Tomorrow is the start date for the controversial new copyright law which provides owners of copyrighted works such as movies, TV shows and music a quicker and easier way to penalise people infringing their copyright via online file sharing
Labour voted for that law. Because at the time we thought it was the best thing to do. We’ve learnt from the experiences and we have moved on.
Today Labour announces copyright policy which significantly shifts our position.
If elected, we will introduce a Bill within 90 days to remove the termination clauses from the Copyright Act. Those clauses, which give the District Court the ability to impose account suspension as a remedy for infringing file sharing – can’t work in the long term.
Right now they are inactive in the law and can only become active if the Minister decides to make them so. We negotiated this compromise position with the government. And this was our reason for supporting the Bill. The Bill was better for this compromise. Without it people would be risking account suspension from tomorrow. But we are totally committed to repealing this aspect of the legislation if we win election.
Labour will also undertake a review of the Copyright Act, with the aim of introducing a new Copyright Bill within 18 months that updates and extends the framework for digital copyright in New Zealand.
The first phase of the review will be to commission an independent analysis of the problems with the status quo from an eminent expert, such as the review Professor Hargreaves has recently conducted for the UK Prime Minister, and then consultation on a draft Bill before it is introduced.
New Zealand’s Copyright Act has been half-heartedly adapted for the Internet age. Instead of more piece-meal reforms, we need to transform our digital intellectual property framework, to bring it into the 21st century and to promote innovation and growth in our economy
Labour’s approach to copyright will promote our creative industries and put citizens interests at the centre of the policy debate.
We will have more to say about this in the launch of our ICT and innovation policies.
This is a debate is about shifting power, access to information, outdated business models and the immense potential of the Internet to change our world. Most politicians in our parliament don’t get that. Some are starting to. Nobody really knows what to do about it yet. But Labour is committed to having a go. The legality of the Irish three strikes system is currently being investigated after 300 users were wrongfully being sent a “first strike” letter (due to a ’software failure’) accusing them of sharing music.
The last Labour Government tried to address the growing problem of Internet piracy by requiring Internet service providers to police illegal downloading and to have a policy for terminating the accounts of repeat offenders.
We acknowledge the commitment of that Labour Government to ensuring that the work of New Zealand artists was valued, allowing them to maintain control over their own works. This is a fundamental principle.
But the digital environment has changed our world. The old business model – where big companies had control over the distribution of creative works – doesn’t apply anymore. Governments have to recognise that their citizens are hungry for information and creative material via the Internet.
We’ve learned from our experience in originally passing Section 92A. Labour no longer believes that termination is appropriate as a remedy for infringing filesharing. Many parliaments around the world are grappling with these issues right now and none have got it right yet. The solutions are bigger than a re-write of one section of the current Copyright Act.
What we are seeing is a digital revolution and it is our responsibility to ensure there is a balanced environment for creators and consumers in our country. New Zealand’s legal and regulatory framework needs to enable creative expression and the industries that rely on it, not just penalise people for accessing information.
We believe in this country becoming a nation of makers. We must invest in our own economy. Invest in content. Invest in innovation and decide how we want to look in 5 or 10 years time.
Labour will properly address the issues of copyright in the digital age – and we’ll involve New Zealanders in that discussion.
perhaps introduce a focus on enabling/encouraging rights holders to make their content available to purchase
the demand is there (refer to ‘illegal’ download stats) but the solutions are few and far between and with regards movies and tv shows (music not nearly so much) the options avail for legal downloads and streaming are seriously remiss in NZ and for some reason the rights holders blame their market not themselves
Here’s an article from 1994 by John Perry Barlow that might stimulate some thought
2.03: The Economy of Ideas
A framework for patents and copyrights in the Digital Age. (Everything you know about intellectual property is wrong.)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas_pr.html
Sounds very bold (awaited details notwithstanding).
I always found the s92A amedment the very hardest aspect of Labour policy to defend to my age-peer group. It had the same smack of bowing down to corporate masters (film and music distributors) as the more recent move by National to strip employees of their rights and pigeon-hole them as contractors. The kow-tow’ing to threats by PJ and his masters to take the Hobbit away was a global laughing stock.
