Slashdot Mirror
NZ MP Enjoys Copyright Infringement, Votes For 3 Strikes
An anonymous reader writes "As New Zealand politicians are looking to rush through a new copyright law, 92A, which imposes a 'three strikes' regime on people accused of file sharing, some New Zealanders were a bit amused to see Parliament Member Melissa Lee stand up to speak in favor of the bill just hours after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend. Does that count as her first strike?"
Melissa Lee is just the National Party's token Asian, and after a by election shambles has probably risen about as far in the party as she is ever going to. She is not very smart, and every time she opens her mouth in public she proves it again. She is however quite nice looking, and probably brings a bunch of Asian votes.
This was voted upon under urgency and passed 111 to 11. The only chance of it not becoming law is if the Governor-General blocks it, but I don't think that ever happens.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Seconded. just goes to show that the government doesn't give a shit because they will never be personally persecuted for it, (or even have any idea on what copyright is).
New Zealand simply needs a national day of action, where three people place copyright infringement claims against every member of parliament who voted for the three strikes laws. Just to see what happens.
In fact it's probably worth putting in three infringement claims against everyone just to see how long it takes to shut NZ's internet down.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
From TFA:
Ok. Shower... Reading ... And then bed! listening to a compilation a friend did for me of K Pop. Fab. Thanks Jay.
So unless "Jay" is a Korean pop star, I'd say no.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.
No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.
The difference here is that you don't need to be found guilty of murder, I can just accuse you of it. Three accusations and you're off to jail.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Indeed, big media has gotten new media wrong for decades, if not centuries. However, for the first time in history we have the technology to support new media WITHOUT big media. It doesn't take a giant publisher to create a best selling book anymore and put it on e-readers, apps, itunes, or other distribution systems. Nor does it take big developers to distribute boxes of games or other products.
What we will eventually see is the decline (but not abolishment) of big media in favor of independent distributors. The point is that they can do anything they want for copyright laws but the internet and its users are much too savvy and agile . They can't stop the momentum and they'll keep throwing money at the problem thinking it will stop the hemorrhagic. How often do we see on /. articles about how piracy is the result of poor products not poor regulations. Ah who cares...
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
I think it's the same kind of problem that prevents most people from getting up in arms about DRM. They just don't make the connection between the physical world and the digital world. For most of us on Slashdot, we see music (or text, or video, or whatever) as just another data stream. We see data as being the same stuff regardless of the delivery medium. Other people see a fundamental difference between, say, an MP3 file and a CD.
When they have a CD, they have a solid thing in front of them that they can point at and say, 'there's my music'. With music on a computer that they got over the Internet, it's a lot harder to point at a thing. It's scary, because it's one thing to talk about copying a CD and ending up with a big pile of pirated CDs, and it's quite another to talk about copying an MP3, and suddenly there's potentially an infinite number of pirate copies with no obvious physical consequences. There are physical and monetary barriers to making a bazillion copies of a CD, but no boundaries at all to copying an MP3.
Of course, to us, it doesn't make any difference. We know that the data are the same regardless of media. And it's obvious to us that people like Lee should realize that getting a pirate compilation from her friend is the same thing that a lot of us do on the Internet with music files. But it's absolutely not obvious to her (at least, I assume, from the obvious dissonance between her actions and her words).
I'm not even trying to take a position pro- or anti- in this case; I'm more interested in Lee having a consistent opinion of music sharing than in what that opinion actually is.
Wouldn't the NZ equiv of the RIAA count it as at least one strike per track?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Loaning a CD or DVD to a friend is not a violation of copyright. Copyright is the monopoly right to make copies which is reserved to the copyright owner. A copyright owner doesn't have any inherent entitlement to control what happens to the copies that are sold, apart from activities that would infringe on the owner's copyrights (eg public performances & unlicensed copying). Re-sales and loans do not infringe provided that no copies are made.
That's why the software industry came up with the insidious concept of "licensing" rather than selling the copies of software that they distribute. That's why EULAs are, unfortunately, enforceable in many jursidictions - because the EULA states that something that looks like an outright purchase is actually just a one-sided bullshit licence contract.
EULAs don't apply to books, CDs, or DVDs.... yet. That's one more reason why streaming services represent a corrosion of consumer rights - they replace irrevocable sales of a physical object with revocable licence agreements for services that carry a huge number of additional obligations and restrictions on the licensee.
Don;t be silly - if I lend someone a DVD, no illegal copy has been made. How is it copyright infringement? Next you'll claim that if I lend you a book or a newspaper, it's copyright infringement.
Again, copyright infringement involves violation of the limitations on the right to make a copy. No copy of the DVD made, no copyright infringement.
