Today a new Copyright Law was passed in New Zealand. As a result, no New Zealander can be disconnected from the internet for illegal file sharing.
Labour negotiated with the Government on this Bill. We could have chosen not to and simply opposed it.
If we had, today I would be lamenting that New Zealand now had a law where people could, and would be, disconnected from the internet.
High moral ground. But empty ground.
Being in Opposition isn’t always about opposing. Sometimes you can make an impact on laws. There are times when negotiating an outcome that improves a law is better than taking a high moral stand and ending up with something that you, and many in the community, fundamentally can’t live with.
That’s what Labour’s done.
There’s been an intense reaction to the Bill in social media. I acknowledge, understand and am sympathetic to many of the criticisms and concerns raised by people who are deeply discomforted by having a termination provision in the law even if it is on ice.
The government’s bottom line was to have termination in the Bill. Ours was to not support it. The compromise position was to leave it in but require the Minister to put what’s called an Order In Council into effect to switch it on. This is very unlikely to happen.
The onus is now on the creative industries to prove there is a case to terminate access and that the notice system is not working. Rather than oppose it outright, we preferred to compromise to ensure New Zealanders are not denied access to the internet.
Account suspension remains in the bill and could theoretically be used in the future, but any Minister who implements termination will have to wear the consequences. It won’t be a Labour Minister.
Evidence before the select committee strongly indicated that sales of music and movies on the internet were going up, not down, and that the industry remains viable and strong, if needing to change the way it distributes material.
The fundamental issue here is why so many people illegal downloading and sharing material. This law will hopefulyl have the impact of educating more people who are illegally filesharing and don’t understand it is illegal. I would hope that New Zealanders do not condone illegal filesharing.
I strongly support and stand by Labour’s position. We are not the government. We could have remained on the sidelines and thrown stones. That would have meant a bad law and New Zealanders facing disconnection. We are fundamentally opposed to internet disconnection.
So we compromised. I think New Zealand is in a better place today because of that.
Here’s what I said in Parliament last night in the second reading
This is the first opportunity I’ve had to respond. I’ll come back to it alter. But firstly to Will marshall that’s absolute rubbish.
The govt would have included termination in the law no matter what position we took. This way its dormant. And New Zealand is better for that than they would ahve been ahd we not struck a deal with the govt.
I stand by that.
Labour will now consider the issues around repeal.
@Stephen Judd
You said we should have got credit for opposing, while NZ has a bad law that can disconnect people from the internet. No. I came into parliament to try to make change happen.
I don’t consider this a little tactical win
I acknowledge it’s misunderstood and misinterpreted. But I think it was a fundamentally good thing.
It could be better and hopefully a Labour Govt will make it better and will also invest in creative content and support our local industries to develop better business models to distribute that content on the internet.
And enable more NZers to be connected. That’s a much better objective than disconnection.
I don’t consider this a little tactical win
good, well at least you got that much right.
can’t wait to hear your defences of the other criticisms on this post.
Even ignoring the internet termination clause and indeed the issue of copyright altogether, Labour have just supported a bill that:
• makes NZers guilty upon accusation
• was rushed through under urgency, abusing democratic process (yet again)
How on earth do you expect us to think Labour have done the right thing here, let alone vote for you? Show some damn integrity for once. While I respect several of you as individual MPs, Labour as a party deserves to be savaged in the polls for this. Shameful.
” I came into parliament to try to make change happen.”
I hear you, and I applaud that attitude. But you have to *stay* in Parliament to make changes that stick. I just think it would be worth forgoing a win that the greater public doesn’t hear about or understand, in order to be seen to stand up for your constituents’ beliefs.
One of the things about urgency is that it ruins your ability to tell the story about what you’re doing. Voting no on things done under urgency isn’t just sound on democratic principles, it’s strategically wise for oppositions too. Nuance is for parties in government.
We did not support it being rushed through under urgency. had no choice. I referred to this in my speech which is linked to on this post. Please read it.
We are the Opposition.
It does not make NZers guilty upon accusation. If you receive a notice and you challenge it, the onus is on the rightholder to priove your guilt.
We negotiated that change too
Labour will now consider the issues around repeal.
That’s good to hear. Any timeframe on how long it will take?
(Forgive my suspicion, but we all know that “we’ll consider it” is soothing politician-speak for FOAD. Given the level of anger out there, you need to offer more than the usual platitudes)
I/S Labour has its processes and I won’t be goaded by your offensive provocation, accusations and demands.
It does not make NZers guilty upon accusation. If you receive a notice and you challenge it, the onus is on the rightholder to priove your guilt.
That’s not what the law says. Sure, its weakened a notice from being conclusive evidence of guilt to merely creating a rebuttable presumption, but that presumption remains even if you present evidence opposing it. In other words, rather than them having to prove you guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent. And a mere denial is highly unlikely to be enough.
