You know it’s been more than eight months since the election. A new government, new broom and all that. Despite not agreeing with them on just about everything, I have been interested to see how they’d go and what they’d try to achieve. Well I have to say, not much chop is my assessment so far. You would have thought that they’d take the opportunity to come up with a few good ideas that show some long term thinking. A bit of vision. Even if it’s not my kind of vision. Today’s offering on copyright being a case in point.
A proposal document for the review of section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 and how to deal with repeat Internet copyright infringement released today for public feedback by Commerce Minister Simon Power proposes a three-phase process enabling copyright owners to pursue repeat internet offenders.
In response I said:
The National Government had the opportunity to show some long term vision on the vexed issue of copyright infringements, but appears to be settling for a short term stop-gap measure that doesn’t address the underlying issues.
The Government’s Section 92A Review Policy Proposal Document released today raises more questions than it answers and retains punitive measures for alleged copyright infringement in a public vacuum…
The consultation that I’ve been undertaking with a range of stakeholders has convinced me that a termination policy operating in such a vacuum cannot work. International attempts to introduce similar policies haven’t worked to date.
There is overwhelming international evidence that the vast majority of copyright infringements are the result of ignorance or a lack of understanding of what copyright means. It is estimated that once notified of a copyright breach, most people will stop.
There are of course people who require a stronger penalty, but the issue of how people can legally get access to information and material is vital in this digital age.
There are also unresolved outstanding issues around what constitutes an internet service provider (ISP). This was one of the major issues raised in the previous failed attempts to construct a working code of practice.
Simply rewriting Section 92A, resulting in a flood of complaints and alleged infringements and allowing for the ability to cut off the internet account is just short-sighted and a quick-fix measure.
Labour has admitted it got it wrong by introducing Section 92A last year in a vacuum. How about National having the guts to do the same?
Great, so nothing has improved.
I’m not biased toward any pol party, but I think your willingness to engage and your transparency has simply put you in a stronger position to gauge the issues Clare; by comparison Simon Power feels like he’s trying to grapple with things and losing. Plus I get the sense that many in National haven’t improved their understanding at all, maybe seeing it as “a young person’s issue”?
You certainly think highly of yourself don’t you. Perhaps Whaleoil was right and you are an egotist.
Time was when some seriously wonderful original stuff was not protected by copyright at all- The works of Bach Haydn Mozart Beethoven and Schubert, for example. In their various ways they took action as best they could to protect their own interests, even waiting until after they had died before they published some of their masterpieces.
Electronic copyright comes down to this- if you leave it lying around on the web where someone can get hold of it, it’s your problem. If someone else puts your proprietary stuff on the web then it is their problem and they must be legally liable for any unauthorised use- it is not the problem of the person who copies it. It is absolutely impossible for the individual user to make a valid assessment of whether something is legitimately copyable or not. The law must say, without equivocation, that if something is on the net and copyable the person who makes the copy is not at fault. The onus is on the copyright owner, and if they can’t find a way to protect their material (except where it is stolen from them) then they get no protection at law.
The area that some might see as grey- the subsequent transmission of protected material that has been acquired legally I see as black and white. If you download something (anything) and then forward or otherwise make that material available to anyone else, then you become personally liable for any infringement of copyright, notwithstanding the fact that you might have downloaded the material lawfully.
This would protect me, and millions of others from having endless screeds of unmeritorious crap sent to us by people who have nothing better to do than to browse the internet and forward stuff that interests and/or amuses them but either bores, offends, or irritates the recipients.
Pleased to see you reject termination as a punishment. This is a key issue.
What both Labour and National fail to comprehend is that they need to pick a side, the voters who want to download music and movies, OR big business. There is no middle ground on this issue, right now both parties are trying to fence sit and failing miserably. You want vision, here’s a vision. Change the term of copyright to months or single digit years rather than decades. Make the penalty for non commercial copyright infringement insignificant (say a maximum of twice the cost of the CD/DVD/whatever that was copied), legislate to allow consumers to return DVD’s, software etc if they are unsatisfied with it. Who wants to pay $100 for a game to find its complete utter crap, but you cant return it because of our copyright laws?
well said Ando!.The last game i bought i paid $129 for,i clocked in less than 12 hours.I don’t know about anyone else but that to me is not good value for money at all.I sold that game on trade me 4 months later(after dusting it off)for only $30!.The consumer being charged this amount for a game with 12hrs playability and virtually no resale value is getting ripped off blind.
I also watched the CLOSE UP program on one the other night and found it funny how the APRA rep said he didn’t advocate disconnection just a slowing down of peoples connections(that’s not what they’ve been saying up till now at all!).I was also amused he said he agreed with 90% of what the CCF suggests,(yeah right!),Bronwyns expression to this was priceless!.
As has been said over and over again,they can provide NO proof filesharing hurts their business at all!,they have cried wolf that many times even comparing the VCRs invention as as big a threat to movies as the BOSTON STRANGLER was to women!.Why can people not see them for what they are?,greedy lying cheating pigs who’s only concern is justifying their existence through pointless and damaging litigation and lining their own back pockets at the expense of the poor consumer.If you give them an inch they will take a mile if you give them a mile….
I think the industry needs to take a long look at systems like steam and groove shark and work out another way to market/distribute their products.
Before you could download movies from the internet for free – people who pirated software/games/movies/music did so from buying them from other people. Do we really want to return to that?
Let’s just say that you download a movie and you love it, but the quality is bad/there are extras you might get from buying it, then you’re going to go buy it. On the other hand – if you pay someone for it once – there’d be no way you’d pay for it again, especially if the quality of it was the same.
I’m not saying that downloading is not stealing. but.
Someone downloading a movie is not a lost sale – as the industries claims. They’re more likely to be a potential customer! Offer them something they can’t get illegally and if your product is good enough then they’ll buy it!
People who download the most music also buy the most music.
Section 92A is pointless joke.