New Zealand Halts Internet Copyright Law Changes

phobonetik writes "The New Zealand Prime Minister announced his Government will throw out the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act and start again. The proposed law changes contained 'guilty upon accusation, without appeal' clauses and heavy compliance costs to ISPs and businesses. The changes were hours away from being signed but a series of online protests, a petition on Government grounds, as well as public rebuttal by a large ISP and by Google contributed to the Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry."

Comments

Guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The proposed law changes contained 'guilty upon accusation, without appeal' clauses and heavy compliance costs to ISPs and businesses."

What the HELL, New Zealand?

Re:Guys...

[ouder]

It's not just the people. It looks like a lot of other industries finally woke up and say "Hey, this stuff the RIAA/MPAA is pulling is bad for OUR business." I was wondering how long it would take for other businesses to start putting up some resistance to the recording industry. I really hope this signals the start of a new trend. Perhaps the RIAA pushed to far on this one and woke up some sleeping giants.

Industry?

[alexo]

[...] contributed to the Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry

What about the wishes of the, um you know... people?

Re:Industry?

[sakdoctor]

That would require a ridiculously complex system of checks and balances.

Totalitarianism is better because it's easy. You just slide down the hill.

Re:Industry?

[Yetihehe]

People? What people? Typical people don't know what it is all about, they just visit youtube sometimes and write emails to friends. But we, slashdot readers are part of IT industry and want those changes. So yes, it is wishes of it industry not normal people.

Re:Industry?

[getuid()]

people> What about the wishes of the, um you know... people?
govm't> Yeah, what about them?
people> Well, they should be... respected or something.
govm't> Why?
people> You know... the constitution and all that... that says that goverment is elected by the people, ...
govm't> Well, government *is* elected by the people.
people> ...then, aren't you supposed to do as we say?
govm't> Nope, not really. Why?
people> Y'know, the constitution...
govm't> What about the constitution?
people> Well, it says you're not supposed to do the things you're just doing. So...
govm't> So?
people> So stop doing it.
govm't> Why?
people> Because the constitution...
govm't> ...I don't care about the constituion. Go shove it.
people> But you're supposed to, or...
govm't> Or what?

Re:Industry?

[alexo]

people> But you're supposed to, or...
govm't> Or what?

+1 depressing.

So Democracy is a sham. People cannot force the government to do anything. The only way to cause a change is to become the government and whoever has a realistic chance of achieving that goal, will become as bad as those they replace.

Democracy

[muuh-gnu]

> The changes were hours away from being signed but a series of online protests
> (...) Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry.

So whats the point in going to vote in the first place if theres no guarantee that the will of the people will be mirrored in the actions of the elected goverment until mass protests fill up the streets (or tubes)?

It seems that we easily could just appoint a dictator for life once and then keep protesting against his decisions we dont like, it wouldnt in practice be any different to the current situation.

Either we have a democracy, in which case demonstrations and protests again the democratically elected goverment shouldnt be needed, or we dont, in which case we dont need elections.

Re:Democracy

[cs02rm0]

So whats the point in going to vote in the first place if theres no guarantee that the will of the people will be mirrored in the actions of the elected goverment until mass protests fill up the streets (or tubes)?

So far as I can see, democracies have never had anything to do with the will of the public, just the will of their elected (from a pitifully small selection of) representatives.

There needs to be a better way of actually getting the will of the general public involved somehow, democracy as it stands is a pretty poor implementation of that. Politicians are a very dirty abstraction layer.

Re:Democracy

[SleepingWaterBear]

Either we have a democracy, in which case demonstrations and protests again the democratically elected goverment shouldnt be needed, or we dont, in which case we dont need elections.

You must be one of those people who believes democracy operates based on fairy dust and kittens. Protests in the street are a particularly notable feature of democracy, not something democracy eliminates the need for!

To spell it out for you, politicians are for the most part corrupt and immoral and have little interest in mirroring the will of the people, but at least in a democracy the people have some leverage. Politicians can ignore a small fraction of the population pretty safely, but when that fraction takes to the streets and threatens to attract a lot of attention the politicians have to start worrying about reelection.

Democracy is not a perfect system, in fact it has many disadvantages when compared to a well run dictatorship, but the fact people can safely and effectively take to the streets in protest makes it the most effective system we've found yet.

Re:Democracy

[ustolemyname]

No, no there doesn't.

"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter" - (Churchill, afaik)

What there needs to be is some kind of supercrazyawesome education, and a willingness to pay attention and be involved, of the general population. Then, optionally, a way of getting the will of the general public involved.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

First, you're confusing a Democracy with a Republic. Understandable, because they're similar. In a true democracy, the will of the people is followed. Right down to the burning of witches. A true democracy is better known as mob rule.

Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics. The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.