Labour has its processes
I know Labour has its processes. You are not Gerry Brownlee, and you can’t just make policy on the fly. You need the agreement of your colleagues and the wider party.
So, as an estimate, how long might that take? A month? Three? A year? Will it happen before the election, or after it?
As for “offensive”, you’ve lost a lot of people’s trust here. If you want to regain their support, you need to be seen to be offering more than just the usual mush. Something like “I will take this to the party, and argue for repeal. I may not win that argument, as it depends on my colleagues, but I expect to be able to say so within X months” would be good. As would “I personally support repeal of this appalling law”. That’s what people want to hear. Are you going to give it to them, or let them take their votes elsewhere?
Labour will now consider the issues around repeal….
… Labour has its processes and I won’t be goaded by your offensive provocation, accusations and demands.
I hear your argument that you supported this bill in return for changes that made it marginally less bad. I can respect that, even though I strongly disagree with it.
But even given that, surely it would have made sense to have made the case that you were only supporting the bill as the lesser of two evils, and that you would be repealing the nasty bits as soon as you can. This should have been done before the voting, not after.
It can’t be that hard to say something like:
“This bill is awful, but National have given us the choice of either voting for it, or allowing them to legislate for something even worse. Given that is the choice we face tonight, we can only choose to vote for this lesser evil knowing that we will repeal it’s worst aspects as soon as we can”
Idiot/Savant – “you’ve lost a lot of people’s trust here. If you want to regain their support, you need to be seen to be offering more than just the usual mush.”
Would keeping peoples trust involve just voting against the bill and allowing it to go through with no compromise?
Are pats on the back and ‘well done voting with your principles’statements towrds green MPs more important than trying to have some sort of influence when outnumbered and in opposition?
Isn’t the ‘ususal mush’ actually just speaking in opposition and effecting nothing?
Obviously loads of people want a repeal. Just get on with supporting and helping to work towards getting a differecnt government in power that can do that. Too many toys thrown out of the cot at once just trip people up and waste time.
steelykc: the “usual mush” I was referring to was the lack of specific commitment from Clare.
As I’ve said, I’m willing to accept their “we voted for it to stop it from being worse” excuse; I want to see the natural corollary: a commitment to repeal when they are in government. Otherwise, that excuse is just hot air, spin to mask the fact that actually, when push comes to shove, they support the policy as it stands.
As for “just get on with supporting”, in the absence of such a commitment, people have no reason to. Why should anyone support a party they disagree with? Divine right just doesn’t cut it.
Excuse me Labour Party, but you were the ones who proposed the original Copyright Bill when you were in government, which had even greater penalties. So quit pretending like you’re morally opposed to the new Bill and had to come to a great “compromise”.
Excuse me Labour Party, but you were the ones who proposed the original Copyright Bill when you were in government, which had even greater penalties. So quit pretending like you’re morally opposed to the new Bill and had to come to a great “compromise”.
To be fair, I think they’ve realised that that was a mistake. The question is whether they think this policy is, or whether they tacitly support it.
@Matt P: “And we’re supposed to accept that this is a revision to copyright law? It’s anything but. A real update to copyright law would focus on reducing copyright terms and decriminalizing the very activity that just became illegal.”
I agree. Copyright law worked historically because it didn’t contradict the way 99% of people were likely to act naturally. With a few exceptions, it’d be similar or less effort to buy a copy of a book as to painstakingly reproduce it. Copyright law was ultimately intended for the very small number of people (publishers/printers, authors) who might aim to suck up the profit from another person’s work before that person had had a reasonable chance to do it themselves. (Like Gilbert & Sullivan’s problems with people ripping off their opera’s on the far side of the Atlantic.) These days, it’s often also used so corporate rights holders can milk the market for as long as possible to ensure they’re the only entities who ever get paid for any work.
With technology now having made reproduction of works so much easier and more fluid, the answer of governments is to try to preserve the rights of copyright holders by putting strangle-holds on the ability of the masses to act naturally. Proportionally people’s rights are being reduced so that publishers can continue to profit using business models designed pre-internet. It’s hardly surprising that many people simply ignore the restrictions in an internet-enabled world, because it makes no sense compared with what it’s natural to do with information in this day and age.
There’s justification for copyright law in one form or another to ensure an incentive to create and release works for everyone’s benefit, but the world’s changed. The law needs to be looked at seriously from the perspective of how it works in and benefits society today and into the future. It’s not enough to only preserve the benefits for those who’ve made the most out of it in the past whilst reducing the rights of everyone else to do things that come naturally.
It does not make NZers guilty upon accusation. If you receive a notice and you challenge it, the onus is on the rightholder to priove your guilt.
Section 122 seems to clearly outline the steps as:
- Rights holder complains.
