It’s been a couple of months since I’ve said anything about copyright. It’s time I did, as it appears the National Government is taking a blinkered and possibly quick fix approach to this important but vexed issue.
You might remember there was a lot of agitation earlier this year around the introduction of Section 92A of the Copyright Act, which would have required internet service providers (ISPs) to terminate the accounts of repeat copyright infringers “in reasonable circumstances.” The Government scrapped it in March and said it would “work on a replacement section”.
I had a lot to say at the time, but have been quiet since because I’ve been waiting to see what process the government would put in place to get things moving to hopefully come up with a working solution.
I don’t want to pre-empt that process. But to be frank it doesn’t look promising. This is a critical issue and government needs to pay attention and get it right. It’s not going to make the front page (unless there’s a major internet blackout being threatened). But it’s extremely important that government shows balance and vision. Labour gets that. It took us a while, but we get it and we’re committed to a sound policy that will take this country forward…… you can be part of that if you’re interested…
A quick history:
Section 92A was introduced under the previous Labour Govt late last year but wasn’t due to come into effect until the end of February 2009.
A build up of consternation amongst internet users and ISPs and associated others over the summer got my attention and the Labour Party realised that the law’s requirement for the stakeholders to develop, let alone put in place, a workable code of practice to terminate internet accounts on the basis of alleged copyright infringements had some serious flaws.
Labour concluded the whole copyright issue needed to be looked at more widely. We took account of the debate raging in New Zealand and elsewhere and started to bring together stakeholders to get a discussion happening about a better way to approach the issue. We prodded the government to pay attention and “do something” about the issue, which they eventually did by deciding to review Section 92A. But it looks as though they wont go far enough.
We believe that there are some core principles that underpin a copyright policy: The rights of creators to control their own work; the right to access information and for people to be encouraged to seek information; the importance of encouraging and enabling innovation, fair process and fair use.
We also believe that there are some critical issues that need addressing. The urgent need to educate the public about copyright (there is a general lack of awareness, especially among younger people); for rights holders to have the ability to enforce their rights, and a fair process to do it (eg independent tribunal). The need for new business models to protect copyright in the digital era (existing models such as record and film companies aren’t working); The issue of whether a termination policy is an effective remedy for copyright infringement, or whether other remedies such as financial penalties should be considered, how to ensure equal access by internet users to the information they want and need. How to ensure rights holders can continue to create content …….. the list goes on…
I’m not convinced the National Govt’s proposal to merely re-draft Section 92A takes all these things into account which could severely hamper the ability of its working party to come up with anything workable.
We welcome the fact that the government has finally announced a “process” but we’re worried it’s a quick fix. That’s why Labour will continue a separate process to engage with stakeholders and attempt to find a way forward that addresses those fundamental principles and the issues outlined above. I’ll be coordinating another forum in Auckland in a few weeks. If you’re interested in participating, let me know. You can email me: clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz
If there is one thing Clare that “we” don’t want, its leftists with any control over the internet.
I mean, absolute farces like this on mainstream TV are enough -
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/2504098/Lack-of-balance-on-TVNZs-Breakfast
Been a long time since i have witnessed anything so close to fascism as that.
Imagine if those responsible for that decision were policing the net?
The left will use any pretext to attack freedom of political expression. I believe copyright is one of those pretexts.
Keep the left’s hands off the Internet.
Nice work Clare, its clear you “get it”! Personally I think the most important issue is the business model one, because recording companies simply aren’t the way of the future, although good luck with influencing that one! In the meantime its good to see someone who understands the issues is commenting. I look forward to you being the next Telecommunications Minister!
Oh, and Redbaiter, the good thing about free speech is it lets weirdos like you vent, and then we can all see the strange stuff you are made of…
The independent body disagrees with you so they must be wrong. Nice logic RB.
I don’t take Clare’s point to be at all about “getting anyone’s hands” on the internet. If anything I took her to be saying that we (all of us) need to get on with working out some answers to tough questions together. You’re the one who’s a) threadjacking and b) trying to spin this as a left/right issue. I happen to think it’s bigger than that.
Perhaps go and take your slogans back to Kiwiblog where they’re more likely to impress?
Clare, I understand you are still talking with stakeholders, but do you have a ‘way forward’ in mind?
Jennifer
Did you read the whole post? I’m organising a stakeholder meeting in Auckland in a couple of weeks, if you’re interested, email me and you can come along, or I can put you on the email list. Yes, Labour is developing a go forward policy in this space and I’ve listed what I see as the important issues. It would be good to have you involved.
Clare
[...] this issue and finding an alternative solution is the first order of business.. Labour’s Clare Curran wrote “I don’t want to pre-empt that process. But to be frank it doesn’t look promising. [...]
[...] Dalziel, Trevor Mallard, David Cunliffe and Maryan Street). Out of that meeting came a series of themes and issues that needed further discussion. Because of the number of people who wanted to attend but [...]
Claire, the proof is in the pudding. Labour gave us a terrible copyright law that was obsolete the moment it was written. Even worse, they brought in S92A.
To say, “Oops” now, is too late, you’ve already lost credibility.
National is going back on their promises as well. The ICT debate transcript makes for compelling reading. I voted National because of the comments made by Maurice Williamson in that debate. I am not impressed with their behaviour in the area since the election.
How’s this for a copyright stake in the ground:
1) If I have access to the source material, I can copy it.
2) Copying is separate from Distribution.
3) I can store my copy for as long as I want.
4) I can make as many copies as I want.
5) I am allowed to modify my copies however I wish
(transcode/edit)
6) No special protection for any TPMs.
That is a good start for a customer-centric copyright legislation. The only problem is that it still makes kids violators by not allowing remix culture (distribution right is separate from copy right).
There’s really two simple reasons why there is such blatant disregard for copyright worldwide, in particular when it comes to the music, tv, and movie realms:
The first is that it’s harder to get access to copyrighted material legitimately than it is to get access to the same material illegitimately.
As an example, I purchased a DVD of a fairly recent movie on the weekend. I put it in to the DVD player, and it proceeded to play a “don’t steal this film” advert, followed by a bunch of adverts for other movies, before finally showing me the menu. The trailers were thankfully skippable. After this hassle, I could finally play the DVD in fantastic low-definition quality. Ofcourse, I can’t copy the thing onto my ipod without breaking a “technological protection mechanism”, nor can I copy it to other devices, such as my home theatre pc.
Compare this to the following:
1. Search for title of film.
2. Single click and it downloads.
3. A further click and I’m watching the actual movie in high definition. Subtitles are there if I want them, as are commentary tracks and so on.
4. A further click or two and I can copy this onto my ipod or wherever else I want.
If I could pay to do this second option, I would. As it is, I can’t. My only options are low resolution, DRM encrusted wastes of my time, or to obtain it elsewhere.
The second reason is that copyright has been extended so many times that most people completely see through the real use of it: When a song is copyrighted for 70+ years _after_ the death of the composer, it’s clear the function of copyright isn’t to enhance the public good. Rather, it’s there to provide an unending supply of funds for the copyright holder.
Cut the length of distribution rights back to something sane, make sure that copying for personal use, or for the purposes of parody or remixing are exempt and perhaps people will start respecting it again. Bring it back to the original intention: A limited monopoly on distribution, to encourage the creation of artistic works for the public good.
“If there is one thing Clare that “we” don’t want, its leftists with any control over the internet.”
Come on now Russell Fletcher aka redbaiter, think the issue through, the left are no longer in power in NZ so how can they have any legislative power over the internet ?