That was true of the bill that was originally tabled, and rejected. But in this hastily resurrected form, the accusations do have to be reviewed by a "Copyright Tribunal", allowing the accused to mount a defence against the presumption of guilt. And if the tribunal decides that terminating your internet access is a fitting punishment, they then have to put it before a court.
I wonder if she even realizes her own hypocrisy? He video will most likely get slashdotted and she'll just see the numbers as support for her position.
As a long-time supporter for reduction of IP constraints, I get hurt more than most. Soon, my options to publish DRM free material may even be curtailed by such limited political attitudes and understanding.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
...are we being intentionally obtuse or just trolling? It's true that lending someone the original copyrighted CD you purchased is not an infringement of copyright. Making someone a new CD, however, is exactly that. Copy... right, get it? The author has control over copies of his and/or her work.
This is exactly the sort of thing we need to put a stop to! People enjoying music! If you're playing music in your car, driving down the street and someone else hears it, that's a public performance, and that's copyright infringement! If you make a song your ring tone and you didn't pay for it in ring tone format, that's a copyright infringement! If you hum a tune, that's copyright infringement! If you think about the jingle of that sub shop while you're buying a sub there, that's copyright infringement! Every single even remotely music-related thing you do on a daily basis should either generate revenue for the music industry or be considered copyright infringement! Now we've paid for the very best politicians money can buy to make this happen, so you people should mind your own business and go back to fucking sheep. And by the way, that tune that's playing when your're fucking sheep? Copyright infringement.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,
because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).
Keep reading. Somewhere after the above, and probably in small print, you will most likely find something like: except as allowed by law in your jurisdiction. Loaning a CD/DVD to a friend probably falls under fair use and is probably not considered "distribution" in a legal sense. MPAA bluffs and unenforceable terms do not make things illegal.
The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape. If P2P is effected by this law, then the actions are on roughly the same scale since mathematically, the average of p2p would be 1 copy uploaded and 1 copy downloaded. Given that it's a compilation, it's probably infringing multiple rightsholders, and if the law is written just right, it might mean that it's enough to strike her and her friend out already.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
So, by challenging the assumed guilt you must abandon the lower penalty of a few months offline and substitute a huge financial penalty when it goes to court. Notice I said "when" it goes to court, because even if the "Copyright Tribunal" rules in your favour the copyright behemoths will simply appeal to the courts anyway. Not much of a protection.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
As I understand it, copyright laws are only supposed to apply to the actual copying of data. Thus, if I copy a cassette tape, give it to you, and you play it, you aren't breaking the law unless you decide to copy the tape yourself.
File sharing is a bit of a different animal, legally speaking, since computers love to make copies. The content cartels have successfully argued that file sharing is illegal for both parties since uploaders are technically "copying" copyrighted data to send it over the Internet, and downloaders are "copying" that data to files on their computers.
Content corporations have even claimed that the transferring of information from a CD or hard drive into RAM is a prosecutable form of copying, in hopes of making the playing of pirated digital media a form of infringement. They've even famously tried to claim the ripping of legally purchased content to a computer or music player is infringement, but that's been rather successfully shot down. Naturally, that hasn't stopped them from trying to pull the same stunt for every new service that comes out—like Amazon's Cloud Player.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I'm not familiar with the laws in NZ but it's quite possible that Melissa Lee can't be charged with anything, if her friend simply gave her the collection on CD, and she hasn't ripped the songs to her computer or otherwise copied the data. She's throwing her friend under the bus, of course, but that's hardly new for politicians.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape.
Consider another scenario. Someone buys the songs from Apple iTunes and their license allows them to burn a CD to create a custom mix. This burned mix CD would be legal. As I said originally, its not certain there is a copyright violation in this case. Maybe there was but more info seems necessary.
The article only shows half the story.
Ms Lee said last night the compilation was made of songs that were legally downloaded and paid for. "I'm not a pirate. I have never downloaded anything illegally in my life." Earlier she had told the House she did not even know how file-sharing through peer-to-peer systems worked.
Source
In New Zealand, format shifting is legal.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
Loaning a disc to a friend isn't infringement unless you use a private copy while it is in their possession, since a single copy is changing hands.
Parliament Member Melissa Lee stand up to speak in favor of the bill
with
hours after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend
I get "Just doing what she is told to do without knowing or even asking why."
I.e., a good little corporate soldier.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
So did "jay" delete his mp3s when he lent her the CD?
Otherwise I'm seeing two copies, in two hands. Not one dude with a backup.
If he made 50 backups and lent them to his friends - is that allowed?
Not that I agree with the state of copyright or anything, but lending one 'backup' or format shift is just as wrong as lending the same to many people, no? Copies were created. There are multiple people in possession of copies concurrently, with only one licence paid.
