Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘copyright’

The sky is rising… at last some decent data emerging

Posted by on January 31st, 2012

Have been sent this link several times in the last few minutes.
Will post again on this issue as there’s quite a bit to discuss.

Has the internet decimated the entertainment industry or are we living in a new renaissance for both content creators and consumers…

Obama recently scuttled SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the US, but it’s likely another bill will emerge that gives the entertainment industry mroe control over internet distribution of material.

In NZ, the TPPA talks have highlighted increasing concern around our ability as a nation to control our own innovation and creative works and raised questions about our ability to implement our own copyright laws.

Today it appears that the traditional vested interests behind the entertainment industry have been fudging things a bit:

The Sky Is Rising!
For years now, the legacy entertainment industry has been predicting its own demise, claiming that the rise of technology, by enabling easy duplication and sharing — and thus copyright infringement — is destroying their bottom line. If left unchecked, they say, it is not only they that will suffer, but also the content creators, who will be deprived of a means to make a living. And, with artists lacking an incentive to create, no more art will be produced, starving our culture. While it seems obvious to many that this could not possibly be true, since creators and performers of artistic content existed long before the gatekeepers ever did, we’ve looked into the numbers to get an honest picture of the state of things. What we found is that not only is the sky not falling, as some would have us believe, but it appears that we’re living through an incredible period of abundance and opportunity, with more people producing more content and more money being made than ever before. As it turns out… The Sky Is Rising!

I haven’t read it fully yet, but  am relieved there is some decent data emerging at last to demonstrate the clear success of new business models which provide content via the internet quickly and at a low cost.

I hope NZ won’t get left behind


Finns lead again

Posted by on October 15th, 2009

Finland is the world’s first country to create laws guaranteeing broadband access.

I’ve mused on this issue before. See my previous post Is the internet an essential service?

It certainly raises issues around the re-write of Section 92A of the Copyright Act if termination of ISP connections remains included as a remedy for prolonged copyright theft.

This is interesting also in the wake of the French Constitutional challenge to having termination embedded in its copyright legislation, on the grounds that access to the internet is a human right. I understand the law has been re-worded but still contains suspension of internet access as an option.

The National Government’s re-write of Section 92A is due for release shortly. It’ll be interesting to see whether termination is still in the mix.


Opening up #3 How can we?

Posted by on September 20th, 2009

Liberty, Linux and the gift economy.

Liberty. Freedom to act. The right to be. The essence of our humanity and of our society. A fundamental value which underpins Labour.

Linux. The story of a network of self-organized volunteers who broke new ground in the early 90s, not only in computer science, but in the way in which they worked together on a project from which none of them would derive significant monetary benefit. They did it because it was important, they were driven and because it provided a greater good.  The term Linux is derived from Linus Torvalds, a Finn, who in 1991 invited a bunch of academic computer scientists to join him in creating a new operating system. This was around the time the internet happened.

Today, Linux remains hugely important as the basis of many computer operating systems across the world which are constantly evolving.

It’s been described as the phenomenon of massive, distributed , self-organising volunteer labour, which continues to accelerate.

The gift economy. The notion that:

where goods and services are exchanged without a direct quid pro quo, and where a participant’s power and status are derived not from what s/he has accumulated by taking from others, but from what s/he has contributed by giving to others.

This is a deeply compelling philosophy. It’s the philosophy of reciprocity and exchange which underpins community and builds society. And it’s the philosophy of the internet. And, I contend, of Labour.

Why am I telling you this?

Because today is Software Freedom Day. And Labour can learn a lot from these founders of software freedom. They exposed the limitations of the monopoly market and the way in which the control of software has been used to concentrate wealth and stifle innovation.

There are extraordinary parallels across our society particularly in the technology infrastructure that will drive our future as a nation.

Open access, open source, open data, open software, open government. Opening up. This discussion began at our Labour Party conference last weekend.

Today, I pledge that we will try to practice what we preach and have an open discussion to build sound and profound policy. Please join this discussion and add value. If you are a Red Alert reader, you’ll be more likely to take an interest.