In a republic, you don't cast your vote for someone who will follow your will completely, or else you might as well get rid of the representatives and institute a true democracy. You cast your vote for someone that you think is honest, has experience and training that will help him get the job done, and thinks enough like you that you'll be satisfied with the job he does. The idea is that the elected officials are more intelligent, honest, and even self-sacrificing than the average person, or to put it another way, that they would do a better job at running the government than the aggregate will of the people. They're supposed to be the voice of reason who refuses to burn a witch in the midst of a rabid crowd carrying torches and pitchforks. Even if she weighs the same as a duck.

The democratic election process in a republic is not to guarantee that people get what they want, but to hold the leaders accountable to the people so they can't stray too far from their constituency. But in some cases, like the one described above, they can and should go against the will of the people.

Of course, whether the reality matches the ideal is certainly up for debate.

Re:Democracy

[digitig]

That used to work the other way around, too. When the police kept moving anti-apartheid protestors away from the South African embassy in London, the Church of Saint-Martin-in-the-Fields, right opposite the embassy, invited the protestors onto the church steps, where the police couldn't touch them because the protest was perfectly legal on private land with the consent of the landowner. Of course, now the protestors could just be served with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders on the grounds that they are annoying the neighbours :-(

Re:Democracy

[Daniel Dvorkin]

In a true democracy, the will of the people is followed. Right down to the burning of witches. A true democracy is better known as mob rule.

No, mob rule is mob rule. That's not the same thing as democracy, and it's an absurd bit of political rhetoric to claim that it is.

Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics.

Most democracies are also republics. New Zealand, however, most certainly is not a republic, although it is a democracy.

The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.

Those are the principles of any workable democratic system that anyone has ever devised, as long as you replace the word "ruled" with "run" in point (a). A republic is one way to implement those principles; a constitutional monarchy, which is what New Zealand has, is another. Americans, living in a republican democracy (or a "democratic republic," but that phrase has been hijacked by a type of government which creates emphatically non-democratic republics) tend to confuse the two.

Laws like this..

[retech]

...show just how grossly out of touch with reality governments have become.

Here's a few tips to any politician:

• Before you even propose a law learn exactly what it is you're discussing.
• Learn about the mechanical structure of the system.
• Understand the nuances of the way it interacts with society.
• And then ask your constituancy how they feel about it.

Cheques and balances

[tepples]

That would require a ridiculously complex system of checks and balances.

Easy: Lobbyist writes check, bank increases elected official's campaign committee's balance.

Govt Stubborn To The End

[mrpacmanjel]

I think the tag "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" could not be further from the truth!

After *Overwhelming* opposition via petitions, public outcry, comments from a "large ISP" and *Google* the "Govt" eventually backed down hours before this law passed.

This absolutely stinks of arrogance, grim determination and bloody-mindedness demonstrated by the "Govt" to try and *force* this law through despite widespread popular opinion and only backed-down at the last "conceivable moment".

If this was down to common sense the "Govt" would have abandonded this months ago or even at the earliest stages of discussion.

One way or another this law in some form is going to be passed. As other posts have said it will be pushed through some obscure law out of the publiic eye.

Obviously, the "Govt" do not think IT industry, Google and the *New Zealand People* are important enough to have an opinion.

Just look at the U.K. (where I live) to see what is happening.

Do now let this continue the fight is not over yet!

Any government should be the voice and representation of the people - we DO NOT serve the government for it's own purposes - THEY SERVE US.

*snore*

[upside]

"gubberment bad, people good", guaranteed positive mod points. Sure it's good to be sceptical but where is the insight in the parent post?

How about:

people> We want no taxes but good services.
people> We want more efficiency but no layoffs.
people> We want to drive big fat cars, cheap petrol, clean air and an end to funding nasty regimes
people> We want conspicuous consumption and a clean environment
people> We want total safety, zero risk, absolute liberty, no personal responsibility and no nannying from the state
govm't> *explodes*

It was a shady mafRIAA backroom deal

[w0mprat]

The politician who got this section slipped into the law, Judith Tizzard (Labour party MP), did so, right before an election and right before the end of her career. She retired.

Undoubtedly because it would have been the end of her political career in another way, if she was not retiring.

Scrap that, they picked someone on the way out to slip this in for them, it's an excellent way to find a fall guy, someone who won't be even be around to cop the backlash. The amendment was also made when it was clear Labour would not be getting re-elected. A party on it's way out so the new government could dodge some flak, if they had to can the legislation they can claim it's not their mess, and they get the brownie points for appearing to respond to the public backlash.

Does that sound like a shady mafRIAA backroom deal to you too?

You see, a government is expendable, if it pushes your dodgy legislation and becomes unpopular, it gets torn down at the next election, and the next batch of politicians are at your service, the one thing that remains constant is the players behind the scene you don't get to vote on.

Well back to the drawing board for the legislation. They've backed off, and will try again with something milder. Basically this kind of legislative push is intended to soften up the public and be more likely to accept whatever 'compromise' alternative law is offered.