Sent from my PDP-11
That's basically true. Although, things are a whole lot better for businesses if people are getting limited compilations of music, rather than going out and just pirating it off the internet. Why do I say that? It's because the transaction is very limited when someone gives you music - you're not getting the music you're after, you're getting maybe one or two songs from a musician (which potentially gives you an incentive to buy more), you're getting introduced to new music you didn't pick for yourself (which might cause you to go buy more), and the exchange is limited between a few friends which requires some time. (Copying each other's hard-drives full of music is a different issue, of course.) When you go and get it off the internet, then none of that applies because the minute you want more of that artist, you can just go and pirate the rest of their stuff. That's why I don't really look at music compilations passed between friends or handed out at weddings as being in the same league as full-scale piracy. I know people who, because of their access to piracy, think that paying for anything digital is a ridiculous waste of money. The scale of the piracy matters, just as taking a pen from someone's desk and not returning it isn't a huge deal, but we'd all agree that going to the supply closet and cleaning out entire boxes of pens is a different issue -- even though the only difference is the scale of the theft.
Not at all. You seem to be confusing two different things here. A few months offline is one of the penalties that will be available to the tribunal if the government minister in charge decides to activate that part of the bill at a future date (initially, fines will be the only penalty available). If the tribunal does decide to use suspension of internet access as a penalty at some point in future (assuming the government activates that part of the bill), they will be required to take your case to court. Separately, because the Copyright Tribunal has been added to the process in this version of the bill, there is an opportunity to defend against the three accusations before a penalty (whether it be a fine or loss of internet access) is imposed.
If the compilation of songs has three or more songs on it. It is ALL THREE STRIKES..
For her and her friend...
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Instead of war on poverty
They have a war on copyright so police can bother me.
And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do
Cos if the prices were fair I'd be giving it back to you.
You gotta operate the easy way,
(RIAA) - "I made a G today",
But you made it in a sleazy way -
Selling tracks to the kids, "I gotta get paid"
Well hey - It's just the way it...
-----
Increase the peace.
But thousands of people murdering thousands of people wouldn't be tolerated in any decent society.
Soooo, never heard of a little thing called war, now have we?
Lady Macbeth washed her hands frequently. I am sure one can draw parallels.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
You, sir, are completely missing the point.
The question is not whether it's that cut and dry legally. The point is it is that cut and dry LOGICALLY. The whole problem in the first place is that the law does not follow logic.
I buy ten CDs, mix a song from each to a new CD and loan THAT to a friend. She enjoyed that very much. But I am still in possession and able to use my original and paid-for music while she is ALSO able to listen to at least parts of that music.
If I make available my music collection to the world, I will still be able to listen to my music, while others partake of it as well, without paying the music industry. Just like in TFA.
Now either that's okay or it's not from an ethical standpoint. The scale of this thing does not come into play yet. That woman endorses two mutually exclusive concepts. And that's funny and sad at the same time. Ironic all around.
Perhaps, but since it only requires accusations and not convictions, you can still wreck her day and get her banned.
You being silly, the copy of the DVD is in your head! Now erase it before you loan it to other's!
Other's?
Other's fucking WHAT?
Jesus, I'm not a grammar nazi normally but dude, what the fuck is the point of the apostrophe in your sentence?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Loaning a otherwise legal copy via CD or DVD is illegal distribution. Not that it's likely to be enforced, but strictly speaking the law is quite clear.
Wrong. NZ's Copyright Act (Section 9) states:
(subsection 2 regards software, subsection 3 refers to rentals, neither of which are relevant here)
Translated into English, in New Zealand loaning, hiring or reselling an existing, authorised copy is specifically excluded from illegal distribution. That doesn't mean loaning is legal (other sections of the act may apply), just that the particular argument you're using is incorrect.
It's no different than a doctor playing a CD to the visitors in the clinic, that is also illegal distribution.
Wrong again. Handing out burned copies of the CD is illegal distribution, playing the CD is definitely an unauthorised public performance, the two are different sections of copyright law.
Blank until
yes it should.
Yes ... and no. I don't know how many songs were in the compilation, but doesn't the RIAA & 'big music' (and their international equivalents) sue based on each song constituting a violation? If the songs come from different music companies and/or governing bodies doesn't that count as multiple violations? She may be out of strikes already.
Isn't this pubic confession normally enough justification for a search of her home and car to determine if she has other compilations that have been illegally produced? It may not be the same as a French hacker's public admission but the music industry doesn't normally require much for someone to be guilty in their eyes.
Yes, those immortal words: "Out, damn'd spotify! out, I say!"
As has been said since the dawn of internet time, copyright infringement is NOT theft. They are different both in reality and more importantly, in the legal system. You can't use situations describing theft to explain your points regarding copyright infringement.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
No, it shouldn't count as her first strike.
"Compilation" implies to me that multiple files were involved, so it should count as her first and second strikes, and if that compilation involved three or more files her third strike as well.