Commerce Minister Simon Power drove through the Copyright Bill a few months ago. It gets enacted on 1 September, but as of tomorrow illegal filesharing will count towards penalties. Labour supported it in order to keep the termination clause inactive.
We will be releasing new copyright policy soon.
Today in the House Simon was asked by Gareth Hughes from the Greens and myself what he was doing to promote alternate business models which meant people could download material legally without being pinged by the new copyright law.
Nothing was the answer. Then he was asked about Netflix. What? said Simon. Never heard of it.
Well, he should have, He’s the Minister for goodness sake. He’s clearly not interested in the issues and unconcerned at the consternation by thousands of people out there who are worried they, their children or their organisations (schools, libraries, universities) will become criminals for seeking out online material that just isn’t available legally.
So here’s some info for Simon on Netflix. It’s a video and game streaming service delivered online. It’s got more than 23 million subscribers in the US and Canada.
It’s not available here. But it’s overtaken Bit Torrent in the US for downloads. Bit Torrent is one of the major sites where you go to get content and download it for free (and illegally).
At Netflix you pay. Not much, but you pay (A streaming-only, all-you-can-watch monthly Netflix subscription costs just US$9). And it’s doing really well. It’s a new business model and its taking off. Just the sort of thing we need in NZ.
Why can’t we? Well one reason would be the ignorance and disinterest of this government in how technology is changing the way people do things.
If we were in government we’d be pushing hard to make NZ an attractive place for a business like Netflix. Giving people a real alternative to downloading films and other content illegally for free. Now’s the time to be doing it. But Simon Power didn’t even know it existed.
So much for a forward thinking switched-on government.
Gareth asked a bunch of questions about what the government had done to prepare people for the new copyright law. Nothign much was the gist of the answers. Simon Power #fail
InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) has launched a new website 3strikes.net.nz to help people and organisations get ready for the new copyright law
Bittorrent is a protocol, not exactly a ‘site,’ as such — and the cost of Netflix as recently risen to $15.99 — but good post otherwise. I think it’s important to note that local DVD delivery service Fatso is making good inroads in this arena, however hampered they might be by local distributors’ paltry offerings, which are a side-effect of an embarrassingly outdated censorship regime.
Thanks Hugh. I wrote it quickly and don’t always get the terminology right. At least there’s a few MPs that are following this stuff and keen to progress it. Bear with us. Because it’s the policy settings and the grasp of the bigger picture that matters.
For those reading this it’s critical that more MPs are across the potential for new business models online and grapple with how governments can support and help build them. Support us and encourage us is my message.
[Thanks for your reply, Claire. There were a couple of links that got cut out of that somehow (there seems to be a very short time limit for editing comments…?), so I've reposted it below.]
I agree, it’s vital that MPs understand the ‘bigger picture’ around this — I was staggered when Steven Joyce laughed off Gareth Hughes’ question about what infrastructure the government might provide to assist in the future creation of legal alternatives (i.e., local datacenters for streaming?) to copyright-infringing file-sharing. (Which, for others reading, is not by itself an illegal method for obtaining data.)
—
Bittorrent is a protocol, not exactly a ‘site,’ as such — and the cost of Netflix has recently risen to US$15.99, still a very small sum — but good post otherwise. I think it’s important to note that local DVD delivery service Fatso is making good inroads in this arena, however hampered they might be by local distributors’ paltry offerings, which are a side-effect of an embarrassingly outdated censorship regime.
Bit Torrent is one of the major sites..
Bittorent is not a site, it’s a protocol.
where you go to get content and download it for free (and illegally).
Content obtained through Bittorent is not, by definition, illegal. Some content available through Bittorent is copyrighted, some is not.
Clare Curran takes Simon Power to task for being unfamiliar with the business model of a foreign company, while demonstrating a laughable ignorance of the technologies she chooses to voice an uninformed opinion of.
If we were in government we’d be pushing hard to make NZ an attractive place for a business like Netflix.
