US Offered To Draft NZ 3-Strikes Law, Fund Copyright Initiative

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has just posted hundreds of cables from US personnel in New Zealand that reveal regular government lobbying on copyright, offers to draft New Zealand three-strikes-and-you're-out legislation, and a recommendation to spend over NZ$500,000 to fund a recording industry-backed IP enforcement initiative. The funding raises the question of whether New Zealand is aware that local enforcement initiatives, including raids and court cases, have been funded by the US government."

Comments

See ?

[unity100]

I told before that, if you allow private interests take helm in one country, they spread their filth EVERYwhere. see there's the proof.

Re:See ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I told before that, if you allow private interests take helm in one country, they spread their filth EVERYwhere. see there's the proof.

No you didn't! If you HAD told me then I might have been able to do something about it but you didn't and I haven't.

Re:See ?

[cpghost]

The US Government is the best government (RIAA-)money can buy. Nothing new here...

Re:See ?

[TubeSteak]

The US Government is the best government (RIAA-)money can buy. Nothing new here...

Never forget that there are many tech/financial/multi-national companies that could buy the American record & movie industries outright with their spare cash.

Never stop asking "why can such a relatively small industry punch so far above its weight?"

Re:See ?

[jpapon]

You can't really measure the size of the movie industry by just looking at the size of the big Hollywood studios. First of all, they hide all their profits, so who knows how much money they REALLY make. Secondly, even if you bought a studio, you wouldn't get the people who actually MAKE the movies, ie actors and directors. Finally, their industry pulls so much weight because of the influence they have over the minds of people all over the world. If the government pisses off Apple, nothing of consequence is lost. However, if a politician pisses off a major studio, the studio could start producing movies/tv shows which bash the hell out of said politician, and millions of people would see it. It's just like bashing a newspaper, except that the studios can call it fiction and avoid defamation suits.

The studios wield power because they control what the general population sees, and to a large extent, thinks. They also have done a fantastic job of Americanizing the world.

Re:See ?

[The End Of Days]

What kind of government isn't run by private interests? Have you somehow constructed an AI to control us all?

Oh, wait, you meant "corporations" as private interests, right? Because you don't understand that corporations, like governments, are run by powerful people. You have this weird delusion that you can take the corruption out of the exercise of power simply by... I don't know what. You never explain that part. Care to fill it in?

Re:See ?

[sxpert]

Starr by replacing corruption prône humants at the helm by an AI sourds l'île an interesting proposition

Re:See ?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I wouldn't exactly call it proof. The actions are perfectly consistent with a country whose economy is significantly supported by exporting intellectual property. If that were the case, then this move would be in the best interests of the US population.

Re:See ?

[Luckyo]

Most people seem to miss the reason why this will NEVER be allowed and nipped in the bud.

Entertainment is the best, most functional propaganda arm of both capitalist system, and "american way". Abroad it has successfully advertised US system as working and US itself as a desirable. At the same time at home keeps US population itself pacified when its right are being trampled.

Do not underestimate the power of projected crowd control that entertainment industry is generating. For that reason alone, both government and current powerful interests will make sure key companies in entertainment industry will always remain in hands of those who will use them for their interests.

Re:See ?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, they hide all their profits, so who knows how much money they REALLY make.

They hide their profits from the actors by shuffling money among their subsidiaries. They can't hide the parent company profits from the SEC, their auditors, or (if they are public companies) the public.

Re:See ?

[unity100]

socialist governments, are not by private interests, if you say it in 'americanese'. for the rest of the world that actually knows what terms are, and uses them properly, SOCIAL DEMOCRAT governments, are not run by private interests.

this is the reason why private interests, be it corporations or powerful people owning them or other things, are so hostile to social democrat parties and try to provoke hate and instill fear in people against them.

Re:See ?

[unity100]

oh yes - you just rationalized and justified it - a government interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people, in another country, because private interests ask it.

Re:See ?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

oh yes - you just rationalized and justified it - a government interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people, in another country

How is one government offering to help another government "interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people"? It's an offer that the US government is making to the NZ government, which has the choice to accept or reject it. If the US offered financial aid to disaster-affected areas, would this counstrued similarly? Of course not. What makes them different? Of course, you would say:

because private interests ask it.

But, in my scenario, the government is not acting at the behest of private interests; it's working for the good of the public. Again, I claim that this scenario is consistent with what we've seen. Since, there is an alternative scenario which fits observations, you cannot possibly have proved, using these observations alone, that this scenario could not be true, and that your scenario is necessarily true.

Re:See ?

[unity100]

i dont know whether you are moron or not, but ill take the more positive perspective.

you assume 'offer to help' comes without 'pushing for it'. you paint it as if n zealanders have come up with the law themselves, and in all their charity, u.s. govt 'offered' to help them.

it is never the case, as seen in the case of spanish three strikes law. wikileaks cables show that u.s. govt BULLIED spanish government into putting out the law. which, was unanimously rejected in parliament because the cable went out to public.

my scenario is not necessarily true. it is the case. in all cases of these laws, there either has been bullying, or, funding for them to happen.

Re:See ?

[Legal.Troll]

Jesus, you are fantastically ignorant and dumb.

Re:See ?

[unity100]

dont carry over your shitty political experience in united states, to entire world.

really. i dont know whether i should respond to your typical american ignorance or not. it reeks of self-induced morondom.

there is NO relevance in between a 'democratic republic' and a 'social democracy'. moron. a democratic republic can have BOTH social democrat, or, capitalist parties in power. the GOVERNANCE method has no relevance to ECONOMIC policy. moreover, there is NO relevance in between a republic and socialist/capitalist mechanisms. a republic can house both. and moreover, let me clear a common ignorance/morondom you americans have in america - a republic does NOT mean FEDERAL. a republic can be both centralized like france, or, extremely federal like switzerland. BOTH ARE REPUBLICS.

the very fact that you have uttered 3 ignorant misconceptions the american far right uses in america to brainwash idiots, shows that you are of right wing of view. regardless of what you call yourself in the form of republican, libertarian or other bullshit :

i dont know where you pulled the "It's just that the citizens of the "social democrat" government have even less influence upon, or even knowledge of, those who are running their lives than the citizens of the democratic republic" bullshit.

probably out of your ignorant american ass, since it seems to have become a hallmark of your right wing brainwashed culture to invent such bullshit without even sparing a modicum amount of effort to actually LEARN things. but, i will reply and clear your ignorance, for the sake of those others who are reading this :

social democracy means policies are made by CITIZENS through DEMOCRATIC voting process, than the PRIVATE industry owners.

so, a citizen in a social democracy has MUCH MORE power over EVERYthing in the country, than a citizen under a capitalist/right wing party, because the ruling of economy, manufacturing, distribution of wealth and income is not left to the decision of PRIVATE individuals and interests.

whereas, in a government with a capitalist/right wing party, the citizen loses all the control it has over economy, because EVERything is left for the private interests to decide, in economy.

again, moron, there is NO relevance in between the FORM OF government, and the PARTY ruling it. if you are talking about democracy, capitalism is much less democratic than a socialist governance, because in capitalism, citizens allow decision making for economy based on how much an individual owns in wealth. the wealthier the individual/private interests, the more clout it has over economy. so in basics, capitalism is a NON DEMOCRATIC system of allocating resources - everyone's vote is NOT equal in economics, in capitalism. they are only equal in politics, but, the economic part of life in a capitalist governance eventually affects the political.

in a DEMOCRACY, there can be both social democrat, or capitalist/right wing parties. DEMOCRACY has nothing to do with socialism/capitalism. it can house both.

before attempting to carry over your shitty experience in your twisted right/far-right polarized nation, unlike the rest of the world which is left/right polarized, clear out your glaring ignorance first.

