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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Something still doesn't add up. Legally downloaded by who? If she legally downloaded the songs why would she have a friend make a compilation for her instead of doing it herself? I guess maybe if the music service has such a feature. I don't live in New Zealand, but I know eMusic doesn't do that, and I don't think iTunes does either. Could be something else I guess, but it still sounds like back peddling.
I do like that an elected official who has portion of the fate of her nation in her hands (albeit a small one) isn't bright enough to know how file sharing works....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Perhaps, but since it only requires accusations and not convictions, you can still wreck her day and get her banned.
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