- IPAP issues infringement notice (note: no burden of proof. User is assumed to have infringed.)
- User can challenge the notice (but only within 14 days of its date)
- IPAP forwards challenge back to the rights holder.
- Rights holder CAN REJECT THE CHALLENGE.
- User can then only defend himself by challenging again “at any enforcement proceedings”.
Looks like “guilty upon accusation” to me.
The law sucks!
! I accept that Labour went for a lesser evil. 
I/S Labour has its processes and I won’t be goaded by your offensive provocation, accusations and demands\
FFS, I/S has done more to inform the Opposition, indeed in many instances has been hell of a lot more effective than the Opposition, than pretty much ANY other individual voice on the blogosphere.
To call I/S’s questions “offensive provocation” really just demonstrates how out of touch with your support base you really are. Why do you find questions about the logic and justification for your behaviour to be “offensive”? Are you above accountability and explanation – should we just accept your shallow PR and be grateful?
I find your dismissive tone and disregard for the criticisms on this post really offensive Clare.
@ the Sprout and I/S
I’ve read some of the exchanges with Clare Curran and I would say that Clare is justified in her response.
Pollies don’t like being stereotyped, just like the rest of us, especially when the pollies are being accused of pretty serious behaviour around issues of honesty, which is what I/S did.
But first I/S asked for forgiveness. Did you mean that, actually, I/S? If you did mean it, can you then criticise someone for having made a pre-apologised attack upon them who then declines to accord the sought-for forgiveness?
That is an unfair tactic, I/S.
Maybe you should have not made the generalisation for which you were asking forgiveness. I would also ask you to speak for yourself, because “we all know that“we’ll consider it” is soothing politician-speak for FOAD” does not speak for me. Better to have said “I know that….”
And finally, “FOAD”. To say to someone that they would use this as a brush-off is offensive, and an attempt to minimise it by using initials makes it worse.
Let’s argue the issues without these tactics. I generally like what you say, I/S and the Sprout. You demean your arguments in my view by using them.
I am not convinced.
I would like Andrew Little to state his commitment to Internet freedom.
Otherwise, there will be suspicions that the interests of the few (the less than one sixth of the NZ workforce that is unionized – but a share that includes a powerful journalist lobby) are overriding the interests of the many.
Thank you for identifying that termination of internet connections is an issue, but it is not the only issue. Watching Parliament TV last night I got the impression that no one actually knew what they were talking about or even understood the impact of the law.
To take that further, disregarding the content of the amendment, Labour should have identified that there is significant public interest in this issues (and your potential future voting base) and yet you allowed it to be rushed through under urgency laws related to the Christchurch earthquake! {The decision to do this in urgency is the National government (and its support parties) alone, it was most definitely not something Labour wanted, Grant}
From where I am standing the main political parties have chosen a law that would have only been effective ten years ago, identified that there is significant public interest in the issue, and then chosen to rush that law through without submitting it to due process. This feels like ‘government knows best attitude’ at its worst. I have voted Labour ever since I was eligible but I can see no reason why I should continue to do so.
That’s arguable. I don’t think the evidence is there to support that assertion. Take for instance, Intellectual Property’s Great Fallacy
And the historical evidence seems to contradict that assertion.
@ Idiot/Savant:
I just read through the bill to refresh myself on it, and I’m still very concerned about the guilt presumption, as you are.
A lot of the wording has been clarified since my last reading of this hilarity, but we still have no idea of what standards of evidence the Tribunal is going to accept.
As far as I can see, if you go through the Tribunal process, you’re presumed guilty; but you can challenge those presumptions and shift the burden back to the rights holder, who then has to provide the evidence of wrong-doing.
What I don’t see is anything clarifying what’s acceptable evidence (on either side), what would convince the Tribunal of your innocence, whether there are going to be any standards at all, for that matter.
None of what I see in the bill challenges the essence of guilt-on-accusation; rather we’re given a bit of handwaving that appears to restore some measure of due process but in fact worsens the problem.
I want an answer the question I asked last time this came up:
If I’m sitting in front of the Tribunal, and my accuser has found my IP address in a torrent swarm (and presuming I’m genuinely innocent), what can I say short of “I didn’t do it” to defend myself?
And will the Tribunal find me innocent based on that say-so?
At this point, I have no idea — and the bill certainly doesn’t say.
Mac1: I’ll happily admit to using intemperate language, because it pisses me off when Labour acts foolishly and in a way which undermines its own public support.
If it makes you feel better, feel free to read that “we all know” comment as “we all know that ‘we’ll consider it’ means ‘not really’”. It makes the same point: Clare’s response isn’t really adequate. The actions of other politicians have rendered that phrase worthless. She needs to say more, and be more specific, if she wants to convince people that Labour stands for something other than the policy it just publicly voted for and helped to pass.