Happily, this is probably one aspect of Labour party policy that will enjoy fairly broad support from people across the political spectrum, particularly among the tech-savvy, when they turn down their copyright-infringed Lady Gaga, finish that last episode of The Wire they downloaded, and read your press release, that is…
It’s a step in the right direction
Well done Clare and Labour. A very good policy, and kudos to Clare for steering the party through such a radical change from the 2008 position.
Excellent. I would also love to see a fair use clause adopted, rather than just our permitted use clauses in the Copyright Act.
Amazing. 80 days out from an election – the first and only piece of concrete policy.
Good idea, clear statement of policy intent (and even in red too, so no one can miss it!) Kudos.
Labour still doesn’t get it: you talk about the “growing problem of Internet piracy”. Please provide real figures on the extent of this “problem”. An evidence-based approach to policy rather than kowtowing to “lobbynomics” would be welcome.
pmofnz what an idiotic comment. They have released concrete policy. You just dont like or agree with it, but it exists and it’s concrete.
Tracey, where might a potential voter find statements of such other concrete policy? ‘Own our future’, a wishy-washy feel good statement is certainly not concrete policy.
Call me cynical but Labour have now realized they won’t take power after the election so can go making crazy promises they don’t have to follow up. They voted for this, un-equivocally just 4 or so months ago. I believe last election we would have calked it a “Flip-Flop”…
Great work Clare/Labour I very much approve. This bill every time it has gone through the House thus far has shown a raft of misunderstanding of technology and its significance to particularly the youth population. Lets hope this time Parliament will get it right.
Does this amount to encroaching on Green Party territory Clare?
Thankyou.
So, how long till you have signs saying “kill Skynet. Vote Labour”?
@ tracey? the policy is concrete? not marble? how about a travertine effect? I’ve always thought of wallpaper as a good policy for labour, there are many more stages from production to finished product, and it’s prettier. It’s good at covering the cracks too.
The Stuff story partly written by former Murdoch tabloid junk journalist Andrea Vance screams that this is an ‘about face’ or flip flop or hypocrisy, or something bad, and it was you guys’ fault in the first place anyway, so you really deserve a damn good hard media kicking and should really just admit that you guys are genetically untrustworthy and unfit to ever govern again. Of course when Johnboy changes his position, that is to be embraced as good, caring, listening, responsive, pragmatism, in touch with the electorate, and from a guy who should really be leader for life?
It wouldn’t matter if Labour offered voters free internet for life, Phil Goff is dragging Labour into oblivion, and the fact that he hasn’t done the right thing for our democracy and stepped down, shows terrible judgement on his part that does nothing to inspire confidence from voters.
Left wing supporters are now in a state of panic, and their votes will mean nothing because of the obvious leadership issue. And the fact that Labour’s candidates seem to have their heads buried in the sand waiting for the inevitable to happen, makes it appear that none of them have the type of leadership skills voters expect of their representatives.
I feel sorry for those in the Labour camp that are working hard to win the election but who know they have less than a slim chance because of one person.
How many political careers will end because of one person?
What makes this situation even worse, is that the Greens are using voters fleeing Phil Goff as a spin to support the right so they can be Nationals pets like the Maori party – and if that happens, Labour is guaranteed to lose the next election too.
Eighty days is enough to prevent that, and Labour have at least ten percent to gain if they do the right thing.
* “Because at the time we thought it was the best thing to do”
* “Labour’s approach to copyright will promote our creative industries and put citizens interests at the centre of the policy debate.”
Both very worrying. You say you have realised the error of voting for the bill and moved on. But the proposals were first introduced under Labour; how can we trust that a party that got it so wrong have actually *understood* rather than just realising that it was a political mistake?
On the second, how are you going to “promote our creative industries” while simultaneously putting citizens’ interests at the centre of the debate – by trampling those interests while kowtowing to Big Content? That would certainly do both. I’m still not seeing any recognition that the “creative industries” whole approach has been wrong in so many ways – morally, practically and politically – as has politicians acquiesence to their lobbyists’ demands.
Gee PmofNZ you dont read much do you?
I’ve waited nearly three years for Nats policy implementation and you whine and giggle about labour not having policies simply because you dont like to read?
Close the wage gap – now there was concrete policy which lasted how long?
No tax increases – months a year?