Re:See ?

[rhook]

It is worse than that, this is a blatant violation of national sovereignty.

Re:See ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the USA does anything extra for the RIAA or MPAA. If they did then the USA would have some of the toughest laws. They would make it a criminal offence so you could be spending 10 years in jail for downloading that pirated movie or song.

Re:See ?

[Rolaulten]

I'm willing to give the GP a little credit - mostly because I'm willing to guess he has his terms mixed up (or I am having a bout of kindness). Now I would like to point out quickly that their is a relation between the governance structural (liberal democracy, monarchy, etc) and the political economy of a given nation. Overarching trends tend to be that the more a government resembles a unity government the more the political economy will be dominated by the government (for example the UK in the 70's) - and I'm not going into the hotbed of communist countries and their political economies. Now what does this have to do with the populations interaction with the government? None (except that in a state led economy the average person 'interacts' with the government a lot more), the populations interaction (and the power over) is only based on how the political culture functions - which changes based on the rules and norms governing a given society

Re:See ?

[atomicbutterfly]

Sounds like you're unable to enjoy any movies/music/gaming without continually analyzing it for "ulterior" motives. How is that fun in any way?

Re:See ?

[mikeabbott420]

the most creative people in Hollywood are the accountants and the opportunities to hide money within private subcontractors all over the world in movie making seem endless.

Re:See ?

[Aryden]

yes, they do. They can do this by "purchasing" services from subsidiaries that lose money, thereby showing a "loss" to the bottom line on both accounts. They also "hide" money via payoffs to unions such as I.A.T.S.E. They also film movies in the 44 or so states that offer massive tax incentives. They film and receive massive tax breaks, then artificially inflate the "cost" of the movie/show so that they can show it as a loss. Additionally, they intentionally film movies and shows that will lose them money and never be published or seen by anyone other than the post-production crews so that they can artificially "decrease" their profit margins to force their company into lower corporate tax brackets.

I've done quite a bit of software work for the film industry in the advertising and administration departments as well as the film unions. These folks toss around money like they just printed it on one of the back lots, and it's just so they can better hide the real profits they make.

Re:See ?

[Aryden]

They are working on it. Currently, they have this thing called the constitution that they have to contend with. Give it a few more years, and I can assure you, 1 song will land you a minimum of 1 year and since you will most likely be committing the crime across state/federal borders, it will be a federal crime.

Re:See ?

[mikeabbott420]

There is no american value cabal secretly controlling media. Most media is advertising supported, the ads they contain influence both the viewer and the content they are carried in. There are specifically and openly designed to influence behavior directly. They also openly pay the people who decide what news stories get more or less attention and how those stories are spun. There is no need for conspiracy, american values primarily relate to consumerism in their influence world wide. The primary purpose of advertising supported media is to influence people to consume. this isn't the stone cutters

Re:See ?

[Aryden]

You toss this term "moron" around quite a bit. I think the word you are looking for is actually "ignorant" seeing as how moron tends to denote somone that can't actually help being "stupid or lacking in good judgement". Yes, the US media is well known for bandying around words such as "socialist/socialism" etc and using them incorrectly. And I will agree that it is most definitely so that they can scare the populace into agreeing with them, siding against certain policies or groups or to keep them scratching their heads. The most important thing that I try to make people understand is that, the current news media seen daily in the US is ENTERTAINMENT. It is funded by advertisements, it is meant to keep you watching. Once you begin to see it like you would "Friends" or "House" or "Eureka" it all makes more sense and just becomes another one of those shows you don't watch.

Re:See ?

[Kalriath]

They can't hide the parent company profits from the SEC, their auditors, or (if they are public companies) the public.

It's easier than you think. Just bounce it via a foreign corporation, which does not have reporting requirements.

Re:See ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, this HDTV is beaming government mind control rays directly into my eyes?

Re:See ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no american value cabal secretly controlling media. Most media is advertising supported, the ads they contain influence both the viewer and the content they are carried in. There are specifically and openly designed to influence behavior directly. They also openly pay the people who decide what news stories get more or less attention and how those stories are spun. There is no need for conspiracy, american values primarily relate to consumerism in their influence world wide. The primary purpose of advertising supported media is to influence people to consume. this isn't the stone cutters

See, now that's exactly what I would expect a cabal shill to say. You've just revealed your hand!! Your secret, invisible hand!!

Re:See ?

[Luckyo]

You mix up "content creators" and "media".

Error on scale of mixing "strategy" and "tactics".

Re:See ?

[Luckyo]

Only if when talking about US waging wars for oil, we're talking about secret agents hiding plans for cold fusion.

Re:See ?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

i dont know whether you are moron or not

I do.

you assume 'offer to help' comes without 'pushing for it'

I don't. There's a distinction here that you're not comprehending. I'm not saying this is what actually happened, I'm saying that everything we've observed is consistent with this happening. So, simply from our observations, there is no proof that you talked about.

I'm sorry, but you're frothy-mouthed zealotry is causing you to make the assumptions, not just about what is happening out there, but also about what I'm saying.

Re:See ?

[LesFerg]

Well by that reckoning, wouldn't they *want* people to be able to download the propaganda for free?

Re:See ?

[rtb61]

It is new, that the New Zealand government will sell out it's own citizens interests, to suit US corporate interests. Punishing whole New Zealand families because of insatiable US corporate greed. Now that is new and really pathetically lame. New Zealand has surrender innocent until proven guilty for it's in fact going so far as guilt upon accusation and even what looks like another countries government, one for sale to the highest bidder, to write New Zealander's laws for them against New Zealander's interests. Sounds like New Zealander's better watch and for Americans wearing oversized gumboots and asking them to bend over.

Re:See ?

[BlueStrat]

Actually, I did use the incorrect terms. I meant a "representative republic" (as outlined in the US Constitution) rather than "democratic republic".

