Crap Copyright Amendment

[Mental Trousers]

Copyright Amendment Act 2008, Section 92A

Now that we've gotten rid of Uncle Helen you'd think things would start improving, but no. Their influence will be felt for a long time yet unfortunately.

Section 92A of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 No 27 (as at 31 October 2008), Public Act (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html) says:


Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers

An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.


Basically, it's saying that if anyone accuses you of repeatedly infringing on copyrights they can have you disconnected. No proof is needed and innocent until proven guilty is not applicable.

There are many, many people and organisations that are jumping up and down because of this soon to be enacted law.

From Stuff (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4825723a26513.html)
The New Zealand Herald (http://www.lianza.org.nz/news/newsroom/news1232571195.html)
LIANZA (http://www.lianza.org.nz/news/newsroom/news1232571195.html)
Creative Freedom (http://creativefreedom.org.nz/)
The ISP's Assciation (ISPANZ) is busily spamming cabinet ministers - David Cunliffe (http://www.ispanz.org.nz/pdf/letters/ISPANZ%20letter%20to%20key%20officials%204-12-06%20CUNLIFFE.pdf?PHPSESSID=2e222f43dcc73b02c4488e cf45f90344), Reg Hammond (http://www.ispanz.org.nz/pdf/letters/ISPANZ%20letter%20to%20key%20officials%2026-05-06%20HAMMOND.pdf?PHPSESSID=2e222f43dcc73b02c4488ec f45f90344), Douglas Webb (http://www.ispanz.org.nz/pdf/letters/ISPANZ%20letter%20to%20key%20officials%2026-05-06%20WEBB.pdf?PHPSESSID=2e222f43dcc73b02c4488ecf45 f90344) and Government Committees (http://www.ispanz.org.nz/pdf/letters/ISPANZ_Submission_on_TB.pdf?PHPSESSID=2e222f43dcc7 3b02c4488ecf45f90344)
Some guy on geekzone (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/5845)
There's even a facebook section (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29834002818) on it

EVERYBODY is at risk, all anyone has to do is accuse people and they lose their net connection.

Other than joining the fight, the next best thing you can do is protect yourself. There isn't anything that is 100% effective but easily the best way to stop this from happening to you is to stop nasty people from suspecting you download copyright material using programmes like PeerGuardian (http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/) (Windows) and Moblock (http://moblock.berlios.de/) (linux)

*Original thread by Dargor was accidentally deleted :( ..... Sorry

[JMemonic]

$200 per year to apria and thats the music issue sorted.

[Dave-]

I think the problem is most people dont really know they're doing it.

I hope you all realise most images in your avatars or sigs is in breech of the copyright act.

guitar tabs are copyright work.

[Hitcher]

Previous efforts to remind Kiwi Biker members of their legal responsibilities under copyright legislation have been met with contemptuous disdain.

Copyright is a complex issue and misunderstood by many. This new legislation helps not a jot, and was largely a knee jerk response to "protect" the recorded music industry.

[Hitcher]

I hope you all realise most images in your avatars or sigs is in breech of the copyright act.

Not necessarily.

[Lias]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/The_Pirate_Bay_logo.svg/529px-The_Pirate_Bay_logo.svg.png


Arrgh let them come.. I'll change ISP's every week if that's whats needed, but it will be a cold day in hell before they stop me pirating.

I've been pirating things since the days of 360k floppies and games on cassette, I sure ain't stopping now.

[spookytooth]

Arrrr i like the cut of ya gib matey {in a piratey type accent}

[James Deuce]

There's been a n00b posting scanned images out of a magazine over the last few days. There's no associated "uploaded with the kind permission of xxx publisher".

That kind of shiznit can cause all sorts of trouble for all of us. Opening the thread with the thumbnail of the magazine pages could easily be deemed in breach of copyright.

[Eddieb]

Some guy on geekzone (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/5845)

'Some guy on Geekzone' is Mauricio Freitas, he is the creator/owner of Geekzone and is very involved in the IT industry.

[rainman]

Now that we've gotten rid of Uncle Helen you'd think things would start improving, but no. Their influence will be felt for a long time yet unfortunately.

Who, the greatest living NZer?

This is indeed crap law, but do you really have any expectation that the Nacts wouldn't have done the same?

[SARGE]

Arrgh let them come.. I'll change ISP's every week if that's whats needed, but it will be a cold day in hell before they stop me pirating.

I've been pirating things since the days of 360k floppies and games on cassette, I sure ain't stopping now.

arrrgh matey...


i still have a copy of Dragons lair around here somewhere....


anyone know how to set up a proxy chain on a wireless router?..i can already connect via proxy when im mobile but not here at home

[Lias]

TBH I've never worried about using multiple proxies, i'm only pirating things not buying kiddie porn or plotting to overthrow teh government.

[The Lone Rider]

$200 per year to apria and thats the music issue sorted.

That's APRA, and the cost varies.

[Ixion]

TBH I've never worried about using multiple proxies, i'm only pirating things not ,,,plotting to overthrow teh government.

Wimp .

[Dargor]

Yes this is bad, we should take some action against this. I propose some good old fashion riots! Whos with me.

[Filterer]

Seedboxes are where its at these days - pay a small sum to a hosting company in some overseas country where the laws are a little more lax - say Sweden - and you get control over a box to download your torrents to.

From there you simple download over an encrypted tunnel back to your home pc

Check out http://filesharefreak.com/2008/05/04/review-and-comparison-of-torrentflux-hosting-services/

[James Deuce]

Yes this is bad, we should take some action against this. I propose some good old fashion riots! Whos with me.Can I borrow your avatar?

[Disco Dan]

Crikey, not like the internet connections are any good anyway... would take a week to get in trouble.

Be quicker to walk.

[oldguy]

No great loss, mean's I'd spend more time riding, and meeting people in person than sitting here in the dark naked, in front of my computer.

[James Deuce]

No great loss, mean's I'd spend more time riding, and meeting people in person than sitting here in the dark naked, in front of my computer.
All of you who feel this way, please log off and stay off so the rest of us can have decent throughput and lower latency.

