Last night a proposed law passing through the United States Congress was blocked by Obama.
California congressman Darrell Issa, an opponent of Sopa, the Stop Online Piracy Act, said he had been told by House majority leader Eric Cantor that there would be no vote unless there is consensus on the bill.
Congressional leaders are preparing to shelve controversial legislation aimed at tackling online piracy after president Barack Obama said he would not support it.
The tech community has fought hard to stop Sopa and a rival bill, Protect IP, also known as the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act, or the e-Parasite act. Websites including Reddit and Wikipedia are planning to “go dark” on Wednesday in protest against the legislation. Issa said he remained concerned about Protect IP, which will go before the Senate on 24 January.
But both bills now look severely damaged after the White House came out firmly against their biggest proposals at the weekend.
“Let us be clear – online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle-class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs,” the White House said in its first official comment on Sopa and Protect IP.
However, the White House said it would not support legislation that “reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risks or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet.”
Though it doesn’t get a lot of coverage in mainstream media, and it’s not a well understood issue, the battle between the entertainment industry and the technology sector has been raging for some time. (Rupert Murdoch has weighed into it in the last few days as well). The biggest manifestation of that battle has been the row over online piracy and the punitive laws that countries across the world are being pressured to comply with. Laws that include a provision to disconnect people from the internet from infringing copyright. Laws concerning patents are also under the spotlight.
In New Zealand, there’s a law waiting to complete its passage through parliament which excludes computer software from being patented. The Commerce Committee recommendation, which was accepted by the then Minister Simon Power, believed this would free up NZ software developers to be innovative without fear of being trampled on by big patent suits. Copyright was seen as the appropriate form of protection for software (which is built on code), along with music, books and other creative endeavours. But that law has sat on our books for more than 18 months.
There have been worrying signs for a while that New Zealand’s creative and innovation sector could get caught up in the international battle being waged.
In December, Paul Matthews, the head of the NZ Computer Society wrote a column about how how changes to NZ’s patent law could be caught up in the negotiations going on for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).
I’ve been watching the SOPA issue develop over the summer with concern. Others may have views about the implications for NZ and our part of the world.
Thankfully Obama has stepped into the fray. The issues are complex. Online piracy is an issue. But it’s mostly an issue because ordinary people can’t access the material they want easily through legal means. Sensible laws are required to protect creators and their intellectual property. Laws and policies are also required to help promote new business models that use the enormous power of the internet to give people more access to services and material and to help spark innovation.
What lies behind this is about who controls the internet. Thankfully the White House seems to understand that.
The two bills aim to tackle online piracy by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites distributing stolen materials. The bills would also allow people and companies to sue if their copyright was being infringed.
The White House expressed concern about both these elements and about passing legislation that threatened the openness of the internet. In the online statement it said any new legislation must be “narrowly targeted”.
Vikram Kumar, the CEO of InternetNZ, a respected and thoughtful think tank, also wrote about the two US laws in yesterday’s NBR. He warned of threats to our national interest by:
laws written by powerful corporates and expeditiously passed into law word-for-word.
He was echoing the sentiments of internet guru Lawrence Lessig, who spoke at last year’s Nethui in NZ about the corruption destroying the United States’ democratic foundations.
Chris Keall from NBR wrote about the streetfight battle in yesterday’s NBR.
These issues aren’t always easy to get your head around. But like most things they have some principles at their core. Ownership of intellectual property is one. Intellectual property means exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions.
Yesterday I got a tip off that the mysterious visit to our shores by a high powered US delegation of congress and senate reps last week wasn’t just about a first-hand look at Christchurch’s earthquake damage. Talks were also being held about the TPPA. Who with? and what was the substance?
I think New Zealand needs to consider its own best interests and the importance of our intellectual property and innovation to our own economy. Quantifying that should be a priority. We can’t sell ourselves short.
We are a lot more than a high protein export nation. I’d like more discussion about this issue across the parliament. The copyright debates we’ve had in the last few years are just a subset of a much bigger economic discussion. What is the value of our IP to our nation?
You guys drafted the original “SkyNet” law! (Well, I’m sure it was drafted by NZFACT which is run by American media companies, but you took it to parliament).
Then, very recently, you voted for the nasty law when it was rushed through under urgency!
You have absolutely no credibility in regards to this issue. And what exactly are you saying about software patents? Or do you just not know?
I’ll tell you the correct answer: Software patents are ridiculous. You should be able to patent a machine or a manufactured chemical, not an idea!
Once you campaign for the dramatic shortening of copyright terms (why does money need to be made 100 years after the original author has died?) and allow non-profit file-sharing between NZers, then we might start to take you seriously.
Both National and the especially the Greens have a better idea about this than you do.
James
Perhaps a bit of reading would be in order. Labour has significant policy on these issues and has led the way on both copyright reform and patent law in the last three years. I sat on the select committee for the patent law and the copyright law. Happy to discuss further, though I suspect you are not well intentioned given the tone of your comment.