This might be too long but it’s concrete policy, explained
http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/static/assets/CGTWebdoct%20July%202011.pdf
Just trying to help those unable to hear,see and read things they don’t like and so pretend they don’t exist. IF the retort is you haven’t seen them in your local or national media, again, that’s not an argument for them not existing, just for your own efforts to seek them out.
“how can we trust that a party that got it so wrong have actually *understood* rather than just realising that it was a political mistake?” well, the Pm is still very popular in the polls and they have flip flopped alot in less than 3 years
2 excellent policy position, Clare.
Well articulated but could probably do without the ‘digital revolution’ stuff.
If the NZLP sticks to the multi-mode, fair use line (as long as care is taken not to infringe the economic rights of the content creator under the false flag of digital freedom) then I don’t think you will find much arguement with the electorate.
Pertinent point from Nick C though – hasn’t this substantially previously been proposed by the Greens?
Well, it’s nice to know that I will only be fined $15 000 but not have my internet turned off if someone accuses me of downloading but the fact is that this still doesn’t address any of the major issues raised by this amendment.
For example…
Up until now hacking has been a relatively small problem in NZ but you have created a law here that encourages this criminal behaviour & protects the criminal.
From ‘mooching’ other people’s internet on a ‘one-off’ basis, to actually protecting professional pirates by ensuring that if they hack someone else’s internet to make bulk downloads for resale the account holder NOT the pirate will be charged.
Furthermore hate groups are already urging their members to target minority groups for hacking-downloading of material for which they hold the copyright so that they might lay charges against these individuals as another form of persecution.
I cling to the belief that these are unforseen consequences, but they are consequences of your actions nevertheless.
This amendment is a mistake from start to finish. It has a staggering potential for abuse and needs to be eliminated completely, not just ‘twiddled for votes’. The coming election gives you an opportunity to make a stand here… big business? or us the people? Show us your true colours… where do you stand?
Why did you vote for the current legislation then?
Okay, so the policy is to
(a) Repeal a section that may never come into operation anyway (i.e. make the status quo permanent, or at least harder to change), and
(b) Undertake a review (i.e. come up with a policy later)?
If a review is going to pass for policy, then I would at least expect some much more tangible proposals for the review to consider. This is just a placeholder to get them through the election without actually producing a policy.
This “bit torrent prevention act” completely misses the point, bit torrent is transitional and all content will eventually be streamable and temporarily cached. The scarce resource to be traded is our attention, not their content. File sharing prevention and penalties won’t work in the attention economy. No matter how much you download, if you don’t watch it or listen to it, it’s worth nothing.
The value is in the attention that a curator can aggregate, like FTA TV
Here’s a 1997 essay which nailed it.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.12/es_attention.html
Or as Kevin Kelly puts it “Where Attention Flows, Money Follows”
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/09/where_attention.php
Would like to see some kind of fair use added. Currently we have nothing. Satire is illegal.
Some interesting comment on National Radio this morning on the myriad of ways to circumvent this silly legislation. Proxy servers, bit torrent maskers, etc.
Politicians are wasting their time. They could help New Zealand more by fixing up our stone age internet.
So in National’s first hundred days they introduced laws to crack down on gangs, establish on the spot protection orders for those at risk of family violence, increase penalties for offending against children, amongst other measures. In Labour’s first hundred days it plans to make it easier to steal other people’s property off the internet.
“Labour voted for that law. Because at the time we thought it was the best thing to do. We’ve learnt from the experiences and we have moved on.”
That is only a half truth. More accurate would be:
“Labour wrote this law and ignored public consultation on it law because at the time we thought this was the best thing to do”
“Right now they are inactive in the law and can only become active if the Minister decides to make them so.”
Because Judith Tizzard ignored so many public submissions against this aspect of the law.
“We acknowledge the commitment of that Labour Government to ensuring that the work of New Zealand artists was valued”
(though not by the many artists who joined the blackout protest against it).
“Labour will properly address the issues of copyright in the digital age – and we’ll involve New Zealanders in that discussion.”
Fantastic!! This is long overdue, thank you! The country welcomes more of this kind of common sense policy making where public involvement is valued by those elected to govern.
Even though Labour did vote for the bill — and originated it if we’re being honest — I have to say I’m glad to see this. Clare’s been on top of the issue and until proven otherwise I’m willing to withhold further snarky comments.
