Comments on: What the future will be like

By: What’s the need for secrecy? « Red Alert

What’s the need for secrecy? « Red Alert — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:28:09 +0000

[...] has taken a strong position on copyright this year, understanding the importance of public discussion and the needs for all stakeholders to be taken [...]

By: Curran’s blogpost sparkes lively debate on draft proposal « NewZbie

Curran’s blogpost sparkes lively debate on draft proposal « NewZbie — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:14:34 +0000

[...] Curran criticised the National Government’s redraft of Section 92a. In a blog post titlled ‘What the future will be like’ on Labour’s ‘Red Alert’ blog, Curran criticised the Government for being hastey [...]

By: Daniel Wilson

Daniel Wilson — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:30:26 +0000

On the pesky issue of termination: the French Constitutional Council last month overturned an attempt at introducing a three-strikes law (labelled HADOPI) which would have resulted in termination of a repeat-offender’s internet account. The council ruled that internet access is a basic human right (see http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6478542.ece).

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

I guess that freedom of opinion and expression extends to blogs like this one.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990) section 14 has something similar: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

However even though article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights states “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration”, legally in New Zealand, these rights are subject to “reasonable limits” (Bill of Rights, 1990, section 5): “Subject to section 4 of this Bill of Rights, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

By: Adam Shand

Adam Shand — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:26:24 +0000

> I’m getting some interesting, and mostly positive responses to the concept of a levy on internet connection. The issue is how much, and what does it apply to? And how would it be divvied up?

If you charge a levy, doesn’t that legitimise illegal downloading of copyrighted material? You are in essence paying for it at this point?

And if you’re not legitimising it then why should I, as a law abiding citizen, be charged because somebody else is breaking the law?

It seems to me that the feedback cycle for this is all wrong and it will in fact make the problem worse by incentivising bad behaviour.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:13:02 +0000

Opensource/GNU etc., fails in the commercial marketplace.

Readhat would like to dispute your uninformed assertion.

(iTunes Store anyone?)

Would love to use it but it doesn't have a Linux compatible client. That's one of the problems created by the present patent and copyright laws - compatibility is illegal.

By: Andy B

Andy B — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:14:25 +0000

Quoth – That’s a very good cartoon. We should look at this in an historical context and the cartoon gives good examples of these. We must remember what the aims of the creation of the internet were – effectively, freedom to distribute whatever information you want. Now, the global landscape has changed and people want to assert their rights.
There is no golden solution for the debate at the present time. The Standard published a video of a documentary on copyright, worth a look (I think it was called copywrong or something).
Opensource/GNU etc., fails in the commercial marketplace. Lets not even try and defend this – there isn’t an effective way of making money from opensource.
I think NZ should take the lead in keeping our web free from a sort of quasi-privatisation (which is what the record labels want to do by prosecuting anyone who steals content).
There are plenty of mechanisms in place for legal downloading (iTunes Store anyone?), but I think we should keep to the real aims of the internet (within the bounds of decency, i.e. no child porn).
I think we should not deregulate or regulate and just keep the status quo.

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:19:56 +0000

Ok everyone, take some deep breaths
Happy to acknowledge I may not have chosen the best of words but am confident that the community who has been involved in these discussions to date understand my commitment to finding constructive solutions

Ms Curran was invited to reconsider her comment 10 hours ago, apparently it is not forthcoming.

Simon, I try not do adversarial point-scoring. You are welcome to comment however you like (within reason), but this isn’t a productive approach

The ICT industry had a decade of attempting to engage productively with the Labour regime. What we got was exclusionary software deals with a foreign monopoly for the entire Public Sector at exorbitant cost to the Kiwi taxpayer that forced Kiwis to pay that foreign corporation in order to interact with their own government. Further, we got a Monopoly maintenance deal with Telecom that consigned our network infrastructure to the digital dark ages over the protestations of tens of thousands of signatories to the LLU petition and the interests of four million Kiwis.

Labour simply doesn’t do constructive engagement.

You can (and have) quote me, though I dispute the spin you’ve given it – as stated already.

“Spin.” God forbid we ever have a Labour MP prepared to own their mistakes.

Part of the purpose of this blog is to be open to criticism and encourage debate, if you has constructive ideas, I’m very much open to hearing them.

I’ve been holding forums on these issues, have you come along to share your points of view in the interests of finding a way forward?

Perhaps I would, if Labour’s new-found interest in “listening and engaging” with the electorate wasn’t entirely insincere.

The alacrity with which Labour suddenly adopted an interest in the electorate’s opinions coincided perfectly with New Zealand kicking them from the Treasury benches. It will be matched only by the alacrity with which Labour reverts to the same authoritarian approach that we’ve experienced over the last decade if we ever make the mistake of electing them back into office.

From banning lightbulbs and hot showers to listening to the electorate in a little over seven days. What a difference a week made. What a difference an upcoming week will make. Not too many forums in that week eh?

The history of the last decade teaches that Labour are a disaster for ICT and the current spokesperson can’t bring herself to retract two sentences in a blog post, let alone offer a mea culpa for the past. Appreciation and understanding be damned Russell! This lot are incorrigible.

By: Quoth the Raven

Quoth the Raven — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 06:32:40 +0000

Here's a cartoon on copyright.

By: Don Christie

Don Christie — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:00:27 +0000

Hi Clare

Many thanks for this and other very thoughtful posts on this topic. I must admit, that like others here, I misinterpreted these words:

There’s a real tension in the online community driven by the people who believe pretty much wholesale in open source and creative commons, i.e. everything belongs to everyone. Hmmm, I think not.

I would be happy to clarify the details to the Labour party, but the point is *not* that the Copyright belongs to everyone. In fact, the freedoms guaranteed by licences like the GPL and CC rely on copyright belonging to someone who has made certain guarantees (through the licence) that the user freedoms can never be removed.

As I said, I would be more than happy to clarify this and other issues regarding open source software if that would be of help.

Don Christie
President, NZ Open Source Society

By: Brenda

Brenda — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:21:29 +0000

I also initially thought Clare had been misinformed and was saying creators of Creative Commons licenced art believe everything should be free.

Clare: could you perhaps edit the post and clarify what you mean? I don’t think everyone will read all the comments.

I’m assuming you’re referring to a couple extremists somewhere (where??) rather than labelling the entire open source movement as copy right infringers. The movement after all wouldn’t exist without copyright protecting it.

You’ve been *ace* so far at starting dialogues. Thanks for your time considering the issues and consulting with so many people. I hope you keep talking to more non-extremists from the creative commons and/or open source movements.