Cheers.

[McJim]

I think the problem is most people dont really know they're doing it.
I hope you all realise most images in your avatars or sigs is in breech of the copyright act.
guitar tabs are copyright work.

My avatar is me - I paid for the photo. The photo in my sig was taken by Gremlin - he sez I can use it.


No great loss, mean's I'd spend more time riding, and meeting people in person than sitting here in the dark naked, in front of my computer.

You're tryin' to make me hard aren't you? :rofl:

[Hitcher]

lower latency.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Okey Dokey]

I don't understand the law, I have no idea how it may affect me. The Labour government passed so many sloppily written laws that it is hard to keep track of them all.

I did my own avatar so I guess that is okay.

[Usarka]

So if they don't change it before it comes into effect I can get a mate overseas to accuse the NZ government and their ISP will disconnect them...... cool...

[St_Gabriel]

So if they don't change it before it comes into effect I can get a mate overseas to accuse the NZ government and their ISP will disconnect them...... cool...

Why get your mate to do it?, Just do it yourself (though I doubt you will have to as there are a few ppl already planning this).
The main issue to me is guilt upon ACCUSATION, not proof. If the accusation is later proven false, there is absolutely no recourse upon the person who accused you, and you are still cutoff by your ISP
The cynical side of me is also thinking that certain ISP's (xtra) may use this to finally get rid of ppl who still have their MAX (what a joke) plan with no down/uploading limits.

[mashman]

This has been coming for the last 2 - 3 years, maybe even longer. The movie and music industry are losing billions every year and they're not going to get their money back by taking you or me to court (not that I pirate of course). So they've tried to shutdown torrent sites. Unfortunately they've realised that they're wasting their time because the pirateers aren't stupid... so the only way to do it is to tell the ISP's that they are, by default, an accomplice... they monitor our URLS and now they have a legal responsibility to stop us from breaking the law by (ab)using their networks... Can't say i'm surprised, no it won't stop it completely. And i'm not for it or against it either...

Now if a certain global monster, let's call them "Bony, that should have started with an S" where using some of their profit to building wells in Africa, help the needy etc... it'd be another story.... but they wouldn't, so I may download "trial" music and movies off the net from time to time...

[Quasievil]

When does posted information become public property, I think once you put anything on the internet it is then public and free.

[Sollyboy]

, and was largely a knee jerk response to "protect" the recorded music industry.

I think NZ's first hurdle is to make some music worth actually down loading , NZ music is shit

[imdying]

Hahahhah, they're doomed... sneaker net still works too well... half a dozen TB drives in a carton goes a loooong way.

[imdying]

When does posted information become public property, I think once you put anything on the internet it is then public and free.You might wanna reconsider that champ... you put your banking login and password on the net every time you login :D

[mashman]

When does posted information become public property, I think once you put anything on the internet it is then public and free.

Funnily enough, next to never. Take a look at just about any mainstream site and there'll be a disclaimer on the page, usually at the foot of the page in obscurely small and light coloured text, warning that everything on the page, or within the site is protected by copyright... Copyright isn't what it used to be as noone is really gonna make a shit load of cash using DR Evil as their business logo, but if they did they would then worth chasing... it's free money after all...

[mashman]

You might wanna reconsider that champ... you put your banking login and password on the net every time you login :D

heh heh, Mr Literal i presume...

[imdying]

heh heh, Mr Literal i presume...
Who moi? :whistle:

He knows I'm teasing ;)

[Usarka]

Why get your mate to do it?, Just do it yourself (though I doubt you will have to as there are a few ppl already planning this).
The main issue to me is guilt upon ACCUSATION, not proof. If the accusation is later proven false, there is absolutely no recourse upon the person who accused you, and you are still cutoff by your ISP


Paranoia my dear chap. They are out to get me......:Police:

[mashman]

Who moi? :whistle:

He knows I'm teasing ;)

I had a feeling, coulda just been wind though

[St_Gabriel]

Paranoia my dear chap. They are out to get me......

Just remember, It aint paranoia if THEY really ARE after you.

And yes I have received the obligatory cease and desist email via xtra from the MPAA, albeit a couple of years ago now because I no longer do those things (Tui anyone?????)

ARGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (said in a pirate-y type voice)

[wharfy]

I think NZ's first hurdle is to make some music worth actually down loading , NZ music is shit

All your taste is in your mouth

[wharfy]

Big business has been abusing the copyright, patent and legal system for years. Whatever they can use to bully bluff or steal. Law suits, threats of law suits, injunctions counter suits are all ways of making money or preventing someone else from making money. Get rich without out actually producing anything - No wonder the general public think they are fair game. Fuck them all I say.

But when blaming the Labour government remember that BIG BUSINESS is the National Party's "raison de'tere"

[Hitcher]

remember that BIG BUSINESS is the National Party's "raison de'tere"

Tosh. Trite nonsense. All parties with a handle on reality understand that economic growth is the foundation on which their political aspirations and successes lie. This includes both the Labour and National parties.

[Blackshear]

This is the whole
STEALING vs. COPYING thing.
I am not STEALING 90-100GB's worth of shit each month, I am simply making a COPY of it.
They are not loosing money out on me, either. I wouldn't buy 98% of the shit I download anyway.
They can go suck my little willy.
The fatcats in their superyachts and holiday retreats are loosing a bit of money, yes, but have any of you seen how much money goes through iTunes every month? Fucking SHITLOADS. They're bitching that they can't buy two yachts a year as opposed to one.
Anyway. I must bed. Tis work in 8 hours.

[Hitcher]

They can go suck my little willy.

It looks as though you're thinking with it. Piracy is theft, no matter how you dress it up. I guess those who are not smart enough to make something that others want to buy miss the subtlety of that.

[Quasievil]

Funnily enough, next to never. Take a look at just about any mainstream site and there'll be a disclaimer on the page, usually at the foot of the page in obscurely small and light coloured text, warning that everything on the page, or within the site is protected by copyright... Copyright isn't what it used to be as noone is really gonna make a shit load of cash using DR Evil as their business logo, but if they did they would then worth chasing... it's free money after all...