2003, when in Government, Labour cut a shabby little deal with Telecom to avoid the implementation of Local Loop Unbundling and maintain the Telecom monopoly – DESPITE the objections of technology professionals, the experience of every other member nation of the OECD except Mexico, 110,000 Kiwi signatories to the LLU petition, the best interests of New Zealand and the best interests of Kiwis.
The inevitable result is the third-world network infrastructure and exorbitant pricing New Zealand has now, a direct consequence of Labour Party policy.
Some might suppose that it simply didn’t occur to the Labour Party that the most geographically isolated nation on earth might benefit from modern network infrastructure in the 21st century. Myself, I’m inclined to suppose that Labour prefers a populace that isn’t informed and isn’t connected.
If we were in government we’d be pushing hard to make NZ an attractive place for a business like Netflix.
Kiwis know from bitter, bitter experience what Labour would do to (not “for”) technology businesses and our broader technology infrastructure.
The best we have is Apple’s iTunes Store, and even it is hampered by what Hugh above called “an embarrassingly outdated censorship regime”. And so would netflix or anyone else trying to legally distribute music/movies/TV shows/books online.
In fact, they are all also hampered by a worldwide embarrassment from/to those industries trying to hold to outdated distribution models. The worst model known as the “HBO window” where TV stations (i.e. Sky TV and it’s movie channels) can ask the movie studios to effectively stop sales/rentals of a movie while they are airing it.
The Copyright Bill is simply unworkable. It is too hard for the companies that own the content to police all seeding of all their content. It has already been acknowledged that they will only be following torrents of a selection of the most popular latest movies and TV programmes. So if you are downloading music, older watchable content, or games then you will most likely not be pursued.
Legislation is slow and ponderous. New technology will simply outpace any new law. The small fish will get caught while the bigger fish will roam free.
There are private torrent communities as well as a myriad of other ways of sharing information over the internet. When any content being passed from one computer to another is broken down to a series of 0′s and 1′s then trying to stop it becomes counter-productive quite quickly.
Quite frankly there’s no market for Netflix, or Hulu, in NZ, I have a 20GB limit, and surfing YouTube in one day used up 5GB of my Internet I barely survive on this 20GB with just the occasional YouTube, and mostly text, like facebook, and other websites, (2 computers on this connection), the fact that you’re looking at 3-5GB of Internet per movie, on 720p, we need to start supporting things like Pacific Fibre so Bandwidth caps don’t cost an arm and a leg, for example I’ve seen people download/upload along the lines of 800GB a month in Canada, in America they have recommendations of 200GB but if they go over, no one seems to care, and recommendations of 5GB on their phone Internet, but again no one seems to care, and I believe the iPhone comes with a unlimited Internet plan, I mean why can an Americans download way more over their cell phone than I can download on my computer
How does National intend to police such an archaic policy? Perhaps they intend to rely on the threat, rather than any practical application of their misplaced laws. National clearly has little understanding of the technical aspects involved and the logistical nightmare for any ISP who attempts intervention.
Personally I have a vested interest in protecting my work, however I like to utilize file sharing as a means to gain material I cannot usually source in New Zealand. Without access to that material my work will suffer, the taxes I pay will suffer and on the premiss that there are many more in my situation, the economy will suffer.
In implementing such negative policies, National is pandering to the big players and ignoring those who require content to create content. In terms of innovation and creativeness, it’s a step in the wrong direction.
$15.99 per month for something I can get for free, what a ripoff!
“If we were in government we’d be pushing hard to make NZ an attractive place for a business like Netflix.”
You mean, for instance, you’d make it possible for multinationals to operate in NZ without paying any tax here? Oh wait…
@ JAckal: “$15.99 per month for something I can get for free, what a ripoff!”
well theft works like that. Doesn’t make it right does it.
@ Jackal – legally minimising tax is ripping off taxpayers, getting copyrighted content for free online (stealing) is ok?
Great idea Clare-why can’t you deliver it without being disparaging of the opposition? You’d look so much more (?)competent and on to it if you just put forward ideas without all the sniping.
I look forward to seeing what the other ideas/policy around this.