And read this article (PDF link) where I got some of the ideas for this post.


Opening up #1

Posted by on September 6th, 2009

Interesting piece in today’s Herald on Sunday by Anthony Doesburg about how using open source software for the Auckland Super City could save millions of dollars and allow Aucklanders access to local government in a way they’ve never been able.

E-government, open democracy, a new style of government. Hmmm, think it will happen? Doubt it. Would be good if it did though. Maybe central government could start having some ideas in this direction too, once it can move on from rewriting Section 92A of the Copyright Act.


What the future will be like

Posted by on July 26th, 2009

Today I was interviewed by a High school student (from my local community) who is doing an assignment on copyright. He’s 17 and studying IT and writing a chapter in a book to be produced by his school on what the future will be like. He asked me a whole lot of really insightful and probing questions on what Labour thinks is the way forward on copyright, the government’s rewrite of Section 92A and whether I agreed with terminating people’s internet accounts if they infringe copyright too many times.

When I said no I didn’t, he asked whether that was Labour policy. And no it’s not. Yet. But I have to acknowledge that that’s what I think.

I thought I’d write a separate post to my previous post Riding the wave (not sinking) on copyright. Some ideas because of all the amazing responses I’ve had and the sheer number  of people reading it and talking to me separately. And today’s experience with the student (he’ll no doubt read this post himself) tells me this is such an important issue.  Because how we handle it will tell us how we will handle the future. And we’d better get it right.

Unfortunately, I’m lacking confidence that the National Government  grasps this, indicated by its haste to simply rewrite Section 92A.

Many people are concerned that there is not a wider public discussion being driven by this government (instead I hear they’d like to get “get copyright off their plate ASAP”) and that the rewrite is going to result in a drawn out longwinded process that won’t address the real issues.

And then there’s that pesky issue of whether to terminate or not to terminate!
I’m coming to the conclusion (my own at this stage) that termination isn’t going to achieve much. Financial penalties are likely to have more impact.

I’m also concerned we haven’t heard anything about further resourcing the Copyright Tribunal. Once Section 92A is enacted its likely there’ll be hundreds, if not thousands of infringement notices launched on NZ via the US.

There were a lot of responses about education. While I acknowledge there are education measures being put in place (some already in place) around copyright, a brochure and a website doesn’t constitute education nor does it necessarily lead to attitude change. It’s much bigger than that. Think about wearing seatbelts, applying sunscreen. Things we pretty much do automatically now. But those behaviour changes didn’t happen overnight. It takes a big effort, and a mixture of information, carrot and stick. Yes, government has an important role in driving this and showing leadership.
It’s pretty clear that current education measures aren’t working.

There are various figures bandied around about what percentage of people engage in peer to peer sharing on the internet, but it’s pretty damn high whatever figure you settle on. So getting people’s attention and then to change their behaviours will take more than a message at the beginning of a DVD.

I’m getting some interesting, and mostly positive responses to the concept of a levy on internet connection. The issue is how much, and what does it apply to? And how would it be divvied up? All valid questions and need more work.

The importance of the principle of enabling access to information and material, rather than just a policy that contains, prevents and punishes. Alongside that goes an enforcement regime for the repeat and insistent offenders.

There’s a real tension in the online community driven by the people who believe pretty much wholesale in open source and creative commons, i.e. everything belongs to everyone. Hmmm, I think not. But I think we have to do some more thinking and talking about this. Because the internet has opened up everything. And that’s a great and wondrous thing.

The urgent need for new and innovative business models by the creative communities (and their representatives).

The commitment to NZ content first. Mostly positive responses.

And then (on a separate post) that issue of whether the internet is an essential service. I’m sensing a strong public discussion beginning to build around this and you’ll be hearing more.

I could go on. And I’ll continue to write about it. And you’ll have more to say. I’m hoping we’ll be seeing a proper open access conference on copyright happening in the not too distant future. It’s about time all the parties got together and really started thrashing out some of these issues.