Dr Evil isnt the business logo dude, but if it was they can get stuffed I got Fembots and sharks with lasers tied to their freckin heads yall

[rphenix]

Good to see this shit amendment by labour is getting some attention. It was one of the reasons I didn't vote for Labour thanks to Judith :clap:

[KoRe]

Innocent until proven guilty is what the legal system is founded upon!
I can't imagine anyone supporting this sort of legislation. However, there are a lot of crazy people out there.

Seems to be another case of trying to achieve something good but doing it so wrong.

[pritch]

I hope you all realise most images in your avatars or sigs is in breech of the copyright act.

Mine isn't :bleh:

[mashman]

Dr Evil isnt the business logo dude, but if it was they can get stuffed I got Fembots and sharks with lasers tied to their freckin heads yall

Ya shittin me <_<!!! oooo lazer headed sharks sweeeeeet :Punk:

[mashman]

Innocent until proven guilty is what the legal system is founded upon!
I can't imagine anyone supporting this sort of legislation. However, there are a lot of crazy people out there.

Seems to be another case of trying to achieve something good but doing it so wrong.

What!!!!!!!!!!! the only people that know you're pirating information is yourself and your ISP... seems like a pretty fkin sensible idea to me!!!

[The Pastor]

Who is the greatest living NZer?



dave doybbn

[SPman]

The result of another piece of ill thought out, ill considered, knee jerk legislation by a net-illiterate piece of Labour uselessness - ie Mz Tizard!
Good riddance to her and any other of her ilk - may they rot in political and cyber hell!....whence this piece of shit legislation deserves to go!

[thehollowmen]

There will be a thousand ways to force them off the net. BUT here is my best effort:

Do html emails allow background tags?

I'm a photographer, Big Dave is a photographer, we could start sending them emails with copyright backgrounds, and force them off the net.


On the flipside of the coin, this could be a huge advantage to students / flatters / people who have short contracts and move around a lot. Sign up for a 24 month plan with all the bonuses, then when the contract runs out get two friends to dob you in.

[ManDownUnder]

This is the whole STEALING vs. COPYING thing.

<<crap snip>>



OK... so you you're saying that you making a dulpicate copy of the SW I sell and using it without paying for it is harming no-one.

Let's examine the economics of that for a sec...

You pay nothing get the SW which saves you labour and or otherwise gives you some benefit (let's assume you're not downloading it for the sake of it...)

Then there's me. Sales targets to hit, commission denied, quarterly and annual bonuses denied... all the while I have a mortgage to pay and tight economic times means that's getting more and more challenging...

To possibly put it into a different context. That's all the company I work for does anyway - copy the software and sell that copy. Apart from the minor issues of developing it, paying staff to package and support it... ongoing...

Piracy is theft. You're bullshitting yourself and everyone around you if you're taking the "it's only copying" line...

[Blackshear]

It looks as though you're thinking with it. Piracy is theft, no matter how you dress it up. I guess those who are not smart enough to make something that others want to buy miss the subtlety of that.

If I enjoy the product/thing, and genuinely like it, I will buy it. I have a good 80 music cd's at home, cause I likem. A few PC games here and there, some 'backed up' DVD's etc. I'm not a total tightass. If I like the people/product, again, I will buy it.

Though, were I in the other teams shoes, I'd be telling everyone to stop pirating.

I dunno.

[Dave-]

My avatar is me - I paid for the photo. The photo in my sig was taken by Gremlin - he sez I can use it.



You're tryin' to make me hard aren't you? :rofl:

oh for sure, I think on a biker forum most people have pictures they've taken of their bike etc

you think I asked the publisher of the pearl jam video for permission to use that ^ segment?

sure didn't, and guess what your computer just downloaded?

[nigel]

While some may think that piracy is theft, the reality is a lot different.

APRA and their ilk will tell you that copyright is "the way artists make money from their art". This is misleading.

Copyright is in fact a government granted monopoly on the use of a work. You get copyright over something the moment your pen leaves the page, or you stop recording. You don't have to register your copyright. The government grants you the exclusive right to dictate the terms of use of your work for a certain amount of time after it's made. You may sell your work, or even sell your copyright if you wish, but it's yours to start with.

In return, copyright expires after a set amount of time. This is to aid creativity and allow future generations to build upon previous works. Also, people are allowed to make copies of parts of your work without your knowledge or permission, e.g. quoting an article. This is called "fair dealing" in New Zealand, and is an important part of free speech, for one thing.

So what copyright is supposed to be is a balance between artists/copyright holders, and the general public. In the beginning, copyright was for 14 years - more than enough, you'd think, to flog a song for all the money it's worth.

But the RIAA, IFPI and their bretheren have forced the length of copyright up to 50 years, then 70, and now they're pushing for 95 years. Mostly because they're still making money from '60's bands such as The Beatles. This really has swung the balance of copyright to the holders - seriously, how long do you really need to earn a living from a piece of art? Surely you can make more?

So in my view, the "theft" is the continued bludging of old music in new formats for high prices. Those execs do want their second yacht, damnit, and they'll bend any law they can to make it happen. Watch out for ACTA - the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - being ratified this year, making it legal for APRA and their ilk to snoop on your internet connection looking for copyright violation.

If the industry wants to fix this problem, they need to change their business model. We can distribute music for free, so they need to get into the business of selling things that _can't_ be copied - concerts, merch and radio airtime.

[ManDownUnder]

If the industry wants to fix this problem, they need to change their business model. We can distribute music for free, so they need to get into the business of selling things that _can't_ be copied - concerts, merch and radio airtime.


You seem to miss much of the point. If things were entirely as you want them the industry will have no money, those in that industry will fuck off and do something that pays the bills - and talkback will be the only option remaining. It's not up to the owner of the goods to defend them - it's up to the theiving scumbags to stop breaking the f'n law.

It's theft - pure and simple. You take stuff I've worked long and hard to bring to market... of course I'm going to be pissed off. That's my reward being taken from me.