The major reason that the economy of the US grew to become the largest and fastest-growing, far outstripping the more socialist-leaning governments is due in main to the ability to engage in a relatively free market capitalist economy. The more capitalism was allowed to flourish, the better off the economies and people were and are. Until recently, the US under a representative republic was the most capitalistic nation, and thus reaped the rewards of a huge, vital, and growing economy with the highest standard of living and best conditions for it's workers.

See my /. sig. Capitalism has created more wealth, raised more poor out of poverty, and created the highest standard of living for the most people of any other system yet devised, period. The reason the US is in the trouble it's in is almost entirely due to those in power ignoring this fact for over 60 years and implementing ever-more socialist/statist policies along with an ever-growing government that removes wealth from the economy to the detriment of the ability of capitalism to function.

I don't hate rich capitalists. I want the opportunity to become one myself. I don't want a government that destroys it, but only sees that laws are followed. I want the children to have that opportunity as well. Heck, I want everyone and all their kids to have that same opportunity. Therefor, I advocate for systems of government most likely to promote that opportunity. History plainly demonstrates what form of government works best to that end.

Strat

Re:See ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't. There's a distinction here that you're not comprehending. I'm not saying this is what actually happened, I'm saying that everything we've observed is consistent with this happening. So, simply from our observations, there is no proof that you talked about.

Proof? No. But since we've seen them use the kind of strong-arm tactics elsewhere and try to keep it hidden, it seems pretty reasonable to believe they would do the same here. We wouldn't have had proof of it ever happening if it hadn't been for the leaking of certain documents. I don't see why we have any reason to give the government the benefit of the doubt in this case. Seems like doing so is basically sticking our heads in the sand. At this point, the government should have to prove that it didn't use the same tactics it used elsewhere.

Re:See ?

[Luckyo]

Yes and no. One of the main aspects of best propaganda tool is that it must be both self-sustaining and appear prestigious. That requires concept of limited availability (prestige if you have it) and payment (self-sustainability).

On the other hand, they can rely on mass media networks to spread material to general masses for "free" (ad supported). This has been done successfully on global scale already.

Re:See ?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I see what you're saying, and I see that you see what I was saying (unlike the OP). I like to be careful around this topic, since it's filled with misinformation. You see, there's an entire ideology called Libertarianism (perhaps you've heard of it) that believes that the government should never be given the benefit of the doubt, and that when there is any lack of, or ambiguity in, information about the government's behaviour, the worst should automatically be assumed.

That works fine for maintaining a free society, but I start to get worried when people start muddling conjecture with fact. I get even more worried when they start arguing from conjecture rather than fact. They convince others of the conjecture's truth, simply by making sound like established fact. That's why I felt the need to respond when the OP claimed loudly that he had proof that the US government's corruption was spreading (notice the implicit use of the "fact" that the US government is corrupt, which has not been properly established to my knowledge).

So, in the spirit of sorting conjecture from fact, any chance you could dig up some of these documents? I would like to see them and judge for myself exactly what they prove. It's nothing personal, but I see there is a possibility that you, or the people who explained the gist of them to you, read them under the assumption of wrongdoing, and in doing so, exaggerated any actual evidence of wrongdoing. So, yeah, if you could dig up any of those documents, I would appreciate it.

Re:See ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in the spirit of sorting conjecture from fact, any chance you could dig up some of these documents? I would like to see them and judge for myself exactly what they prove. It's nothing personal, but I see there is a possibility that you, or the people who explained the gist of them to you, read them under the assumption of wrongdoing, and in doing so, exaggerated any actual evidence of wrongdoing. So, yeah, if you could dig up any of those documents, I would appreciate it.

Sorry, I know of the documents, but have never actually read them, as I'm prohibited from doing so, as they are technically still classified documents. They are easy enough to find if you search for leaked documents regarding the US strong-arming of Spain. From what I've heard, they were pretty explicit about the fact that it was US coercion that lead to the introduction of the 3-strikes legislation there.

Re:See ?

[unity100]

Actually, I did use the incorrect terms. I meant a "representative republic" (as outlined in the US Constitution) rather than "democratic republic".

such definitions are definitions you americans made out of your asses. there is nothing like 'representative republic'. in ANY given republic, you HAVE to elect representatives. so ALL kind of democratic forms of government, are representative. this is why they are dubbed 'representative'. representation is not something that comes out of your ass.

the only other form is direct democracy. which is not possible (or was) before these times due to the problems of communication and voting. it could only be applied in small communities.

ALL KINDS OF DEMOCRACIES ARE REPRESENTATIVE. there is no distinction like 'republic'.

The major reason that the economy of the US grew to become the largest and fastest-growing, far outstripping the more socialist-leaning governments is due in main to the ability to engage in a relatively free market capitalist economy. The more capitalism was allowed to flourish, the better off the economies and people were and are. Until recently, the US under a representative republic was the most capitalistic nation, and thus reaped the rewards of a huge, vital, and growing economy with the highest standard of living and best conditions for it's workers.

the major reason economy of u.s. grew to become the largest and fastest growing economy on the planet, was because u.s. was plundering and ransacking the entire available north american continent, and at the point the land rush ended, they built the 'white fleet' and started doing imperialism and colonialism starting end of 19th century. bar the isolation of monroe. but even by then, u.s. already declared americas to be its backyard in practice, and had had already dominionated cuba. after monroe's brief isolationism, after ww 2, u.s. took on a totally colonial nature and attempted to dominate every country except china, russia and india, and oftimes used installed dictators for that.

yes, you have far outstripped any other country, because they were not so rash in colonizing like you.

ah - it is as such for ALL other successful capitalist economies - economy of britain from mid 18th century to early 20th century, is a story of plundering americas, and then, more importantly india. had they had not the slave market, they would not be able to base their wealth on close to a billion indians.

there is no country which did not engage in direct or indirect colonialism and imperialism, and has not grabbed any other country as markets, and became successful with capitalism. period.

socialist countries, despite having less resources, less population, and almost NO markets, had had maintained much better values than the successful capitalist countries afforded to their poor citizens.

actually, social democrat countries of northern europe, FAR SURPASSED anyone, anything. despite their nonexistent population, resources, and hostile climate, they are on top of human development index on the planet. that includes the shithole that you call america and think to be on top of the world. you arent. you are in 10th place.

The reason the US is in the trouble it's in is almost entirely due to those in power ignoring this fact for over 60 years and implementing ever-more socialist/statist policies along with an ever-growing government that removes wealth from the economy to the detriment of the ability of capitalism to function.

you right winger moron. are the socialist policies the reason for the 72% of wealth/income concentrating on 5% of the population ? you fucking idiot.

i stop right here. you are not worth the effort. you dont know shit. no, really, you dont know shit. i had responded to 3 titles of right-wing propaganda that you had accepted to your inner world in the above excerpts, and had conveyed a good deal of important histo

Re:See ?