In the meantime, we (Labour) are committed to a new policy development process that has your input. Because to me, that‘s the future.


Riding the wave (not sinking) on copyright. Some ideas

Posted by on July 19th, 2009

It’s time to float a few “go forward” ideas on protecting copyright in the digital age, arising from the two forums Labour has organised in the last couple of months on the issue and my own views. So here goes, and I welcome (constructive) feedback.

The genie is out of the bottle on internet sharing of files and behaviours. It’s estimated that between 60-80% of all internet traffic involves peer to peer sharing of files, the vast bulk of which is unauthorised use of copyrighted music and movies.

Another useful stat (from a UK report called Copycats, Digital Consumers in the Online Age) is that 70% of 15-24 year olds do not feel guilt about downloading music for free on the internet.

And there’s a pretty widespread view among many internet users that there is no “victim” of digital copyright infringement. That nobody suffers!

A conclusion of the Copycats report (May 2009) is that many digital consumers take for granted – indeed expect – free content of all kinds from the Internet to copy. We have a nascent, or perhaps established, copycat culture.

How have kids grown up with these attitudes? And let’s be clear. It’s not just kids. Many people of different ages have these attitudes too. Are we going to change them? Should we? Should we focus on blocking access to information and material? Or should we be providing access to content in ways where revenue can be gathered more easily and people understand why.

The policy challenge is to take responsibility for this issue. And consider how to approach it in a forward thinking way, to protect the rights and incomes of those who create content rather than trying to just contain access or punish those who illegally access that content. Which is why the National Government’s rewrite of section 92A is short-sighted and doesn’t take account of the wider issues. So to the ideas…

  1. Education about copyright is very important. Government has an important role to play and copyright education should become a part of the school curriculum and be integrated right through our education system. A public education campaign is also needed for people to understand that protecting the rights of people who create content is important.
  2. We should enable people to access the information/material they seek. And consider introducing a licensing fee attached to internet service provider (ISP) connections. This fee would then be collected and distributed by an external agency amongst copyright holders.  In order to work, it would need the buy in of all ISPs and rights holders. It would likely be focussed on New Zealand copyright content first.
  3. Establishment of an independent rights agency to distribute fees and rule on disputes.  We still need an enforcement regime and a rights agency could also have the power to investigate and adjudicate on copyright disputes and alleged infringements aka the Section 92A model. However, I am of the view that internet disconnection is not a viable option. It simply won’t work and will drive hard core copyright infringers more underground. Financial penalties are more likely to work.
  4. A commitment to protect NZ content first. It’s our heritage, and the people who create NZ content must be able to make a living from their work and have that work valued.

From the discussions I’ve had to date, there is a growing consensus around these ideas. And some of them are still just ideas. They need more work. But if you’re going to spend taxpayer dollars isn’t it be better to spend them enabling access to content and distributing funds to the people who created it rather than just punishing infringements, discouraging access and encouraging more black market activity. I don’t know about you but that seems like common sense and thinking ahead.

What do you think?


Not much chop on copyright (or anything else)

Posted by on July 14th, 2009

You know it’s been more than eight months since the election. A new government, new broom and all that. Despite not agreeing with them on just about everything, I have been interested to see how they’d go and what they’d try to achieve. Well I have to say, not much chop is my assessment so far. You would have thought that they’d take the opportunity to come up with a few good ideas that show some long term thinking. A bit of vision. Even if it’s not my kind of vision. Today’s offering on copyright being a case in point.

A proposal document for the review of section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 and how to deal with repeat Internet copyright infringement released today for public feedback by Commerce Minister Simon Power proposes a three-phase process enabling copyright owners to pursue repeat internet offenders.

In response I said:

The National Government had the opportunity to show some long term vision on the vexed issue of copyright infringements, but appears to be settling for a short term stop-gap measure that doesn’t address the underlying issues.