That's theft.

[nigel]

You seem to miss much of the point. If things were entirely as you want them the industry will have no money, those in that industry will fuck off and do something that pays the bills - and talkback will be the only option remaining. It's not up to the owner of the goods to defend them - it's up to the theiving scumbags to stop breaking the f'n law.

It's theft - pure and simple. You take stuff I've worked long and hard to bring to market... of course I'm going to be pissed off. That's my reward being taken from me.

That's theft.

You're trying to sell something that isn't worth anything. Not your art, of course - but copies of it.

It's simple economics. Supply and demand. In the "good old days", supply of your music to the world stage was hard, and you needed a producer to do it - all the CD pressing, shipping, advertising etc. Thus the supply was "scarce", and you could legitimately make money this way. And that was fine too - it _was_ a legitimate business model.

Fast forward to today - demand hasn't changed, but supply has. Now, to make a copy of music costs nothing. You can copy a file a million times with no effort, or distribute it around the internet for next to no cost. Now supply is infinite, so the price for a copy drops to zero. Now, your business model, which revolves around scarcity, won't work.

You can't fight it. Your kids [1] are "pirates" too - simply because it's a better deal to get the music for free. The only thing you can do is to sell things that are scarce - autograph your CDs, play live gigs, make merchandise, use your imagination! Stop measuring your success by how many CDs you sell - plenty of bands do well out of touring. Encourage donations! People who love your music will donate to your band, and pirates who wouldn't buy your CDs won't - you don't lose anything.

It might come as a surprise to you, but Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails both released their latest albums for free on the internet, and encouraged donations/sold autographed CDs (which of course are far more scarce than real CDs). What would you know - both albums were raging successes that netted the bands piles of money, none of which had to go to a producer.

The creative freedom foundation, who has kicked up awareness about this whole issue, is founded by artists who would rather people respect copyright, but don't want laws passed making people guilty before proven innocent in their name. I can't support the industry's side on this one, and neither should you, regardless of our argument over how you should be paid for your work.

[1] You may not have kids, or you might teach your kids to respect copyright (as the music industry wants you to know it), but my point still stands - millions of people around the world pirate every day

[ManDownUnder]

Fast forward to today - demand hasn't changed, but supply has. Now, to make a copy of music costs nothing. You can copy a file a million times with no effort, or distribute it around the internet for next to no cost. Now supply is infinite, so the price for a copy drops to zero. Now, your business model, which revolves around scarcity, won't work.

aaaa ok - so you're saying that because it's easy to do, and the taken products are in demand then it's ok?

... riiiiight ... gotcha...

edit - make sure you're looking at the right part of the supply side too. To supply the SW I sell costs a f'n fortune. If you want to supply it yourself (which is what you'll need to do if you put me out of business)... then it'll cost you a fortune. As I said before - if you think this ain't theft - or is a victimless crime (ok - I added that just now) you're bullshitting yourself.

[nigel]

aaaa ok - so you're saying that because it's easy to do, and the taken products are in demand then it's ok?

I'm saying millions of people have already decided it's ok, and trying to legislate against them is like trying to touch the sun. So work with what you've got.


edit - make sure you're looking at the right part of the supply side too. To supply the SW I sell costs a f'n fortune. If you want to supply it yourself (which is what you'll need to do if you put me out of business)... then it'll cost you a fortune. As I said before - if you think this ain't theft - or is a victimless crime (ok - I added that just now) you're bullshitting yourself.

You're in software? Open source it. The company I work for employs over 100 people who work on open source software. I myself am paid to lead development on an open source project. We give away the software, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, completely for free. We then make money when people want to customise it.

You call it theft, if people copy. That's fine, maybe it is. But what I'm saying is, you can't fight it, especially not with laws that presume guilt upon accusation, that's just madness. We give accused murderers and rapists these rights, what's so special about copyright infringement? Instead, change your business model. There's plenty of models that'll earn you money in this day and age. Trying to fight millions of people is a sure way to fail.

[ManDownUnder]

I'm saying millions of people have already decided it's ok, and trying to legislate against them is like trying to touch the sun. So work with what you've got.

I hear what you're saying but to openly void any rights artists have to their intellectual property will condemn them to fiscal oblivion. That's not the answer either.


You're in software? Open source it. The company I work for employs over 100 people who work on open source software. I myself am paid to lead development on an open source project. We give away the software, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, completely for free. We then make money when people want to customise it.

ok - soooo... you make money on the changes required post sale. So for those in the business of selling audio tracks - I'm shit out of luck?

Just because it can be done (and it obviously can, en masse, without a challenge) doesn't mean it should be.

[imdying]

I hear what you're saying but to openly void any rights artists have to their intellectual property will condemn them to fiscal oblivion. That's not the answer either.I don't think that's what he means... tech has made their current business model unviable, they need a better one. Fighting it simply won't work, they well know that by now. There must be a model where everyone wins though... the industry has been through a number of transitions... the travelling minstrals, then proper theatre etc came along, then radio, then vinyl, then tape, then CD, and now a distribution mechanism that they cannot and could never control.

[jrandom]

I don't think that's what he means... tech has made their current business model unviable, they need a better one. Fighting it simply won't work, they well know that by now. There must be a model where everyone wins though... the industry has been through a number of transitions... the travelling minstrals, then proper theatre etc came along, then radio, then vinyl, then tape, then CD...

Too right.

And that odd little blip in technology that allowed musicians and music distributors to get a deathgrip on copies of recorded music is now past.

Could we, perhaps, now see musicians having to rely more on live performances to earn a living? Will the distribution companies have to offer value in return for a fair price?

Certainly if the average consumer can pay a few dollars for an album downloaded in perfect uncompressed quality with no ridiculous DRM plastered over it, versus having to fluff around to get a copy that sounds bad even on a pocket MP3 player, the choice will be clear.