Simon Power is a moron and a legend in his own reflection. Asking him to comprehend anything without him getting the answer whispered in his ear by an official is really a mission too impossible.
Enough of the personal attacks. Clare
“Great idea Clare-why can’t you deliver it without being disparaging of the opposition?”
Because snobbish anti-democratic wannabe aristocrats need to be reminded of their incompetence and ridiculed at every opportunity.
Personal attacks on anyone wont be tolerated. I criticised Simon Power for not being across an area he, and other Ministers, should be. The wider issue is the power of the internet to access information.
There’s a new law being introduced to stop people accessig information illegally. many of them do so because there are no other alternatives. Go figure. Govt shoudl be thinking and movign on this. I’ve been saying it for more than two years.
Labour’s policy will reflect this.
So talk about the issues not the person.
WHy are you calling for govt intervention and using netflix as an example when it is a private company operating on private networks? What govt intervention was required to get it started? Perhaps intervention is the opposite of what is needed.
And I suspect enabling people to online game and download movies would be pretty low on most people’s expected govt priority list anyway.
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/05/09WELLINGTON115.html
Of course Power doesn’t care. He made up his mind and hammered out a deal with Big Music & Big Movies before the public was ever asked. The consultation process was never anything more than a circus to keep the rubes happy and let Power cross his Ts.
As long as it looks like democracy it’s democracy, even when private interests wrote the law and the public was largely ignored. Appeasing corporate money has been the first and only concern.
Until this is kind of back-room dealing is investigated with the full force of law, and government actions audited with full transparency, there’s no point to this discussion.
But that won’t happen, so let’s all go back to pretending we have a voice in government. As long as we don’t say anything impolite by pointing out that some of our governing officials are ethically bankrupt threats to democracy, everything will be fine.
@insider, I think the point is less with regards the specifics of some NZ Netflix equivalent, more the fact if you are a Minister of a portfolio, yet have no awareness of the emerging trends and business models then any policy you propose is likely ill-considered.
In this case the plan is all stick and no carrot.
The problem they hope to address, copyright infringement, will continue as long as the commercial services pale in quality to the services offered by the pirates. And that’s the reality, the pirates offer a better service. Fast turn around, cross-platform, high quality file formats, translations, web search etc. Convenience. I am sure most people who do download have the means to pay if they deemed a service worthy. After all internet connections and PC’s/media centers while not expensive are not exactly cheap either.
Big media should not be looking upon potential customers as criminals in waiting… rather they should acknowledge the potential market and their own short-comings. If they can’t do that then they deserve to perish.
As others have mentioned bittorrent is a tool, just like a hammer is – using your hammer to break and enter is illegal, but building a house with one is not
It is also very important to me and my business – I’m a software developer – all my income comes from the US – it’s hard to work on this side of a thin fibre and on a slow (by world standards) DSL (where’s my high speed fibre you promised National? not next year? oh, in Dunedin maybe in 4-5 years ….) – I regularly (weekly, sometimes daily) ship multiple gigabytes overseas – to my customers, often multiple copies to US and their China manufacturing – bittorrent is perfect for this it means I only have to push one copy upstream, I save money and time by using it – and collectively we all see a lower load on the pacific fibre – what’s not to like about a good tool used correctly?
As far as Netflix being useless in NZ – all it takes is for Netflix to do a deal to host servers in NZ and with ISPs for special rates to avoid their data applying to caps – of course it’s a game changing business – it will piss off Sky, the TV channels, movie rentals, cable companies (in cities that have them) – it’s been obvious for a long time now that it’s cheaper to deliver bits than almost anything – $15 a month is way cheaper than my Sky bill, why wouldn’t I switch?
There’s a new law being introduced to stop people accessig information illegally. many of them do so because there are no other alternatives.
No alternatives? There is nothing essential in illegal downloading is there? I can manage fine without having to do it. And I can find plenty of legal content.
Not downloading illegally is an alternative.
