backdoor trojan on
>>> any
>>> PC that ran it? Consumers should be protected from this sort of thing.
>>>
>>> http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Su...dafae8a43d.htm
>>>
>>> Looks like the foreign media corporates have influenced NZ govt to their
>>> benefit, so we need some input in support of NZ artists and consumers.
>>> Are there any forums or blogs on this topic?
>>>
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>

>>
>>You have until next Friday to set out your views on the proposals and
>>submit them on-line to the Select Committee.

>
> Excellent, I will thank you.
>
> If recording of any copyright video for time-shifting is not allowed,
> does that mean that 99.999999% of those that owning a HDD/DVD recorder
> will probably be breaching the new act?
>
> And it seems that even if I "chase-play" a program largely to get rid
> of adverts, but there's other reasons as well, I will also be
> breaching the new act?


DVD Recorders aren't sold with tuners for nothing, and yes they will work
legally without a tuner when a video camera is connected to them.

Only thing that should be illegal is where some bastard makes hundreds of
copies of each show or movie and tries to sell them to any mugs that buy
them.

****ing shows like TVNZs Intrepid Journeys should be illegal right from the
start when they use taxpayers honest money for con artists like John
Tamihere the disgraced Labour Government Minister to star in the damn thing.
Plus other idiots in that show.
Bloody Michael Laws is another one who's getting our tax money for going on
the show.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
bharmer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:51:40 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
(*sling)> wrote:

>****ing shows like TVNZs Intrepid Journeys should be illegal right from the
>start when they use taxpayers honest money for con artists like John
>Tamihere the disgraced Labour Government Minister to star in the damn thing.
>Plus other idiots in that show.
>Bloody Michael Laws is another one who's getting our tax money for going on
>the show.



I think they should be illegal on grounds of taste alone, but I think
you are frothing a bit here Scrooge. How is it tax payer money. TVNZ
is a self funding crown entity, not a government department. As long
as it meets its obligations, the operational expenditures are for all
practical purposes, none of our business,
 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007

"bharmer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:51:40 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
> (*sling)> wrote:
>
>>****ing shows like TVNZs Intrepid Journeys should be illegal right from
>>the
>>start when they use taxpayers honest money for con artists like John
>>Tamihere the disgraced Labour Government Minister to star in the damn
>>thing.
>>Plus other idiots in that show.
>>Bloody Michael Laws is another one who's getting our tax money for going
>>on
>>the show.

>
>
> I think they should be illegal on grounds of taste alone, but I think
> you are frothing a bit here Scrooge. How is it tax payer money. TVNZ
> is a self funding crown entity, not a government department. As long
> as it meets its obligations, the operational expenditures are for all
> practical purposes, none of our business,


As long as we we aren't paying idiots like Laws and Tamihere, then that's
not quite so bad.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007

"E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
news:1171162025.327663@ftpsrv1...

> Only thing that should be illegal is where some bastard makes hundreds of
> copies of each show or movie and tries to sell them to any mugs that buy
> them.


Particularly in the eyes of many younger people, copyright is,
unfortunately, not something to worry too much about. Consider the huge
number of videos that have been uploaded to the website "Youtube" without
first getting the approval of the copyright owners. These videos are
uploaded to Youtube despite the very explicit instructions on the Youtube
site not to upload videos that are copyright protected. Look at this one,
for example, it has been viewed 7.3 MILLION times, and is labelled "Napoleon
Dynamite Dance Scene".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixsZy2425eY

Or this Borat one which has been viewed 2.3 million times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBirGHHzXOM

I guess many young people may not realise they are personally liable if they
upload illegal items to Youtube, and the penalties, if prosecuted
successfully, could easily bankrupt them. So let's encourage New Zealand
youth to respect the rights of copyright owners and be aware of the
penalties of copyright infringements.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Blue
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:45:21 +1300, Philip wrote:

> The TPM clause as it stands is a direct attack on traditional Kiwi
> ingenuity - the idea that you can take anything apart and see how it
> works, and maybe make it better.


Why bother, if you have the source.

> Burt Munro would not have been allowed
> to re-manufacture his Indian if that law had been in force back then.
> Sony would not have been allowed to reverse-engineer Telefunken's
> patents and create the Trinitron TV picture tube. It's an attack on
> after-markets - it encourages manufacturers to include some
> non-essential trivial aspect in the product specifically to prevent it
> being reverse-engineered.


Consumers will Govern. I hope they wise up soon enuff.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Blue
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:51:40 +1300, E. Scrooge wrote:

> Only thing that should be illegal is where some bastard makes hundreds of
> copies of each show or movie and tries to sell them to any mugs that buy
> them.


Bugger! I agree with E. again.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Blue
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:35:47 +1300, a_l_p wrote:

> Is ANYONE going to change their behaviour for fear of this dingbat law?
> Legislation for the sake of legislation, that's what it is.


Nope, it is legislation taking a step forward in 19 something.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: copyright amendment bill Colin B NZ Computing 3 02-11-2007 09:17 PM
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? Colin B Digital Photography 195 01-19-2007 09:00 AM
Congress readies broad new digital copyright bill Imhotep Computer Security 45 05-29-2006 01:33 AM
USA Congress readies new digital copyright bill that extends DMCA Have A Nice Cup of Tea NZ Computing 6 04-30-2006 11:37 PM
Yet another new "copyright enforcement" bill in Congress Modemac DVD Video 24 11-20-2004 07:07 PM



Advertisments