I agree with this.
It’s time for a complete review of our IP laws in NZ.
UN Report Says Internet Three Strikes Laws Violate International Law
Friday June 03, 2011
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has released an important new report that examines freedom of expression on the Internet. The report is very critical of rules such as graduated response/three strikes, arguing that such laws may violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Canada became a member in 1976). Moreover, the report expresses concerns with notice-and-takedown systems, noting that it is subject to abuse by both governments and private actors.On the issue of graduated response, the report states:
he is alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three strikes-law” in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.
Beyond the national level, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been proposed as a multilateral agreement to establish international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. While the provisions to disconnect individuals from Internet access for violating the treaty have been removed from the final text of December 2010, the Special Rapporteur remains watchful about the treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right to freedom of expression.
In light of these concerns, the report argues that the Internet disconnection is a disproportionate response, violates international law and such measures should be repealed in countries that have adopted them:
Damn bleepin right it should be repealed!
!
Good on you Clare. This is a good way for Labour to win youth votes.
And beyond that, I think we need an investigation as to how we managed to get laws so egregious that they wind up breaching international human-rights law…
… snuck through in the dead of night
… at the behest of corporations
… that The Americans offered to pay for
How did this happen? How did we get to the point where our elected representatives are willing to give away basic human rights… for what? Money?
It’s not just copyright that needs reforming, it’s that part of the political process where the interests of capital are put before the rights of the voters.
I agree, but it’s hard to push this too hard when legislation was first proposed by Labour.
@Curious I agree with you, however Labour was in power when the (arguably worse) Section 92A was passed. If Labour repealed the amendment passed by National under urgency and did not replace it, they’d get my vote, however I’d have to see it to believe it.
This is only a Special Rapporteur, effectively one person’s person, and the quoted section is full of weasel-words: ” arguing that such laws may violate”, “the Special Rapporteur remains watchful”.
It won’t mean much unless and until we get formal action on the part of actual Treaty bodies, like the European Court of Human Rights, to specifically include internet access as a Human Right under something like Article 19 of the universal Declaration.
Labour spun these changes when they were in power, then national polished the turd and labour voted for it under urgency. Now we can back the boat up and make sure things are done right?
Weeeeeee
Get back to the bare minimum dictated under the Berne Convention and no more. Content creators don’t need any thing more than a 50 year monopoly as an adequate incentive for creative activity. And the duration of the copyright term is something I’d loath to see extended in any FTA.
If Labour wins the election, when can we expect to see legislation repealing the copyright amendment and setting forth a real reform to copyright law?
Is Labour actually going to commit to rolling back corporate-sponsored increases copyright terms and increasing fair-use exemptions?
When you introduce bills more like the Pirate Party’s platform on IP reform, we can take Labour seriously. Until then, it just comes off as pandering. Actions speak louder than words.
I’d suggest looking seriously at a copyright levy ($10 a month maybe) on Internet access, which would give indemnity for all non-commercial copying/sharing. Funds raised could go to content creators through the usual collecting society arrangement (much as when music gets played in clubs and bars, the originators get payments).
Users who don’t see themselves sharing content (businesses and the like) could opt out, but the levy would be the default.
Both the copyright abolitionists and Big Media would be grumpy, but I think this course would be a robust and stable compromise.
@mary – that lady is goneski so Labour can can say stuff!
I agree that IP laws need review in NZ, especially copyright. The extension of copyright period past the death of the creator and the handling of orphan works both need urgent attention, as does the farce of a law in the Copyright (Infringing File-Sharing) Bill.
But given that Labour crafted the original #s92a and voted for the current Copyright (Infringing File-Sharing) Bill under urgency I’m not convinced that our current MPs understand the issues or possess the courage to resist Big Copyright.
Vote for a Green led coalition with Labour to make some progress on resisting foreign imposed laws as part of our conditions for free trade agreements on their terms – of, by and for them.
@ Geoff et al. I am aware of Labour’s history on copyright legislation.
Let’s hope this is the turning of a new leaf.
I can’t see how sending a bunch of zeros and ones down a phone line should get my internet cut off.
@curious – other lady gone – and Clare doesn’t like the internet law, therefore Labour good!
Claire
With all due respect, this is disingenuous considering that s92 was developed on your watch and Labour’s voting record on the issue. Fundamental misrepresentation of your constituency. Fundamental undermining of our judicial process. Wikileaks has made clear the master to which successive NZ’s governments have demonstrated allegiance.
This, and the upcoming “free” trade TPP agreement, are inflection points. A whole generation of New Zealanders are working out in whose interests the government acts. The resulting loss of legitimacy of the political establishment is game changing. Irrelevance is a lonely place.
Get off the fence. Step forward and shine brightly on this issue. And the TPP. Most importantly with your vote in parliament. Represent the interests of constituents.
#wikileaks, #fail, #cleptocracy
They don’t need 50 years either and they certainly don’t need it after death. Since when has a ghost needed income?
That said, we’re getting confused about ownership, the right to copy (copyright) and the right to receive an income from the work. Once we start talking about all three of these very separate issues we may get round to having a rational discussion about them.
Obviously, ownership is permanent and I’d go so far as to say cannot be sold either (The idea came from one or more people and nothing can change that). No one is going to publish a copy of The Republic and claim it as their own (well, no one in their right mind anyway). So what we need here is a way for people to be able to publish and for that ownership to be declared ASAP (preferably at time of publishing) and incontrovertible.
Copyright is obviously something that the owner(s) of IP can sell, make available free or whatever other options that they choose. Up to them. The one point about copyright that I have is that it must become freely available after the IP owner(s) dies as the whole point of copyright is to ensure that the IP owner(s) gets rewarded for the work put into developing the idea. It’s not there to ensure that corporates can have a long time income, prevent the development of other ideas based upon the IP for as long as possible to prevent competition or to ensure that the IP owners family can live comfortably for decades without doing anything (never quite figured out why anybody thought that the family should have an income from work they didn’t do) which is pretty much what we have now and the corporates want to keep.
The right to an income from IP is really the heart of the matter of the discussion about IP. It’s tied back to ownership of course as the person(s) with ownership have a right to an income from their idea/work. This would be indicative that at the time of creation the IP owner(s) has exclusive copyright and that right is transferable. The owner(s) should be able to sell the right to copy, rent it out or even give it away free. Depending upon how the IP is released would make changes to what can be done legally afterward.
1.) If sold/rented as an exclusive copyright then the new owner/leasee of the copyright would have the exclusive rights to it and any income generated by it unless:
a) The new copyright owner broke the contract
b) The contract came to the negotiated end
c) The IP owner(s) died breaking the contract making the IP now freely copyable
2.) If given away free then copyright is forever non-exclusive and legal avenues will be severly constrained depending upon clauses within the free contract and the ability to find anyone doing the copying.
I’m a little confused. In this blog post: http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/04/14/no-new-zealander-can-be-disconnected-from-the-internet/ Labour claimed a victory in negotiating out the net “disconnection” part of the bill. Yet it still appears to be an issue.
Can someone please explain whatever it is I’ve missed.
Cheers