So the developers of ‘World of Tanks’ [wargaming.net] are using an illegal [Torrent] distribution system ? I also swear Peter Jackson was using the same system for distribution of his King Kong blogs. It’s a pity that none of our parliamentarians appear to be anywhere near technical savvy – next they will be banning everything from 127.0.0.1.
So much ill information. uTorrent is NOT illegal. Downloading torrents is NOT illegal. Downloading copyrighted material IS illegal. Seriously, you’re as bad as Simon.
Torrents aren’t technically illegal but your software may put you at risk if rightsholders track you through DHT, even if you aren’t downloading anything illegal.
http://gracefool.posterous.com/from-next-week-p2p-in-new-zealand-is-illegal
Even if the risk is small, 1. it would be zero if this idiocy weren’t made into law and 2. you’re effectively guilty when you get called up to the Tribunal. The oligarchs have made it clear that the rights holder has priority, due process be damned, so even if you didn’t do anything wrong you’ve got to convince the Tribunal that it was a fluke.
Given the general ignorance-fueled hostility towards file sharing, I wish you the best of luck if that happens, because you’re coming home with a fine.
It turns out that innocent people get screwed when clowns make laws behind closed doors on the say-so of monopolies. I know, I was shocked too.
“There’s a new law being introduced to stop people accessig information illegally. many of them do so because there are no other alternatives.” – Clare
Nice theory Clare but unfortunately it’s not accurate. People download things because it’s free and they see little harm in it. In fact the truth is that people still purchase legitimate content even when they download. Their downloading simply means they have access to more content, it doesn’t mean, as the record companies would have you believe, that they have actually lost any revenue because, if the law was perfectly effective at preventing breach of copyright, people would sacrifice the amount of content they consume, they would not pour more of their money into buying extra content.
Problem with this debate is that copyright is viewed as “property” as much as the computer you are using in front of you. This silly approach ignores the real justification for copyright, which is to protect the creative industry which produces the content for us in the first place. The creative industry has, for the most part, already adapted to the changing environment and the only people suffering are those who rely on outdated business models (e.g. retailers). The actual artists are no worse off and in some respects have greater direct access to their audience.
This legislation is making a futile attempt to outrun technology to fix a non-problem by creating guilt by accusation. It is only supported by those who do not have a grasp on the issues involved.
“next they will be banning everything from 127.0.0.1.” Heh.
Warner Brothers were given a $20,000,000 tax break after blackmailing New Zealand over the filming of the hobbit. Pardon me if I don’t lose sleep if some record company execs can’t afford that extra ivory back scratcher.
If a multinational can shake down a small country and get it to change it’s labour laws and hand over tens of millions of dollars while that same country has children that are going without food and proper healthcare then surely I can press a button in my small suburban bedroom.
The greater crime goes unpunished.
That’s right Curious; theft is resistance.
Please don’t object as I come over to your house and rip off all your stuff.
After all, how dare you own things when children go hungry in this country.
I don’t see how it’s theft. What is the item of tangible property that is missing? As i understand for something to be stolen then something has to be missing. The copyrighting of film has only existed for 99 years, and there are people older than that still alive.
Have you ever taped a TV show Gregor? If you have then you have infringed copyright. Same goes for taping songs off the radio.
So for arguement’s sake, you go to your doctor, then refuse to pay them for treatment.
No tangible good there either.
And after all, surely medicine is in the public domain, right?
It’s not like modern doctors have a monopoly on medicine. It’s been around for 1000s of years.
I’m not objecting to the act; in the case of electronic distribution of IP I think the entertainment industry needs to be more creative or they will become sidelined.
What I am objecting to your ludicrous relativism (i.e. enforcing IP rights vs. starving kids).
But, in the end, theft is theft. It’s against the law.
Whether we chose to break the law is an individual choice and naturally reflects the moral intensity of the issue (pretty low in the case of copyright infringement for personal, non commercial purposes).
Oh, Gregor. Copyright infringement by file sharing is not theft. A song or movie downloaded rarely equates to a lost sale.