[i]“Account suspension remains in the bill and could theoretically be used in the future, but any Minister who implements termination will have to wear the consequences. It won’t be a Labour Minister.”[/i]
Here’s my analogy for this farce. Labour helped strap the prisoner (NZ public) into the electric chair (internet disconnect and presumption of guilt), but they won’t help flip the switch. Therefore, according to Labour, the prisoner is safe and Labour’s conscience is clear. Except that the switch can still be flipped, but the person who does so will have the death of the prisoner on their conscience–not Labour. And the prisoner is still sitting in the electric chair, wondering what will happen to them.
To me this seemed like a prime opportunity for Labour to define itself as a party that stands up for individual rights.
I think they have missed this opportunity and I find Clare’s attitude to some people on this thread dismissive and offensive.
After watching Parliament TV I realised how little politicians in New Zealand understand about modern internet technologies. This scared me. It was like hearing a blind man talk to you about colour.
Maybe you should re-read this thread Clare and start paying attention to what many are saying – then you could win some votes and not have to let legislation pass through the house while you sit on your hands.
unlike many blogs we have language standards. You comment failed. Trevor
it seems to me that if labour has good reasons for voting for this bill instead of voting against it, then those reasons have yet to be clearly and convincingly communicated. i would like to hear those reasons stated clearly and convincingly because i would like to vote labour again but as it stands i feel disinclined to do so after this
If Labour have supported a bill that panders to foreign corporate greed interests, and say it’s fundamentally a good bill, that’s 4 more votes they’ve lost from this quarter. What is it with Labour – are they so out of touch with the people that they don’t care if they remain in (inneffectual) opposition! Jesus wept, National are raping and pillaging the country, yet Labour, mealy mouthedly, thinks that an ill thought out, US fat cat pandering bill is worthy of support, instantly alienating most younger and tech savvy supporters they might have had! You people are pathetic!
hear, hear Kenny. I’m with you.
Jesus wept, National are raping and pillaging the country, yet Labour, mealy mouthedly, thinks that an ill thought out, US fat cat pandering bill is worthy of support, instantly alienating most younger and tech savvy supporters they might have had! You people are pathetic!
This.
Clearly Labour needs to have a sit down and a bit of a think about its intellectual property policy. Typically elections aren’t won and lost on IP issues, but these issues affect more and more voters every day. Not only in terms of what content they access online, but also in whether they can buy parallel imported goods, or whether Pharmac maintains its negoitiating power in buying medicines, for example. I think its a little unfair to be piling on Clare because she’s one of the few in Parliament who has a good grasp of the issues. Plus she can’t make up policy on her own. There’s no way she can commit her party to something like that on the fly.
As my avatar indicates, I am against disconnection as a penalty for filesharing. I would favour fines calculated on actual losses suffered.
I would like to see the emphasis return to the original goal of copyright law – to encourage creativity by providing a limited monopoly to content creators. It has been perverted into a system of milking a cash cow for far longer than is necessary. I would like to see a commitment from Labour that it will not extend the term of copyright beyond the minimum provisions set out in the Berne Convention.
Good work Clare-I wish the opoosition (whoever is in opposition) would look at more legislation this way. Whether you’ve got the majority or not, you were still voted in by people who expect you to do your best for them.
Pleased to see that MikeM and MattP have come clean on the real reason they are opposed to this legislation – they just think they should have the right to steal stuff on line.
So the masses want to be able to steal stuff on-line do they? And you suggest politicians should rollover and let them do you? Interesting thought.
Tell you what, why don’t we let them drink and drive as well. It’s such a pain in the arse to have to call a taxi.
[...] provision either, however still supported the Bill. As Labour MP Clare Curran explains on the Red Alert blog: Account suspension remains in the bill and could theoretically be used in the future, but any [...]
I’m still patiently waiting for Clare (or anyone) to provide an answer to Robs question
”
Rob says:
April 14, 2011 at 3:10 pm
If Labour’s bottom line was to not allow disconnection as a penalty, why did they join the 111-11 vote against Gareth Hughes’ amendment to the bill removing disconnection as a penalty?
”
And/or not pledged to repeal this law-by-abuse-of-process
should they become the Govt of NZ (ever) again ?
Jesus wept, National are raping and pillaging the country, yet Labour, mealy mouthedly, thinks that an ill thought out, US fat cat pandering bill is worthy of support, instantly alienating most younger and tech savvy supporters they might have had! You people are pathetic!
This.
And @Peter “So the masses want to be able to steal stuff on-line do they? And you suggest politicians should rollover and let them do you? Interesting thought.”
@Peter-So the corporations want to invade our right to privacy and freedom of speech do they? And you suggest politicians should rollover and let them do you? Interesting thought…might have worked in MussoliniS Italy but not in a Supposed Democratic Nation.