[unity100]

it is impossible to separate economy and politics. see, in capitalist america, can you stand ANY chance, if you dont have the funds to mount a campaign ? no, you dont. you dont have a chance, even if you have the funds, if the more powerful power centers in economy dont want you - they will spend more than you to advertise against you, and for their candidate, and you will lose.

average person has NO chance.

really. it was the enlightenment age's pioneers morondom to think that a society unequal in wealth in individuals, could be equal in politics. the one with the gold makes the rule.

Re:See ?

[KingBenny]

that makes total sense to me, it's clear mainstream media (movies and series) portray one moral mindset, its why i rarely enjoy hollywood movies anymore, somehow love always saves the day, something i havent experienced a lot irl :)

3 strikes you're out?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about 3 strikes until a new wireless mesh network spawns?

Re:3 strikes you're out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Co-operative fibre lines hold more appeal for me. I doubt wireless is up to the task.

Re:3 strikes you're out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless mesh network? Yes please! Any pointers where to look?

Re:3 strikes you're out?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm sure if you periodically transmit the message "No law enforcement", nobody will police it.

Re:3 strikes you're out?

[AK Marc]

When almost all plans are metered, and the prices if you want to become your own ISP are many times the cost of the US (if you haven't noticed, New Zealand is an island), people spontaneously giving away thousands of dollars per month worth of bandwidth to help random anonymous people won't happen. Though the few places with free Internet (only governmental organizations, aside from some commercial temporary passworded connections like starbucks) may still be safe havens.

Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'd heard anyone claim that the US is literally (offering to) writing other countries' IP laws, I'd tell them to remove their tinfoil hats. If these leaked memos are accurate, I guess I was being very naive thinking that.

Re:Jesus

[zach_the_lizard]

The intense government lobbying for tougher copyright laws is not new, just the specific revelations ("We'll even write your laws for you!")

Re:Jesus

[Seumas]

And enforce them for you.

Re:Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true for so much of the leaks. There's just a lot of people who will claim you have no evidence and dismiss you and everything you stand for as delusional. Now there's evidence and it's not so easily deniable. At least people in other countries get to see where US interference (by which I mean non-public exercises of power) in their policy and governance occurs so they can resist it.

Re:Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just that, but people in the US get to see some of the stupid things our government spends our money on. In this case, not just stupid - but anti-people stuff. We already have ridiculous copyright laws in the US. We need to fix those laws / terms - not export them to other places. I'm not sure what the industry has sold the folks in government on - probably a combination of bribes and "if people steal our stuff, the economy will crash". With so many people apathetic about this, I don't know how we can stop it.

Re:Jesus

[clang_jangle]

If I'd heard anyone claim that the US is literally (offering to) writing other countries' IP laws, I'd tell them to remove their tinfoil hats.

It isn't "the US" per se, it's US government being used to enforce the mafiAA's agenda. This sort of corruption is rampant and it's every US taxpayer's burden. We desperately need to take back our government from the large, corporate interests which are systematically bleeding all the wealth from this country.

If these leaked memos are accurate, I guess I was being very naive thinking that.

Indeed.

Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

NZ will wuss out on ANZUS and won't do much to change the situation but let's bullshit like this occur.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, dude, but we let the ANZUS treaty lapse about 20 years ago, with support of the majority of the population. We don't WANT to change the situation. Obvious troll is obvious.

As far as "let's bullshit like this occur," I have to note. The first is that most of the people in this country are selfish and lazy dicks who only care about getting their own. Once they have theirs, they go all quiet. They believe whatever line is currently coming out of the government. So yes, we will definitely just lay down and let this bullshit occur. It's absolutely pathetic and completely frustrating.

Come on.

[Seumas]

If we're going to be imperialists, let's go all the way and at least get some land out of it so we can all benefit; not just the corporations!

Re:Come on.

[Ant P.]

What makes you think america gets to be imperialists? You are just another land the corporations own.

Re:Come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

It has never been the point of imperialism/colonialism for everyone to benefit from it.
In fact even land grabs have never been the point of it, that's just a means to an end: control over the economy.

I'm outraged!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm outraged!

The US government is not doing things they should be again. Last time I checked, the government is supposed to represent "the people" of the USA.

I can assure you, we, citizens of the USA, do not want to meddle into NZ lawmaking. Our government shouldn't be doing this. I'll write my senators.

Re:I'm outraged!

[Seumas]

Yes, but corporations are people, too. And, therefore, are also the people.

Re:I'm outraged!

[f16c]

Corporations are NOT people.Corporations may be made up of people acting in concert but are a legal construct and should be treated that way with legal rights limitations. Corporate bullshit seems may be running the country only because the nobody pays attention to this stuff which is broadcast here but mostly ignored by TV (corporate sponsored) news outlets. Our ignorance is gonna kill us.

Re:I'm outraged!

[Seumas]

Corporations ARE people. They are deemed artificial persons with all the Constitutional protections and rights of 'real' people (and the added benefits of a corporation, to boot). The SCOTUS has upheld this in their previous decisions. Therefore, if a corporation is a person and you are a person, and this is a country of "we the people", then representing the interests of a Fortune 100 that happens to line the coffers of political campaigns and legislative actions becomes just as viable and just as much a duty of office as the interest of you and me.Well, more-so, I suppose -- since I'm certainly not donating any finances to their campaigns.

You and I may not agree with the concept of Corporate Personhood, but that doesn't change the reality of it.

Re:I'm outraged!

[clang_jangle]

Corporations ARE people. They are deemed artificial persons with all the Constitutional protections and rights of 'real' people (and the added benefits of a corporation, to boot). The SCOTUS has upheld this in their previous decisions.

Words on paper do not have the power to redefine reality. Corporations are *not* people. SCOTUS is corrupt and their rulings mean nothing IRL. The fact that so many people tolerate this kind of silly word juggling doesn't help, either.
***glare***

Re:I'm outraged!

[fahrbot-bot]

Corporations ARE people. They are deemed artificial persons with all the Constitutional protections and rights of 'real' people ... The SCOTUS has upheld this in their previous decisions.

Too bad corporations aren't burdened with any of the personal/social responsibilities of people. Sure, they can't literally vote, but their money serves as a good proxy. They can't easily be jailed or otherwise punished - in a manner that would directly affect those actually running the corporation. They aren't subject to the same tax rules, or in many cases, laws, as people. SCOTUS is wrong; corporations are not people. But, perhaps, that's just my thinking.

Re:I'm outraged!

[AK Marc]

The Supreme Court decision could be overturned with a single law. The Supreme Court rules on what the laws currently say. And the laws (not the Constitution) give corporations personhood. A law clarifying this would "trump" the rulings. But Congress likes treating decisions as laws because it helps another branch write bad laws and have the parties blame the courts. Blaming the Supreme Court for bad decisions is another way the two major parties work really hard to keep our system a two-party system.