Labour’s ICT policy is below should you care to read it (pages 8 and 9).
You can contact me at clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz
blog.labour.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ICT-policy.pdf
What I want to know is, who put you up to making Section 92A? I don’t understand why any party would support a law so hated by its population.
Were you clueless? Did we need to do it for a free trade with the US? I’m genuinely puzzled why in NZ, every MP (except the Greens) voted in the interests of overseas corporations and against their own people.
I must have been naive to think that we didn’t have corporate rule in this country.
Cheer Clare. I’ll have a read.
Had a read through section 4.
“The creators of content should be compensated for their work”
No. That sounds like what Roger Douglas said about his overseas travel.
Why should a group of people have an income guaranteed by the government? Why should they be able to do something one day, and be paid for it indefinitely? Why do I have to pay to monitor and police whether Rihanna gets paid for her songs?
“Labour will introduce a bill.. [to remove] ..the ability to introduce account suspension for infringing file sharing.”
Yet a $15,000 fine is okay? How about the actual losses from that MP3 file – that’s fairer. So, about $0.50 cents is a reasonable fine.
We’re already giving tonnes of money to our “artists” like Six60. If a band gets any NZ On Air funding, then we should be able to do what we want with their music – we’re paying for it! Also we need to stop worrying about protecting the RIAA and MPAA with our laws – the US is in a bit of a bad state at the moment, and that free trade agreement is never going to happen. Why should some 14-year-old in NZ back able to be persecuted by our government on behalf of multimillionaires like Metallica?
I did some more reading…
I wonder how many votes you lost with this:
http://blog.labour.org.nz/2011/04/17/urgency-when-is-its-use-a-constitutional-outrage-part-1/
You voted for it. No excuses – it was an unjust law. Labour, and you personally Clare, voted for it. I don’t care if you say you caused concessions, you could have said “no” (or “nay” or whatever you say in parliament).
The Greens were principled and didn’t vote for it.
Okay, sorry to be the only person to post, but this..
Labour will also investigate the viability of a small copyright levy on Internet access
That.
How disgusting. How dare you threaten to take money from my internet use to pay someone for performing something I don’t even care about it.
That idea doesn’t warrant investigation. It’s idiotic.
Had a read too (but only got up to Page 2). It says “It may be that the functions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Press Council and the Advertising Standards Authority could be brought together.”
The Press Council isn’t a government body, is it? Is your intention to dismantle the Press Council and have the government take it over?
Bea and James
Thanks for the feedback
Try this
http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/review-regulatory-gaps-and-new-media
All these issues, the Crafar farm sell off, the IP issue, the asset sales, the unemployment, the food bill, the health products bill etc, don’t they all arise from a similar cause?
Is any politician able to comment on the real issue? Or is that a ‘no-no’?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1201/S00050/nz-asset-sales-policy-began-on-wall-street.htm
What is this TPPA agreement about and why should we have laws/legislation that seriously effect our rights and lifestyles being created in our country without being informed about it?
I’m surprised no one has ‘bitten’ yet, to a comment you made in your article, so let me be the first…
Would the “mysterious visit” have anything to do with this?:
http://www.nznotforsale.org/2011/11/10/fair-deal-or-no-deal-trans-pacific-fta/
How can this be called a democracy when we are left so uninformed and powerless against this type of activity?
The simple answer is that we don’t know how much IP is worth to the economy. We haven’t been able to comprehensively study how an economy operates entirely without, or with minimal IP legislation and restrictions. IP and the surrounding legislation may well turn out to be a liability.
And I’d agree with James above. Simply put: Labour proved itself beholden to corporate interests and happily legislated on their behalf – we don’t all forget that quickly
Definitely agree with James on this one.
I lost what faith I did have in both National and Labour this year with their disgusting introduction of the “skynet” law using the earthquake as a way to fast track it, a guilty till proven innocent law at that. It clearly came straight from the US, their media giants at that.
Then the public asset sales only further disgusts me and frankly scares me.
It doesn’t feel like Labour or National have our countries best interests in mind or whether they’re entirely devoted to pampering the US, a country whose government is happy to plague any other nation with their corporate problems.
There’s good reason myself and all my family voted for the green party this year. They at least appear somewhat transparent and have stood their ground against these damaging laws.
I fairly much agree with you Robert and suspect a lot of people are feeling that way.
I like to think that our politicians really do wish the best for this country, and I know a lot of people who would laugh at my face for having said that.
I’m trying to work out whether any country can stand up to corporate interests, judging by current events over the last year, it appears to do so has dire consequences.
It’s nice to hear you talking about getting rid of software patents, which have been of no benefit to anyone other than lawyers. Unfortunately you have no credibility since you pay more attention to US lobbyists than your voters.
Labour and National are dead to me.
Here’s a link to the Guardian’s animated explainer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/dec/23/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act?intcmp=239