 

The Government’s Section 92A Review Policy Proposal Document released today raises more questions than it answers and retains punitive measures for alleged copyright infringement in a public vacuum…

 

The consultation that I’ve been undertaking with a range of stakeholders has convinced me that a termination policy operating in such a vacuum cannot work. International attempts to introduce similar policies haven’t worked to date.

 

There is overwhelming international evidence that the vast majority of copyright infringements are the result of ignorance or a lack of understanding of what copyright means. It is estimated that once notified of a copyright breach, most people will stop.

 

There are of course people who require a stronger penalty, but the issue of how people can legally get access to information and material is vital in this digital age.

 

There are also unresolved outstanding issues around what constitutes an internet service provider (ISP). This was one of the major issues raised in the previous failed attempts to construct a working code of practice.

 

Simply rewriting Section 92A, resulting in a flood of complaints and alleged infringements and allowing for the ability to cut off the internet account is just short-sighted and a quick-fix measure.

 

Labour has admitted it got it wrong  by introducing Section 92A last year in a vacuum. How about National having the guts to do the same?

 


One of those magic moments

Posted by on July 8th, 2009

I’m sure that my life as an MP is going to have plenty of ups and downs. Well tonight was an up. And it’s because of the main thing that took me into parliament in the first place. Wanting to try to bring together people and politics and truly engage. Break down the cynicism about the political process. Tonight I convened a forum in Auckland to try to forge a new consensus, a new direction around how we manage copyright in the digital age.

I’ll post more about this once I’ve gone through the notes, but it was really really good. Because everybody was honestly trying to be constructive and to find a way through the current impasse.  I know Labour isn’t the government, we won’t be making the laws on this right now, but we know how important it is, we know that no other country in the world has worked out how to move forward, and we know that we needed to change our position.

There was a suprising level of agreement and good will among the forum participants. There’s now work to do to develop a coherent position and discuss that among my Labour colleagues. But it feels good.  It would be even better if it became a cross party consensus. More to come soon.


Labour to hold copyright forum in Auckland

Posted by on June 28th, 2009

It’s taken a while to get it organised, but Labour will hold another copyright forum, this time in Auckland, on 8 July. And anyone’s welcome who has an interest in the copyright issue and who will make a positive contribution.

Labour organised a forum in late March in Wellington and invited representatives from the rights holders, ISPs, internet users and other associated interested persons. That meeting was attended by about 30 people, including six Labour MPs (myself, Grant Robertson, Lianne Dalziel, Trevor Mallard, David Cunliffe and Maryan Street). Out of that meeting came a series of themes and issues that needed further discussion. Because of the number of people who wanted to attend but couldn’t (because they either lived in Auckland or just couldn’t make it) I said we’d have another discussion soon.

The forum will be held at:
Freeman’s Bay Community Hall
Function Room
52 Hepburn St, Freeman’s Bay
6pm-8pm
Wednesday 8 July

If you can make it that would be great. Please feel free to pass this invite on. Please RSVP to clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz

The objective is to canvas the wider issues around copyright, including discussion of what’s been ocurring overseas, in France, the UK and Sweden. Lessons to be learnt and ideas for how to develop a wide-ranging copyright policy that embraces the digital age, protecting rights holders, not disadvantaging ISPs going about their business, promoting access to information and building public interest around why copyright is important.

Labour hopes to make a positive ongoing contribution to discussions about copyright. It’s one of the major issues in the crossover between the arts and the communications and IT industries. We need to get it right and we need to take a wider view than the National Government appears to be doing right now.


Lee investigation amateur whitewash

Posted by on May 26th, 2009

NZ on Air claim to have investigated Melissa Lee. There are a few unanswered questions:-

  1. Did they interview the staff member who made the allegations especially in relation to Lee’s standover approach during the editing of the election special?
  2. Did they establish how many staff members were required to work on the National Party video?
  3. Did they interview those staff members?
  4. Did they establish whether the staff members worked during paid hours or outside of that time as volunteers?
  5. Did they establish who owned the copyright to the stock footage used in the video?
  6. Why was it not made clear that Lee’s company relied completely on taxpayer funding – the company had no other funding source?