Copyright laws are still valid. Anyone making a profit from selling copies of other people's work should still be chased. But once the cost of making and distributing copies becomes zero, the landscape changes. If making and sharing a copy of a work has zero cost and therefore adds no value, it becomes impossible to profit from it. That applies both to the original distributors and to the 'pirates'.

We'll get back to that original position where the only real value was created during the actual performances of the work. And perhaps that's the way it should be.

[The Stranger]

You seem to miss much of the point. If things were entirely as you want them the industry will have no money, those in that industry will fuck off and do something that pays the bills


Do you suppose that there could be a balance perhaps?
You appear to look at it from your perspective alone.

Many performers make obscene amounts of money. This is not about jealousy, but seriously, how much is enough? How many theme parks and sleep overs with little boys do you really need?
What values an artists work over say your work?

Copyright.

I find something distasteful in people who rely upon the govt to fleece the populace for their primary source of income.

Not suggesting that all copyright protection should be removed, however I feel they have gone and are going too far. Sure the Internet is causing them some problems, but they have had it so good for so long, all we are seeing is a realingment.

As with any industry there is a supply and demand. If the demand is not there for their creativity then sure they will fuck off and do something else. Welcome to the real world without protectionism, the rest of us have to deal with that, get over it.
But that is the key element - the demand not being there i.e. the value placed on their work (when not artificially inflated and protected) would be low to cause this result.

Going back to the days of Roger Douglas as Minister of finance. A report was released that showed that for each job in the auto assembly industry the protectionism in place was costing us $120,000.00 PA. He, bless him took it apart. During the years before his reign we spent millions and millions of dollars stockpiling wool as a result of supplementary minimum pricing policies, again he fixed that. Despite the end of the world at the time, we still have cars and we still have farmers.

[nigel]

I hear what you're saying but to openly void any rights artists have to their intellectual property will condemn them to fiscal oblivion. That's not the answer either.

Nobody is voiding artists' rights. Copyright is still a great concept, it's just that when copying costs nothing, no amount of sword-waving will stop people from doing it.

And you can't really blame the people too. Our society is built upon the idea that things are worth something. E.g. when the government wants more support for Maori in software, it makes it economically sensible for products to do that by making it a condition of funding. Our society is _not_ built on strict moral code, where even if copying was free it would be morally reprehensible to make a copy. That's just the world we live in, and something you can't change.

Back to voiding rights - in fact, copyright is used as the basis for copyleft, which explicitly allows copying, but can attach conditions like "you can't claim you wrote this". So for example, the software I write is distributed for free, anyone can change it and modify it, send it on to their friends etc - but they can't remove our copyright notices from the source code. And most of the time, getting software for free is such a good deal that nobody would even think of it!

The Creative Freedom foundation explicitly says that they're not for taking away artist's rights by the way - they just disagree with guilt upon accusation laws, which take away everyone elses.


ok - soooo... you make money on the changes required post sale. So for those in the business of selling audio tracks - I'm shit out of luck?

Like I said, yes you're out of luck until you come up with a new business model. I suggested several previously. The world changes, you have to change with it instead of fighting it. If you agree with me that there's no putting the plug back in the bottle with regards to copying, you'll easily see the need to change.


Just because it can be done (and it obviously can, en masse, without a challenge) doesn't mean it should be.

Of course not. It's a pity our society isn't built on stricter moral values. But then if it was, copyright would probably still be 14 years, and you'd still be allowed to copy for the purposes of satire or parody - which is illegal in New Zealand by the way (thanks to Helen).


imdying: dead right mate.. humans got this far by adapting to change, corporations live and die by the same rules ;)

[nigel]

Apparently the government is going to "watch how the law is implemented in practice": http://www.stuff.co.nz/4831125a11.html

There's also a poll on stuff about this.

[Lias]

An email I sent to various work colleagues/friends etc the other day. Figured I mayswell share it here too.


Hi All,

As some of you aware Comrade Clark and her band of communists passed a copyright amendment bill to stifle P2P in New Zealand. This law requires ISP’s to disconnect “repeat offenders” who download copyrighted material. The safest way is to stop all downloads of P2P content, but you and I know that that just isn’t going to happen. So I have a few tips on how to be as safe as you can be while torrenting etc.

1. Install Peerguardian, which you can download from http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
2. Add lists to PG2 from sites like I-blocklist http://iblocklist.com/lists.php
3. At a minimum, use the Bluetack Level1 and TBG Primary Threat lists, but I also recommend various others such as “TBG General Corporate Ranges”, “TBG Hijacked”, “TBG Bogon”, and all 4 DCHubad lists.
4. Use software like NetLimiter to cap your P2P client to a max 1kb/sec or lower upload. This saves you dollars on bandwidth as well as somewhat reducing the ability for others to download from your client and thus monitor it.
5. As soon as you have finished downloading a file, move it out of the default incoming directory to a place that is not visible to your P2P client, as they generally share the incoming folder.
6. Do not share any files other than what you are currently downloading and is incomplete.

Happy downloading folks, don’t let intimidation and scare tactics prevent you from sticking it to those greedy corporate fatcats.

[Lias]

Copyright is still a great concept,


Copyright is a completeley anal concept in a digitial age. Its oldfashioned, outmoded, and just plain wrong.

Copyright needs to be replaced with the worlds biggest shareware/donationware sceheme, you can copy/share all the music, movies, games, etc you want, and if you like it, you make what you think is an appropriate priced donation to the authors.

[Cajun]

An email I sent to various work colleagues/friends etc the other day. Figured I mayswell share it here too.

peerguardian does not work with vista or server 2008(i am running at home at moment, needed for some sharepoint stuff for wife.) when i was using xp i ran peerguardian nice nice for blocking stuff

[nigel]

Copyright is a completeley anal concept in a digitial age. Its oldfashioned, outmoded, and just plain wrong.

Copyright needs to be replaced with the worlds biggest shareware/donationware sceheme, you can copy/share all the music, movies, games, etc you want, and if you like it, you make what you think is an appropriate priced donation to the authors.