The real solution is a multi-party system. But that would never happen. The entrenched parties agree on nothing, unless you start talking about systems that would hand any power to 3rd parties.

Re:I'm outraged!

[f16c]

I would believe that if the laws as they are written for US are the same as applied to THEM. There is no attempt at justice or equality. Corporations are treated as a protected class under the law in comparison to the population at large. When they tax corporations at the same real rate, allow them to vote and require the same responsibilities of corporations as they do people I will believe you.

I will also leave for Europe and not return because then the wackos have won and the rest of us are totally screwed. Treating this fiction as reality under the law means that there is no chance or intent towards either justice or fairness under the law. They can call the law anything they want but there needs to be one or the other to continue to call the system of laws in the US "Justice".

Re:I'm outraged!

[Anonymous Coward]

Our government shouldn't be doing this. I'll write my senators.

Thank you. I appreciate it a lot. Presumably a large number of us do.

Re:I'm outraged!

[Aryden]

reality IS defined by the words on the paper that SCOTUS says is the law. SCOTUS upholds a shitty law, you violate that law, in reality, you are punished for that violation. In our current reality, corporations are considered people and thereby gain the rights of a person to influence the system as they see fit.

Re:I'm outraged!

[Aryden]

Technically speaking, the court's job is to interpret the laws created by congress. Therefor, the interpretation of a law is the law since decisions trickle down from SCOTUS to the lower courts and cannot be overturned by lower courts.

Re:I'm outraged!

[AK Marc]

If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it's generally binding on the lower courts. However, if the finding is about a specific law, and that law is changed, then the lower courts are not held to the Supreme Court ruling anymore. That's the point. The Supreme Court may interpret the law, but it is no "higher" than the law itself, and Congress could change that any time they feel like it.

Re:I'm outraged!

[Aryden]

yes, IF the law is changed. Any ruling on a law that predates the modification of that law is then no longer binding IF the ruling pertained to the specific portion of the law that was changed.

Re:I'm outraged!

[AK Marc]

Yes, that's what I said in my first post in this thread. But I'm glad you finally caught up. Now, did you have anything to add to the conversation, other than your obvious lack of reading comprehension?

Re:I'm outraged!

[Aryden]

no, you said the decision would be overturned. It would not be. It would still be binding on whatever case the decision was based on. Congress can rewrite the law all they want, but SCOTUS can continually, with near impunity, interpret that law anyway they want to as long as they can provide some form of constitutional justification.

The real solution is a multi-party system. But that would never happen. The entrenched parties agree on nothing, unless you start talking about systems that would hand any power to 3rd parties.

If you want more parties, convince more people to vote other than Democrat/Republican, it's the only way it's going to really happen.

Re:I'm outraged!

[AK Marc]

The decision, as it related to being binding on lower courts for future cases, would be "overturned" by Congress by passing a law that renders the decision moot.

If you want to debate whether "overturned" is an inappropriate word for that sentence, that's a completely different argument than whether the decision in question would be moot. And you argued about whether the decision would be rendered moot.

If you want more parties, convince more people to vote other than Democrat/Republican, it's the only way it's going to really happen.

The Republicrats spend billions to convince people that there can be only two. I can't compete with that, even if I'm right. It's actually cheaper and easier to just move to another country to improve my quality of life. If enough instant runoff systems can be instituted on a local scale, then we'd be free of the two-party hold, but even that gets massive push-back from the Republicrats because they know it could lead to 3rd parties as well.

Re:I'm outraged!

[Aryden]

and again, it's not a matter of congress changing a law, as the preceding decision would still be binding.

The Republicrats spend billions to convince people that there can be only two. I can't compete with that, even if I'm right. It's actually cheaper and easier to just move to another country to improve my quality of life. If enough instant runoff systems can be instituted on a local scale, then we'd be free of the two-party hold, but even that gets massive push-back from the Republicrats because they know it could lead to 3rd parties as well.

I had the very same thoughts. Leaving and taking up residence elsewhere. However, truthfully, it would just be running away from a problem and not facing it head on as it should be. Yes, the parties have millions and millions of dollars to throw around to fight against additional parties being added to the system, but you have the power of word, you have facebook, you have petitions, you have the ability to work to change the system. That is the defining beauty of the US system. Instant runoffs could definitely help, but only a few places use the system and it needs to become more widespread, but as it does so, it will meet opposition by the parties just as strongly as any movement to add n number of new parties. I despise the party system.

Re:I'm outraged!

[AK Marc]

and again, it's not a matter of congress changing a law, as the preceding decision would still be binding.

The preceding decision would not be binding on lower courts. If the Supreme Court decides that, under the Title IX law, that funding for male and female sports should be substantially similar, then a change to the law in question will free all the lower court from following the Supreme Court ruling. The case in question may still be held to be settled as per the previous law, but often the law changes such that the previous case will have the outcome change as well. Without more details as to what changed and how, the previous case decision may simply be invalid, and thus binding on no one. But since this is a hypothetical situation, there is no way to tell and an example could be crafted either way.

Leaving and taking up residence elsewhere. However, truthfully, it would just be running away from a problem and not facing it head on as it should be.

I disagree 100%. Your ancestors "gave up" on their life elsewhere to move where you are now. Are you descended from a bunch of quitters, with quitter in your blood? Or are you descended from opportunists who saw the chance for a better life in America and moved. Now that America is in decline, it would make sense for those that moved here for the same reasons to look to moving elsewhere. But for whatever reason, a country based on mass immigration hates immigrants and even more so hates emigrants. I can't explain it, but I think it has to do with irrational nationalism, which is another reason to leave, not stay. When nationalism is strongest is when the blinders are put on and people will choose the wrong path because the right one would require admitting some previous error/weakness by their country.

What did you expect?

[JockTroll]

The industry mafia will stop at absolutely nothing in its march to take over the Internet and have all of the world's laws turned in their favor. Given that this will lead to unprecedented tyranny over all of us, and that there is absolutely no legal recourse because laws have already been bought and paid for by them, it is absolutely clear that any person working for them and any office or agency tied to them is a legitimate military target. Lay down your useless keyboards and take arms NOW.