@ Gregor W
A doctor giving his time/ providing me a service is tangible. Capital is stored labour, the doctor has spent time/labour in his consultation time with me therefore it becomes a tangible item.
When pressing a button in your bedroom becomes a crime then other actions of other individuals or groups that are possibly criminal should be compared to that action for the sake of comparison.
So Gregor, have you ever owned a VCR?
@ Curious
Probably worth you taking a look at the difference between a good and a service.
Capital is stored in labour in an economic sense (potential) but not in a fungible sense so it’s not comparative.
Labour is not cash. Labour is not represented on a balance sheet.
But I digress….
The fact is though that under the law of the land, it doesn’t matter what you or I believe wrt copyright.
It’s what is enacted in statute that counts.
I’m just attempting to stick to the facts here not defend the policy or the industry – infringment of copyright is an act of theft in this country. Simple as that.
The fact that it’s rarely prosecuted is a whole ‘nother issue and one most are us are thankful for.
Have I owned a VCR? Irrelevant as you are allowed to record stuff for private use under certain conditions, but yes.
A quick primer for what is permissable under the Copyright Act 1994 to clear up any confusion –
Permitted acts include:
1. “fair dealing” – for the purposes of criticism, review, news reporting, research or private study;
2. limited copying or dealing in the work for particular educational purposes;
3. limited copying or dealing in the work by librarians or archivists in specific circumstances;
4. exceptions in respect of certain activities by the Crown;
5. copying for the purposes of making copies that are in Braille;
6. subject to certain conditions, the making of a back-up copy of a computer program; and
7. recording a television programme for the purpose of making a complaint or for “time shifting” purposes so that a programme can be watched at a more convenient time.
There is no general exception to copyright infringement for private of domestic copying, including “format shifting”, of legitimately purchased recordings from one medium to another to allow playing or viewing via other devices.
Those permitted acts seem pretty murky. I can imagine that I could fit my downloading into one of those categories.
When a law is being disobeyed by a large portion of society then is that law still relevant?
Most of the things I download are public domain or their creators are long since dead. Modern life is rubbish.
Apart from the Beatles of course,the two dead ones being the only ones I liked.
If it’s public domain then you have no problems, even under the proposed law change. Good luck to you if you can claim your other downloads as research or what have you.
Yes, even when a law is being disobeyed by a large proportion of society a law remains relevant.
It only becomes irrelevant when it is removed from statute. Pretty simple.
As I said above, whether you choose to obey any given law, is a matter of your subjective moral intensity regarding the issue at hand.
After all, most recidivist drunk drivers probably believe the law is an ass as well. They might drive home perfectly safely without having an accident but it’s still a crime.
I’m not likely to kill myself or anyone else by downloading a song. Drink driving isn’t really the same thing as downloading things off the internet.
I believe that a law should be reviewed when it is being largely disobeyed.
In accordance with the philosophy of law Lon Fuller (1964) rejects the idea that there are necessary moral constraints on the content of law. On Fuller’s view, law is necessarily subject to a procedural morality consisting of certain principles:
P1: the rules must be expressed in general terms;
P2: the rules must be publicly promulgated;
Hey Curious, I don’t disagree.
But that is a philosophical/ethical debate, not a legal one, hence my comment on moral intensity and percieved risk/benefit (enjoyment of the music vs. penalty).
And you are right about my conflation.
I doubt many people are killed by music downloads either. All I’m getting at is that the principles are the same vis-à-vis whether one subjectively regards a law to be impractical/outmoded/silly as opposed to the objective, concrete reality of a law being on the books and hence, enforceable.
All I’m attemting to do is position how it is in terms of copyright and infringing the copyright owners economic rights (i.e. theft) – a concept that rightly or wrongly, people have a hard time coming to grips with when dealing with an intangible.
I just want a website that I can watch movies online. I’ll pay (although I want to pay whats fair – around $5 is what the rest of the world pays per movie) as long as I dont have to wait 2 days for a movie to be delivered to my door. whats wrong with that and why cant this country sort itself out with this?!? Can anyone recommend a site thats not itunes?