I agree in principle that given that copying is instant and easy, people shouldn't try to prevent copying. But I disagree that copyright needs to die. In a nutshell, it gives artists rights over their works for a limited amount of time, which is really important when you consider things like being credited for creating a work. I think though, it's all the other things that the record labels and software companies are doing with their rights that make you think copyright is a bad idea.

Currently major labels obtain the copyright to the songs of the artists, then try to restrict distribution - which is a fine idea, until distribution becomes free and easy. Many software development shops do the same thing - write software, try to control its distribution - and are being burned by the fundamental reality that copying costs nothing these days.

What is better is if you use your copyright to support better business models. In my case, we give away our software for free, then make money when people want customisations (we also make money from a partnership program - the brand name of the product is trade marked and we sell the rights to use the brand name also). I've detailed before the many ways in which artists can use different business models in combination with giving up some of the rights they have through copyright, to continue making money.

You might ask why you need copyright to just give your software away? Well in our case (and the case of the Linux operating system and thousands of open source applications), we use copyright not to restrict copying, but to restrict someone else taking our work, modifying it, selling it on and not giving back the changes they have made. So you can download my software, study it, make changes to it, but if you give the changed software to someone else, you also have to give them the changes you made (e.g. you can't just send them a compiled executable). This means that other people can't just piggy back off my work to sell their own solutions without at least giving something back.

If there's no copyright, there's no incentive to distribute any software, because people could just take it for their own use without crediting you or giving their changes back [1]. So copyright law, in fact, has helped encourage the billions of lines of code out there that are open source, to be written, which adds a huge bonus to the world wide economy.

[1] Some people choose to license their software in a way that doesn't force people to give back their changes too, instead just using copyright to prevent others from saying they wrote the software. It depends on your business model as to what type of license you pick.

[SPman]

Stop measuring your success by how many CDs you sell - plenty of bands do well out of touring.

Most artists make their money out of touring and selling their paraphenalia at concerts and more and more are using the net to reach their fan base.
The net has opened up a world of music I didn't know was available, most of which is so obscure I couldn't buy it if I wanted to (and in the past, when I found an artist I liked, I would try to buy their work, (if it was available), but, trawling obscure online music suppliers trying to find obscure works in obscure currencies becomes rather tiring after awhile and, when a P2P source has it, it's easier to just double click and have it on it's way to a computer near you.........

[Kwakajack]

So the usual legal precepts have been swept away in favour of what?? The simple abuse of power again. While John Key harps on about democracy overseas in places where it is under attack or totally non-existant, he contentedly erodes our legal rights back home. This is hypocrisy in its most blatant. What is next? Freedom of speech, should we quote someone or other while responding to a post on this exalted forum and not reference that quote with source, page number etc? Its a slippery slope . . . . . and god forbid if this legislation gets passed into law!

[n3on]

I work at orcon and until now I relished deleting the 'Claimed Infringment notices' from Universal pictures and other movie companies. We still haven't nailed out out actual procedures for this sort of thing but I'm hoping we don't follow the 'rule'!

Until further notice, you'r DL'ing is safe through Orcon :Punk:

[Lias]

peerguardian does not work with vista or server 2008(i am running at home at moment, needed for some sharepoint stuff for wife.) when i was using xp i ran peerguardian nice nice for blocking stuff

Run a VM of XP, with the P2P app and PG running inside of that under 2K8. Or go the whole hog and use ESX *grin*.. When I finish my current project thats keeping me busy, my next home project is to replace my 2k3 DC with an ESX implementation with a mix of 2k3 and 2k8 servers chugging away. Just for the hell of it :-)


I agree in principle that given that copying is instant and easy, people shouldn't try to prevent copying. But I disagree that copyright needs to die. In a nutshell, it gives artists rights over their works for a limited amount of time, which is really important when you consider things like being credited for creating a work. I think though, it's all the other things that the record labels and software companies are doing with their rights that make you think copyright is a bad idea.
.

Very simple fix, pass a law that makes it so that copyright infringment for non profit/non commercial purposes isn't infringement, but that commercial infringement is.. Problem solved :-)


I work at orcon and until now I relished deleting the 'Claimed Infringment notices' from Universal pictures and other movie companies. We still haven't nailed out out actual procedures for this sort of thing but I'm hoping we don't follow the 'rule'!

Until further notice, you'r DL'ing is safe through Orcon :Punk:


I'd love to switch back to Orcon because the service was always great, but I left because the pricing became the suck. When they start offering $1/gb (or better!) pricing outside the Orcon+ Network I'll seriously think about switching back, but right now it's just too damn expensive if your outside the lucky parts of Dorkland (and soon to be wellington central I hear)

It's pretty wanky that they are still punishing those of us stuck on Telescum wholesale by charging double for our data ($2/gb on wholesale vs $1/gb on Orcon+) find a manger and hit them with a big stick till they change that :2guns:

And yes Orcon has always been relatively P2P friendly, they used to run a DC++ hub years ago when local traffic was free :-) Oh the leeching that went on.

[Lias]

OK... so you you're saying that you making a dulpicate copy of the SW I sell and using it without paying for it is harming no-one.

Let's examine the economics of that for a sec...

You pay nothing get the SW which saves you labour and or otherwise gives you some benefit (let's assume you're not downloading it for the sake of it...)

Then there's me. Sales targets to hit, commission denied, quarterly and annual bonuses denied... all the while I have a mortgage to pay and tight economic times means that's getting more and more challenging...

To possibly put it into a different context. That's all the company I work for does anyway - copy the software and sell that copy. Apart from the minor issues of developing it, paying staff to package and support it... ongoing...

Piracy is theft. You're bullshitting yourself and everyone around you if you're taking the "it's only copying" line...

Say for arguments sake you sell your software for USD$1000 a license. I would not purchase it, ever, at that price. If I copy it because I might want to use it once every now and then, or learn to use it or whatever then you have not lost a sale.

If your selling it for $5 a license, and I copy it you have a better case for having a lost a sale, but lets face it you cant even buy 5 year old out of date software for that much.