This is the second way America tries to invade

[Snaller]

The first way of course being sending in military and bombing the place.
The second way is of course this, spreading their greedy imperialism to all countries - or as the Borg would say ASSIMILATE

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing, really. Not only did they insist that the NZ government keep ACTA a secret from its people (all attendee's people, actually)

But they stepped in to assist in re-drafting the bill to make it more palatable & passable, for NZ legislators

and instructed the government to implement a new security force to enforce it, even offering to assist in its initial funding. All that's missing is an offer to have American troops enforce the law for them.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[Anonymous Coward]

New Zealanders should hold a day of rage and instigate a take down of all foreign originated copyright laws and the treacherous politicians who cooperated with foreign governments against New Zealanders' freedoms. New Zealanders must instigate laws preventing minority interest politicians from ever undertaking this kind of treachery again.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, y'know, just vote them out of office and repeal the law.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[AHuxley]

But from the US end its win win win :)
NZ is made safe as a consumer of US export quality media, the US gov can offer 'aid' to NZ. US security contractors know how to thank the US political system as NZ requests flow.
Nothing really new in a classic US trade deal. Whats in it for NZ legislators :)

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[SuricouRaven]

A Day of Rage is for use after efforts at political reform via conventional means have failed. Right now, copyright is an issue on which the vast majority just don't care.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[The End Of Days]

In any case, the only people this "wrongs" are those who want the right to plunder the creative output of the entertainment makers.

You'll have to forgive me for saying "whoopdee shit."

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because entertainment is always created "ex nihil". Everybody knows that.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[AK Marc]

But the issue is, vote them out of office with whom? When the punishment for treason is a pat on the back and a pension (I don't know if NZ MPs get a pension, but the US congresscritters get a nice one), then what discourages the next guy from taking a bribe to push a foreign power's interests over their own people? It might cost the US a little more because they'll have to bribe more people, but the result will be the same...

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're right. The law doesn't affect innocent people at all!

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[Anonymous Coward]

The first way of course being sending in military and bombing the place.

Thank Allah He didn't bless you with an abundance of oil.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[Kalriath]

Not so. The law is also specifically written to hold the account holder of a connection (whether it be a company, household, public library, hospital, or even parliament itself) responsible for any infringing activity on that connection, whether it be because of a free public wifi, insecure hotspot, internet kiosk, trojan/rootkit, or even 11-year old nephews.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade

[Kalriath]

Actually, New Zealand has quite a significant lot of oil.

Glad I am not a kiwi...

[jonwil]

Glad I am not a kiwi...
Oh wait, this kind of crap is probably going on here in Australia just as much as it is across the pond.

The real trick is to vote for people who DON'T support the ever increasing power of big content companies. And unlike the USA, here in Australia such people actually stand a chance of getting elected (and in fact a number of such people are currently in parliament, including the Australian Greens)

No idea whether such parties or politicians exist in New Zealand but if they do, vote for someone that isn't going to bow down before SONY or Warner or News Corp or Disney.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[lul_wat]

In NZ we currently have 7 parties in parliment. Unfortunately the party in power is the pro-business National Party and their supply party (to make a majority) ACT which is Big Businesses wet-dream party. They would sell their own grandmother.

Roll on the November election.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Nerdfest]

It's going on in Canada as well.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

All this coming election will see is us ruled by a National-ACT alliance. Funny how we're ruled by them, not led. It was the same under Labour-Greens, as well.

But anyway, just watch. We'll get ourselves a New Zealand fire sale. "Everything must go!" They'll sell everything that's not nailed down. Medical insurance, health services, they've already started on prisons and they're pushing for education. Kiwibank's next.

Too bad if you've just bought a house like I have. If I hadn't, I'd be fucking off to another country and taking my student loan with me.

I hate these rich money grubbing pricks. They're doing everything to scupper the country, so their foreign investments pay better for them, and with the US dollar sinking like a stone, I can see our economy tanking.

Back in 1987, I remember seeing the government of the day pushing the idea that tertiary students were bludgers, wanting a free education so they could be highly paid and not have to pay for it. I expected that I'd see it again - and I was right. Look at them now, blaming a mixture of the recession and the Christchurch earthquake recovery on student loans. "Oh, if only those greedy ungrateful students would pay off their student loans, the recovery in Christchurch would cost NOTHING." Yeah, because that money wouldn't have been blown on limosines or houses for the fat cunts in power, or perhaps to pay for their tax cuts. Remember those? Yeah, the ones that cause us to borrow millions a week to pay for them, but it's our fault for not saving. Right, I can fucking save on my minimum wage, that went up less than the dole. My science degree's really helping me out there.

The one I always liked was Key's rhetoric on how we're all in this recession together, and how we have to weather it as a country. I'm sure he fucking noticed it, with his $55 million in the bank and his $400k/year salary. You realise why he donates that to charity? So he can write it off in taxes, and get the good publicity from it. Yeah, he definitely noticed it, in the amount of food he can buy, or how much he can run the heater at night, or even whether he can drive to work. Wait, you mean he gets a government funded limo? He doesn't even have to pay for parking? Fuck. I have to pay for parking and fuel, and it costs me a higher percent of my wage than it would cost that prick.

The one thing that impresses about National is how good their spin team is.

But the real question is, what way is the best way to vote? Labour are a fucking mess, led by a gormless twit. If the Greens get sole power, which they won't, we'll be rendered a third world agrarian economy overnight. If National stay in, we'll be a third world state, with low, low wages. The only way it could be worse is if ACT get in, and all they'll do is implement the same fire sale policies that National have planned. Brash and Key are best chums, you know. I wonder what they held over Hide to get him to drop leadership. Information that might be released to the public?

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

>And unlike the USA, here in Australia such people actually stand a chance of getting elected

So does this mean Australia will be sending troops to liberate nations such as the US and spreading democracy and freedom around the world?

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[rjames13]

So does this mean Australia will be sending troops to liberate nations such as the US and spreading democracy and freedom around the world?

Why would we bother?

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[AK Marc]

So, where's the pirate party?

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, where's the pirate party?

Unfortunately still trying to get enough members to register as a political party to contest the general election. Join Here http://pirateparty.org.nz/

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot. Labour drafted the original Act and they voted for the Act that passed under urgency. They are no better

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

So who do we vote for? Don't forget that the bill was passed with 111 votes to 11. It was supported by the Labour Party just as much as it was by the National Party. The Green Party only opposed the bill because they "sought to remove the clause that allows for suspension of internet accounts as a penalty" - they wanted a different penalty but had no problem with the rest of the bill.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[lul_wat]

Mod up.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a New Zealand businessman let me make the point that National are not pro-business, they are pro-big-business. And yes ACT are even worse.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I take it Labour voted against the new proposal?

No they didn't. In fact, Labour started it. And what problem do you have with business?

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

It already happened in Australia under John Howard...

We do not have a 3 strikes as such but IP holders can send letters to your isp and have your isp disconnect you (depending on your isp, some just ignore the letters). We have a Australian DCMA and had modifications done to our copyright act (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_copyright_law#Copyright_Amendment_Act_2006)

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Kalriath]

Labour-Green is nowhere near as disastrous as anything involving the disgustingly racist Maori Party. All about creating two sets of laws, one for the Maoris and one for everyone else. I pray noone is stupid enough to vote for Mana, with Mr Harawira (you know, the guy who referred to all Europeans as "land-stealing white mother-fuckers") in charge.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the problem, isn't it? Those dumb-arses voting for it because Skynet is from the movie Terminator, and is therefore evil. And file sharing? Well fuck, anybody who has a V8 car must be going to race through the streets at full speed because that's the only use that would have.

