Re: copyright amendment bill

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Philip, Feb 10, 2007.

  1. Philip

    Philip Guest

    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/SubmCalled/c/6/c/c6c33399d0b5408499923ddafae8a43d.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
     
    Philip, Feb 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Philip

    Barry Lennox Guest

    On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:45:21 +1300, Philip <> 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/SubmCalled/c/6/c/c6c33399d0b5408499923ddafae8a43d.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?
     
    Barry Lennox, Feb 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Philip

    a_l_p Guest

    Barry Lennox wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:45:21 +1300, Philip <> 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/SubmCalled/c/6/c/c6c33399d0b5408499923ddafae8a43d.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
     
    a_l_p, Feb 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Philip

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Barry Lennox" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:45:21 +1300, Philip <> 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/SubmCalled/c/6/c/c6c33399d0b5408499923ddafae8a43d.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.

    Fucking 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
     
    E. Scrooge, Feb 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Philip

    bharmer Guest

    On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:51:40 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
    (*sling)> wrote:

    >Fucking 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,
     
    bharmer, Feb 11, 2007
    #5
  6. Philip

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "bharmer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:51:40 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
    > (*sling)> wrote:
    >
    >>Fucking 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
     
    E. Scrooge, Feb 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Philip

    Colin B Guest

    "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.
     
    Colin B, Feb 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Philip

    Blue Guest

    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.
     
    Blue, Feb 12, 2007
    #8
  9. Philip

    Blue Guest

    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.
     
    Blue, Feb 12, 2007
    #9
  10. Philip

    Blue Guest

    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.
     
    Blue, Feb 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Philip

    jasen Guest

    On 2007-02-11, bharmer <> wrote:

    > 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,


    Not entirely, I mean Nz on Air must make some contribution.

    --

    Bye.
    Jasen
     
    jasen, Feb 12, 2007
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Modemac
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    743
    jayembee
    Nov 20, 2004
  2. Imhotep

    Congress readies broad new digital copyright bill

    Imhotep, Apr 26, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,662
  3. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,027
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    382
  5. Colin B

    Re: copyright amendment bill

    Colin B, Feb 11, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    377
    Colin B
    Feb 11, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page