If <insert current MS OS> was $5 for a home copy, I'd buy it rather than copy it, but at $150-500 for a MS OS, i'll copy it every time thank you.
MS Office, Paintshop, Premier Pro, Acad etc are even more outrageously priced, let alone things like accounting, CRM, ERP software etc.
Hell even games are fucking overpriced. If a game is popular, they refuse to let the price drop, COD4 for PC is still $90+ most places, maybe $70 if you look around hard, and the game came out 15 months ago!

I expect my place of employment to own legal software, but unless pricing structures for home use alter drastically, I probably never will.

[Cajun]

I work at orcon and until now I relished deleting the 'Claimed Infringment notices' from Universal pictures and other movie companies. We still haven't nailed out out actual procedures for this sort of thing but I'm hoping we don't follow the 'rule'!

Until further notice, you'r DL'ing is safe through Orcon :Punk:

i would disagree i was sent an email via orcon about 2 1/2 years ago about downloading something i shouldn't have. stupid game i had uninstalled 30 mins after installing it

[ManDownUnder]

Say for arguments sake you sell your software for USD$1000 a license. I would not purchase it, ever, at that price. If I copy it because I might want to use it once every now and then, or learn to use it or whatever then you have not lost a sale.
If you'd never buy it at that price then you don't need it, making it a nice to have meaning you're nicking it for no good reason.


If your selling it for $5 a license, and I copy it you have a better case for having a lost a sale, but lets face it you cant even buy 5 year old out of date software for that much. so even old SW has a value? Very true.


If <INSERT OS MS current>was $5 for a home copy, I'd buy it rather than copy it, but at $150-500 for a MS OS, i'll copy it every time thank you.
MS Office, Paintshop, Premier Pro, Acad etc are even more outrageously priced, let alone things like accounting, CRM, ERP software etc.
Hell even games are fucking overpriced. If a game is popular, they refuse to let the price drop, COD4 for PC is still $90+ most places, maybe $70 if you look around hard, and the game came out 15 months ago!
That's like saying you'd rather buy sneakers from sweat shops (which you well might)... all the while denying to yourself you're benfitting at the express expense of others.


I expect my place of employment to own legal software, but unless pricing structures for home use alter drastically, I probably never will.
a tad hypocritical isn't it?

[ManDownUnder]

We'll get back to that original position where the only real value was created during the actual performances of the work. And perhaps that's the way it should be.

Apply that to SW. the first copy would cost $150,000 and every copy thereafter is free? How would that work?

[nigel]

Very simple fix, pass a law that makes it so that copyright infringment for non profit/non commercial purposes isn't infringement, but that commercial infringement is.. Problem solved :-)

Well there is a legal concept called "De minimis non curat lex" - the law does not care about small things. You could almost argue that one person copying a file worth nothing for personal use is a "small thing" :). (IANAL, this might not be enshrined in NZ law)

[nigel]

Apply that to SW. the first copy would cost $150,000 and every copy thereafter is free? How would that work?

I think I've already presented you a viable alternative ;). Software is in it's nature easy to copy, so you have to work around that. Sell something scarce, like your expertise in customising it.

[Usarka]

Sigh. Legal lossless DRM-free music downloads. I solemly swear to buy no more music until this is a reality.

[Max Preload]

a tad hypocritical isn't it?

I don't think so - they're using it for profit. He's using it for enjoyment and by him learning it, there is a better chance of a commercial entity adopting it's use through recommendation.

Incidently, that's how AutCAD got such a foothold - they turned a blind eye to piracy in the early days and it became the de-facto standard - it was never the best (and still isn't) software for the job - just the most popular. Windows is probably a case in point for that too...

[jrandom]

Apply that to SW. the first copy would cost $150,000 and every copy thereafter is free? How would that work?

Like (http://www.ubuntu.com/) this (http://www.openoffice.org/).

Except that the first copy is free too.

Oh, you say, but the producers of that software are less wealthy than Bill Gates or Larry Ellison?

Well, like I said before, maybe that's the way it should be.

Isn't it interesting that the rise of easy distribution channels for copies of digital data has happened in parallel with the rise of Free Software (tm)?

However. I don't think that copyright is an invalid concept. But Western copyright laws, led by the USA's example, have been so stretched and extended over the past fifty years that they barely bear any resemblance to their original forms.

And when governments start enacting unfair laws due to pressure from commercial interests, enough is obviously enough.

Quite simply, when the cost of copying and distribution is zero, the added value in that process is zero, so any attempts to profit from it will be difficult and artificial.

That probably feels 'wrong' to you, but step back and look at the realities of the situation. There are plenty of business models, mostly service and research based, that work within those realities.

You're buying into the propaganda from the old monopolists that states that the new realities are immoral. Stop it.


Sigh. Legal lossless DRM-free music downloads. I solemly swear to buy no more music until this is a reality.

Amen.

[imdying]

I expect my place of employment to own legal software, but unless pricing structures for home use alter drastically, I probably never will.Totally agree with that... if you're making a buck from it, then cough up the dollars to buy it!

[MaxB]

Here is a Sideswipe column from yesterday's Herald about Monty Python getting a huge response from putting much of their material on You Tube for free.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10553839

The media corporations have had it too good for too long. What some of them fail to grasp is that freely available material on the web creates the hype and hysteria that sells product.

Heaps of shows have been saved or improved by a net presence. Punters who dont have a clue with complex plots can catch up on their shows on the web. Shows that have benefitted include Lost, Battlestar Galatica and Desparate Housewives. The 'boosting ' as they call it makes them millions of $$$ worldwide. They can't have it both ways.

[Drunken Monkey]

...Piracy is theft. You're bullshitting yourself and everyone around you if you're taking the "it's only copying" line...

Erm, no it's not. Piracy is an emotive term used to incorrectly describe copyright infrigement. Yes, sometimes people will suffer a loss because of it. Other times they don't. There's certainly things out there people have obtained as pirate copies simply because they're free because the asking price is bullshit. If they couldn't copy it, they would never have bought the fucking pile of crap in the first place. Perhaps the music/film industry could wake up and smell the roses and take a lead from Shareware. Romero and Carmack still made a butload of cash and they weren't cut up that not everyone paid for Wolf3d or Doom.