I'm really starting to hate the people of this country, they just don't give a fuck once they've got their own.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi...

[Anonymous Coward]

In NZ we currently have 7 parties in parliment. Unfortunately the party in power is the pro-business National Party

The other major party also voted in favour of the "prove your innocence or pay a fine" three-strikes law.

I'm from New Zealand

[lul_wat]

We recently had a 3-strikes law rushed through parliment by the current government (which is a gross mis-use of power).

I'd like to share this video which demonstrates the level of understanding our MP's have

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJdPkrpFXBM

Re:I'm from New Zealand

[TaoPhoenix]

New Zealand didn't make that Freedom on the Net report. Neither did France, another forerunner in 3-strikes.

Re:I'm from New Zealand

[daktari]

That video is rather annoying to watch. What does Miss South Carolina have to do with this? It also doesn't seem fair to take snippets of speeches and mix 'em up like that. Why not link to the original speeches? They're much scarier!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfGYfg37aUA

Re:I'm from New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been signs in France that the government might reconsider the 3 strikes law in favor of a tax...

That means no more witch hunting BUT it means everyone has to pay the entertainment industry with that tax...

Re:I'm from New Zealand

[SuricouRaven]

But it won't be *just* a tax. Many countries already have a similar tax on blank media (First it was tapes, now it's portable music players and blank CDs). That includes the US, Canada, and several European countries. But does that mean they'll let you download? No. The plan will be to make sure you pay the 'assumed piracy' tax, and then set the enforcer-bots, DMCA notices and ISP complaints on you anyway.

Re:I'm from New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to call up every single MP's office and ask if they have ever sung "Happy Birthday". Once the results are in, call them all up again and ask if they paid the royalties. When they say no, ask if they are going to resign for breaking the law.

Democracy

[symes]

This might be interpreted as a serious attempt to undermine New Zealand's democratic processes by a foreign power. While I think people should be expected to pay for what they use, my feelings are that it is a broken business model that encourages most people to download and that this incessant criminisation of mostly young internet users can only lead to alienation and profound long-term problems. The creative minds that produce the output should be perhaps given more room to develop novel ways to distribute output rather than leaving everything to a bunch of accountants and lawyers who are just nasty.

Re:Democracy

[mcgrew]

While I think people should be expected to pay for what they use

I don't. I don't expect you to pay for the most important thing in your life -- air. I don't expect you to pay for the rain that waters your grass (although I expect people who dirty them to pay for cleanup). I don't expect you to pay for sunshine. I don't expect you to pay for Linux or BSD. I don't expect you to pay for the free music from the radio, nor do I think you're obligated to listen to the commercials. And you have the (still legal in most places) right to be able to record that radio. I don't expect you to pay for over the air TV (yes, I know Brits pay). I don't expect you to pay to read a library book, or a newspaper McDonald's sets out for customers to read.

I have dozens of books that I'd would never have bought had I not previously read the author's other books for free at the library.

I don't expect you to pay for 90% of the music that's recorded; indies who WANT you to share their music. The indies have the correct business model -- give the music away and sell CDs, tickets, T-shirts, etc.

A book publisher recently discovered that piracy sells books! It takes a few weeks for a newly published book to hit the internet, so he commissioned a study to find out how much the piracy was hurting sales. He was amazed when the results came back -- rather than the expected drop in sales, there was a sales spike.

Who was it that said "letting you light your candle from my flame costs me nothing and doubles the light"?

IMO file sharing should be legal; it should be illegal for me to sell you a pirate copy, but not to give you one.

Our money-obsessed, money-worshiping society is sick.

Re:Democracy

[SuricouRaven]

Actually, in some places, you *are* expected to pay for that rain. It's not even that uncommon for states to sell exclusive rainwater collection rights to a water company, granting them and them alone the right to rainfall within a specified catchment area. If you live in one, then it is indeed an offense for you to collect your own rain and water your garden with it. You're expected to pay for it from the tap, like a good consumer should.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be interpreted as a serious attempt to undermine New Zealand's democratic processes by a foreign power.

Yeah, and I guess all that funding to protect New Zealand from Japanese invasion was about undermining your democratic processes too. Hypocrits.

Re:Democracy

[xMrFishx]

What, seriously? Good god...I presume this is somewhere in America right? No other sane country would ever do anything like that, I hope...

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

For any New Zealand politician who may read this: Our representatives who are suggesting these laws and making you offers are LIARS. They will not honor their agreements. They will happily screw you and yours. Don't sell your souls.

Re:Democracy

[jpapon]

That's rather harsh. Besides, if I were to guess, I would say it would be somewhere with high population density and difficult access to fresh water, where rain collection is/was a big source of potable water. Like, say, Venice.

Re:Democracy

[OneMadMuppet]

Well, here's the ugly truth. People DO pay for Linux and BSD. Most contributions are from paid programmers working for companies. Those companies (like Redhat, IBM, Novell, Oracle) make money by selling support. You might think they're different things - they're not. The music from the radio is NOT free. Someone has to pay for it in one way or another. If you don't pay to listen, you get adverts. Yes, indies make money other ways, but how should radio stations make their money? You DO pay to read library books. It comes out of tax money. You DO pay to read the newspaper in McDonalds too - it comes out of the money you paid for the food. The truth of the world is that you get NOTHING for nothing. Just because you don't understand or see how things are paid for doesn't mean that they're not.

Re:Democracy

[SteveTheNewbie]

Bolivia is one such incident. It was put in place by the world bank who demanded as part of a loan to get them back on their feet they privatise the water system and used to charge people up to 1/4 of their income on water. It was illegal to collect rainwater.

Not the first time the world bank has royally screwed up a country. Just ask Jamaica how that's working out for them..

Sorry for the wikipedia links, I'm sure people can find other examples, consider these starters.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying for rain? thats sick... Can't someone open their eyes and see this consumerism/capitalism stuff has gone too far?

The witchhunts against file sharing (free filesharing, not for profit) has gone way too far too, some people actually have died over it in prison... (read the article on torrentfreak article about police arresting people as a favor to big wigs in the industry)

The entertainment industry (i used to work in it) has lost ANY and ALL sympathy I had for it, I used to buy alot of CDs and movies, as well as produce some of my own, but their greediness and backstabbing tricks know no limits and trust me when I say, they can rot for all I care and I am glad I am out of that bag of crabs.

I understand not liking people who profit from piracy, but people who do it for free just for the hell of it, what is the big deal really ?

