New Zealand's Recording Industry CEO Tries to Defend New Draconian Law

An anonymous reader writes "Campbell Smith, CEO of the RIAA equivalent in New Zealand, has written an opinion piece for one of New Zealand's largest daily papers, in which he tries to justify the new 'presumed guilty' copyright law. This law allows recording industry members to watch file-sharing activity and notify ISPs of users who are downloading material. The copyright holder can then demand that an ISP disconnect that user — without the user ever having a chance to demonstrate their evidence."

Comments

Simple to repeal this...

[Fallen Kell]

1) Officially copyright your own material
2) Contact ISP's of all lawmakers and Judges you can find
3) Get their internet cut off
4) Watch the media and political storm
...
???
Profit?

Presumed guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

One wonder what precautions there are in the law against abuse?

I mean, If I complain that I saw Mr. Smith sharing stuff copyrighted by me, what would be the consequences?

I hope this is stopped

[Seriousity]

So far, it's been delayed from Feb 29 to March 29. (approx) due to the overwhelming controversy surrouding the legislation. It is blatantly clear that the politicians that pushed this bill were simply cracking under pressure from lobby groups; our parliament is a joke, albeit not a very funny one. If it isn't stopped or postponed further then I submit that I won't be posting for a while after some time around March 29 :)

Take heed, our small Aotearoa is owned by globalists; they may well seek to implement such policies elsewhere. (see the Opal file and judge for yourselves)

Peace, from a New Zealander

Opportunity knocks...

[Tsar]

So how long will it take for some Kiwi IP-freedom-fighter to:

1. Make a few original MP3 recordings,
2. Copyright them (is that necessary in NZ?),
3. Post them with names similar to upcoming releases from RIANZ members,
4. Publicize their location,
5. Watch for RIANZ-member IPs in the server logs, and
6. Issue take-down demands to their ISPs?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Huh?

[TubeSteak]

The ISP would then contact its user and warn them that they were breaking the law, advise them not to do it again and provide details of where to enjoy music legally online.

If the user kept breaking the law the ISP could close the internet account.

Extra emphasis on "could"
So is Campbell Smith saying that there is nothing requiring ISPs to cut off internet users?
If not, why would ISPs ever do so?

smaller countries will freak out more over ip

[circletimessquare]

a large country like the usa, or a confident one like the uk, the business infrastructure of distribution can wither and die in the face of the internet, and there's no perception of a threat to the very existence of british or american culture being wiped out in the adjustment period

but places like canada, or new zealand, there is a strong legal entrenchment of cultural protectionism, because there is already a perception that everyone watches american television and movies, or listens to british music, such that if "native" culture were to lose its protection, it would wither and die

i actually don't believe this, i hardly believe anything stops an artist from creating art. its not like a kiwi won't write songs again just because kelly clarkson is on the radio. it seems to me to be some sort of lack of confidence on the part of canucks and kiwis. or rather, enough canuck and kiwi politicians can be persuaded of this scare tactic by captains of dying media industries in the face of the internet

Re:Heh.

[w0mprat]

I don't think New Zealand is on the same internet I am.

It isn't, or at least it hangs on by a few tenuous undersea cables.

NZ is one of the worst places in the developed world to file-share. Our pipes out to the big interweb are pretty narrow and our local bandwidth is pretty average. Here you can have a 10mbps cable line into fibre optic infrastructure and have low quality videos stall and buffer on youtube, just because it's 8pm and everybody else is doing the same thing. Most (affordable) internet plans charge you more or slow you down if you go over 10-20gb. P2P is not only very slow here but such capped usage doesn't really encourage anyone going nuts with file-sharing.

And they claim downloading copyrighted works is a problem in NZ?

We already share alot by swapping portable hard drives (I call them slut drives coz they get around) in this country, now it'll get worse.

So let's do this...

[purpleraison]

Those of us who do not live in New Zealand can easily (or relatively) file motions to have lawyers, judges, politicians families etc, cut off due to our claims that they have downloaded copyrighted material.

Since we don't live in New Zealand, even 'if' we are incorrect and they didn't... they have no recourse. However, the families of New Zealand politicians et al are just as 'guilty' as the next person-- we all know that, just as their kids do.

The only question will be how to find their IP addresses... but it will be a hop, skip, and a jump before NOBODY in NZ has internet... how do you think the internet providers (and the population) will feel about the law then?

Hate to play Devil's advocate...

[gillbates]

But prior to the invention of technology which allowed widespread distribution of music and dramatic performances, the best an artist could hope for would be a kingly sponsorship. A musician couldn't make a living without actually performing, nor could an actor make a living without constantly acting.

There's nothing today preventing artists from making their money the old fashioned way. They could simply tour to bring in revenue, if they so chose. But they want to continue to make money on performances long after they've put their instruments away. And this is what the likes of RIAA-member companies promise them. Are they getting exploited? Perhaps in a few cases, yes. Are they exploiting the public at large? Yes, every time. The creative arts are the only discipline in which the workers and those who exploit them expect to make profit long after the work is done.

If you're not paying for live performances, you're contributing to this condition. Buying CDs, music/movie downloads (legal or not) - these all contribute to the notion that an artist deserves to be compensated multiple times for work they've done only once. But then again, when you buy that CD, you get to enjoy content indefinitely without paying the artist any further royalties.

If you don't like the copyright model, then do something about it. I suspect, however, that most people would rather put up with copyright than live in a society without it. Without copyright, every artist would simply resort to live performances, and we'd have a situation where hearing our favorite music was a matter of being in the right place at the right time and paying a hefty cover charge, *every time*.