And don't go on one of your self-righteous indignant rants on me again MDU, I'm in software too and this is a real issue with impact in my day to day job. And I still think copyright is bullshit.

Open source rules, ok.

[ManDownUnder]

I'm in software too and this is a real issue with impact in my day to day job. And I still think copyright is bullshit.

Open source rules, ok.

As a minor stakeholder you can afford to take that position... as someone needing the income to pay the wages of the minor stakeholders... I can't.

People taking my software outside my rules are theives. Pure... Simple. End of story

[Drunken Monkey]

guitar tabs are copyright work.

And doesn't that suck too.

So MDU's software business model relies on protection for whatever reason (we make ours on support services of our software, not the software itself). Can't argue with that and I can see where he gets his stand from, even though we disagree and I'd never run a model like that.

But how the fuck can the MPA justify that an individual person, tabbing out a song for personal practice, is causing the original artist a loss?

[Beemer]

I think the problem is most people dont really know they're doing it.

I hope you all realise most images in your avatars or sigs is in breech of the copyright act.

Not mine - took the photo myself! But I know what you mean - what happens if someone forwards you something that is copyrighted and you delete it but someone finds out you had it in the first place - are you still done? If so, then the law needs a far bit of tweaking to make it workable for most of us.

[The Stranger]

Not mine - took the photo myself! But I know what you mean - what happens if someone forwards you something that is copyrighted and you delete it but someone finds out you had it in the first place - are you still done? If so, then the law needs a far bit of tweaking to make it workable for most of us.

What about a copyright image on a Web site?
If one of the avatars on this site is copyright we are all in breach as the image now resides on all of our HDD's.

A case in the states recently where 5 kids are being charged over child pornography. A couple of girls took photos of themselves and sent them to mates. The girls and their mates (all minors) are all being charged.

[Hitcher]

This isn't the only recently passed dumb law either.

I present for your edification and enjoyment, the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008, notably sections 32 and 33 of that Act.

You will no doubt be delighted to know that failure in official "documents" to use the macron in Maori placenames, determined by the above authority to require one, is now a criminal offence. The firing squad is polishing its weapons.

[Max Preload]

This isn't the only recently passed dumb law either.

I present for your edification and enjoyment, the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0030/latest/DLM1065412.html?search=ts_all%40act%40bill%40regul ation_New+Zealand+Geographic+Board+(Ng%C4%81+Pou+T aunaha+o+Aotearoa)+Act+2008_resel), notably sections 32 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0030/latest/DLM1065517.html?search=ts_all%40act%40bill%40regul ation_New+Zealand+Geographic+Board+(Ng%C4%81+Pou+T aunaha+o+Aotearoa)+Act+2008_resel#DLM1065517) and 33 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0030/latest/DLM1065518.html?search=ts_all%40act%40bill%40regul ation_New+Zealand+Geographic+Board+(Ng%C4%81+Pou+T aunaha+o+Aotearoa)+Act+2008_resel#DLM1065518) of that Act.

You will no doubt be delighted to know that failure in official "documents" to use the macron in Maori placenames, determined by the above authority to require one, is now a criminal offence. The firing squad is polishing its weapons.

That's some parting shot Liarbour fired! :no:

[adam1194]

A case in the states recently where 5 kids are being charged over child pornography. A couple of girls took photos of themselves and sent them to mates. The girls and their mates (all minors) are all being charged.

Haha. Owned.

[n3on]

There's site about this copyright amendment: http://creativefreedom.org.nz

[NOWOOL]

Yeah, this bill was done under De fuher H. Clark. It should be rewrote and based on similar laws in other countries. Rather Marxist that it bans you for being suspect!

[NOWOOL]

There's site about this copyright amendment: http://creativefreedom.org.nz

Freedom? Do i need to remind you you live in a socialist country? Your'e lucky they didn't lock you up for your comment!

[n3on]

haha I'm from Canada so I'm used to saying whatever I feel like and having the gov back me just because they have to :D wo0t for free speech!

[Naki Rat]

Go here (http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html), download the blackout pic and use it as your avatar and sign the petition

then put this as your signature

(name) is blacked out: Stand up against "Guilt Upon Accusation" for New Zealand http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html

[ManDownUnder]

I'm embracing it - I think this section could be very effective!

Given the large number of employees with access to the internet and based on the statistical probability there will be at least one repeatedly accessing copyright material I hereby accuse the following organisations under Section 92A and demand they be disconnected from the internet forthwith.
1) APRA (www.apra.co.nz (http://www.arpa.co.nz))
2) Microsoft
3) Hewlett Packard
4) Oracle
5) NZ Police
6) NZ Parliament
7) Every High Court Judge

I'll provode other names when those have been addressed.

[Indiana_Jones]

I know ACT is opposing this amendment.

-Indy

[SuperDave]

I know ACT is opposing this amendment.

-Indy

Yet they voted for it on its 3rd reading, mind you, so did EVERY other party with the exception of the Maori Party and the Greens.

This aside, what's done is done and there is nothing to be gained by arguing whose fault it is...efforts are better spent appealing the legislation itself, attacking it, not those who have the power to actually change it.

[davereid]

Dear Mr. Power

Labour has already dimininished the right of New Zealanders to a Trial before punishment with its range of "The Policeman can dole out the punishment on the side of the road" traffic laws.

None of which has reduced the boy racer plague at all.

I note that S92A is Nationals contribution to Tyranny in a small but meaningful way, with penalty exacted without conviction by the courts.

I suppose that it will save the courts some money, handy to National when it is the guardian of empty treasury chests.

While Labour introduced this terrible law, I see National have voted for it, and defended it at every turn.

Please show a bit of backbone, remind us that New Zealanders don't get punished except by due legal process.

Yours faithfully



David Reid
LEVIN

p.s. While surfing your web page http://www.national.org.nz I noticed the logo for "check your tax" was a copyright image, pinched from a $20 bill. I guess it will be fine until the end of the month.