What I’m really interested in is the review and public consultation on copyright law itself, rather than the shameful bandage of the current infringement provisions.
Mind you, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with that; nobody seems to have much luck standing against the US’s policy laundering these days (let’s talk about ACTA and that TPP, for starters). But I do appreciate the sentiment.
Clare, Phil has suggested that I should ask this of you since you are the spokesperson on this subject and he seems to believe you will answer, so I shall direct the questions he is so reluctant to answer here in future. There are a lot of them.
Counting the question about how this law encourages hacking and protects professional pirates from prosecution if they hack someone else’s internet this would be question two…
So how do we protect ourselves from charges relating to material we may upload or down load that we are not aware is copyrighted? Remembering that, under the Law ignorance is NOT an excuse.
Many people distribute birthday & xmas movies to their family & friends over P2P networks because they prefer not to put pictures of their children on you-tube for any perv to see. Most people are not aware that the song “Happy Birthday” is under copyright to Warner bros. nor that some xmas carols are also under copyright. If we sing these songs in a public place or upload/download clips of ourselves singing these songs without paying Warner bros. etc for the right to do so we ARE in breech of copyright. The fact that until now these claims have not been pursued does not invalidate this copyright. You have put in place a Law that allows cheap & easy pursuit of such charges, Warner bros. does not even have to prove their claim for me to be fined $15 000. It’s my mother’s Birthday in 2 weeks… plus xmas is coming… Are you going to pick & choose which copyrights you honour? Or shall I not share these special times with my friends & rellys in Auckland, Oz & UK this year?
Question 3
On your http://3strikes.net.nz/information/law-basics site you say that downloads conducted over a mobile phone network are excluded until 2013. Presumably under the impression that we would mistake this for meaning that downloads on a mobile phone are excluded.
However most mobile phones nowdays have wifi and if they download something do not do it over their mobile network, but over the wifi connection. How do I, as an account holder, protect myself from this?
Furthermore, how do internet cafes, Universities, Libraries & City councils who run ‘hotspots’ & wifi busses protect themselves while continuing to offer this service? A service which in many cases may be an essential business investment for a private owner, and the absence of which could literally cripple New Zealand’s Tourist industry. Since the modern tourist simply doesn’t bother to go anywhere where they can’t facebook or blog about their adventures to their family & friends. Your Law could result in the removal of ALL publicly available internet since account holders simply cannot afford the potential financial losses.
And Question 4.
Under your Law, unless every single Kilobyte of information that passes through my internet address is monitored it is Literally impossible for me to prove, or even to know for sure that a download or upload did not take place. This, of course, makes your proposed tribunal purely decorative. So, my question is…
Are you planning on instituting such total/blanket government monitoring of private internet connections? Obviously such monitoring is beyond the technological and financial reach of the private citizen.
Since you are requiring that we prove our innocence if accused… surely you must provide the facility to do so. Or will you leave us unprotected?
What do you call a government that practices such blanket monitoring of it’s citizens?
What do you call a government that leaves it’s people open to conviction by accusation?
Question 5
Where variations of this Law have been instituted in the USA it has been used primarily as a protection racket where accusations are made against people who do not have the financial capacity to defend themselves with the ‘offer’ that the accusation will be withdrawn/no further accusations made if a ’settlement’ is arrived at. Since the version of the Law used in New Zealand does not allow an accused person to actually defend themselves against such a charge since the responsibility of the accountholder is absolute it therefore leaves people even more vulnerable to such an abuse. How are we to protect ourselves?
This is too much like traffic law.
Innocent until proven guilty has already largely disappeared from our law.
If you are not guilty the costs of a defended hearing preclude any but the wealthy from defending their innocence.
In the meantime serious pirates will use proxies and other means to avoid prosecution.
This law is just a money making scheme for big copyright holders. It is an invitation for them to go fishing like they did in the UK.
While small rights owners still won’t have the means to protect their copyright or patents.
LOL Ok appreciating you guys are stepping up to the plate at this rate, but reviewing a law you guys pushed for and then turning back and blaming it on the current government just makes me laugh.
If you guys get in, and you do this – good on you, it means your trying to do something. But from what i’ve seen from NZ govt in the last 12 years is “We will do this” and you never do.