Re:Democracy

[baKanale]

The state of Colorado (along with some other western states) forbids collection of rainwater without a permit. While this seems insane to those of us from areas with frequent rain, this is largely due to the general scarcity of water in these areas and the system of allocating water rights due to this fact. Water is such a contentious issue that the state of Wyoming took Colorado to the Supreme Court over Colorado's plans to divert the Laramie River, which they claimed was a violation of their water rights, and Arizona and California have gone to court nine times over the last 80-odd years to determine Arizona's cut of the water from the Colorado River.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually. As batshit insane as our corporations are, it would be political suicide to do that to American farmers.

Re:Democracy

[symes]

Our money-obsessed, money-worshiping society is sick.

Just wondering - what do you think would make a good alternative? That next time I want to fill up my car with gas that I take a sheep into the station? The people who create goods should expect to feed their families, this isn't the result of a "money-obsessed, money-worshiping society". Many many people improve our lives by donating their time for free, for sure. But at the end of the day, everyone needs to eat and if people see others enjoying their hard work and at the same time are unable to sustain themselves then we'll start to see those who have dedicated their lives to something become disenfranchised and move on. Then we all lose.

A book publisher recently discovered that piracy sells books! It takes a few weeks for a newly published book to hit the internet, so he commissioned a study to find out how much the piracy was hurting sales. He was amazed when the results came back -- rather than the expected drop in sales, there was a sales spike.

Reference? Anyhow, the danger is that "free" is becoming normalised to such an extent that a lot of people expect that all future books, films, music, etc., will also be freely available. And that is unsustainable. I respect your view, but I cannot agree with it.

Re:Democracy

[SuricouRaven]

This seems to be a pattern in the piracy community. They come for the free movies and music, but then get politically involved.

Re:Democracy

[SplashMyBandit]

Actually a San Francisco company owns the water rights to a parched town in Bolivia. Including rain water collection rights. This is no joke. The people had to fight their own police force to change the situation (which they eventually did). The US does good things (the government is a very generous aid donor), but also very bad things (the corporations) overseas. It talks about "Free Trade" when it wants to, but then uses all sorts of subsidies for its own farmers. Disclaimer - I'm from New Zealand - I like the US but it is promoting a pretty borked system.

Re:Democracy

[Livius]

I think it was the 'worshipping' part that was the objection.

Re:Democracy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I don't. I don't expect you to pay for the most important thing in your life -- air. I don't expect you to pay for the rain that waters your grass (although I expect people who dirty them to pay for cleanup). I don't expect you to pay for sunshine. I don't expect you to pay for Linux or BSD. I don't expect you to pay for the free music from the radio, nor do I think you're obligated to listen to the commercials. And you have the (still legal in most places) right to be able to record that radio. I don't expect you to pay for over the air TV (yes, I know Brits pay). I don't expect you to pay to read a library book, or a newspaper McDonald's sets out for customers to read.

While being deliberately obtuse can be fun, it's a lot more productive to refine the GP's statement to something that can't be attacked so trivially. Perhaps something along the lines of:

I think people should be expected to pay for things that they use that other people work to provide for them, and for which they expect payment in return.

It doesn't roll off the tongue so easily, but it at least covers all of your examples. It also is a lot more difficult to argue against.

IMO file sharing should be legal

Why? Because a book publisher discovered that a single book had a sales spike after giving it away on the internet? Generalising it over all artists in all forms of art, entertainment, and science seems a bit of a leap. It seems that artists are similarly sceptical. Exactly how many successful artists have actually found that their business has been helped by providing their works for free? How many formerly unsuccessful artists have actually created success on the back of this business model? Compared to the number that haven't, the numbers are insignificant. You might as well convince me that a handful of people have survived lightning strikes, so I should carry a lightning rod and stand barefoot on a metal grate in a thunderstorm.

However, I get the impression that this "evidence" is not the reason why you believe sharing should be legal. After all, if you base your criteria primarily on money, then how can you claim to be superior to the rest money-obsessed, money-worshiping society? So, arguing money is not going to make a dent in your belief that sharing should be legal. Rather, it would take some convincing that allowing sharing is no more ideal for you and other consumers than our current system. It would take some convincing that unrestricted sharing, far from being analogous to sharing candles, is actually something more akin to depleting a resource, despite its superficial appearance. I suppose I would also have to account for why indie artists manage to keep in business accounting for sharing, and why some publishers have noticed spikes in their sales when they release it free on the internet.

Essentially, the meat of my argument is (and has been for a very long time) that copyright is voluntary, and so removing simply removes choice and flexibility, not only for the artists, but for us as well. Every artist who wants to release their works for free (and who hasn't needed financial assistance from Big Media in order to record and distribute), has the opportunity to do so. And why wouldn't they? If what you say is true, and the artists benefit financially from such business models, then whether the artists prioritises getting fans or getting money, it's a win-win situation. Why isn't everyone releasing in this way?

The answer is that what you say is not true: artists are, by and large, worse off financially using these business models. This means that any benefits we obtain from forcing these business models on artists comes at their expense. Of course, nobody is forcing them to create or distribute, and you cannot be surprised if some decide to pack up and leave. Perhaps Brittany Spears and her ilk might have the popularity and finances to run it out, but any full-time artist

Re:Democracy

[Phrogman]

US Foreign Policy is not about promoting the US political system to the rest of the world - its about promoting the US Economy (i.e. US Corporations) in foreign countries so as to benefit the rich and powerful. Otherwise the US would promote democracy in foreign countries, instead of favouring Dictators in most foreign nations. Otherwise they wouldn't mess with foreign countries' democratic process, but let it run its course whatever the results. The US is only apparently a democracy internally, externally its an economic empire that supports its major corporations and their interests over the rights of its citizens, and over any rights of citizens in foreign countries. It pays lip service to promoting democracy from time to time - i.e. in Libya at the moment, but usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming into action and is reluctant to commit itself.
I do not like the US system at all. I love democracy.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If a person downloads a copy for free, then he is much less likely to buy a legitimate copy. If a person pays for a copy, it's the same deal. Either way, it is financial value stolen from the copyright.

Yet another person assuming a download = a lost sale. _sigh_

Re:Democracy

[lennier]

Who was it that said "letting you light your candle from my flame costs me nothing and doubles the light"?

A dirty thieving light-pirate, that's who.

Re:Democracy

[lennier]

How the... what.

Just what.

Re:Democracy

[lennier]

The people who create goods should expect to feed their families, this isn't the result of a "money-obsessed, money-worshiping society".

No, actually, the people who have families should expect to feed their families, just because they're human beings and are already doing a productive and difficult job: bringing new humans into the world and educating them. So they should get a family-raising allowance from the productive labour of others just because they're helping the human race.

And in fact, the productive labour should really be done by robots, rather than people, because that's more efficient. And once it is, it will be obvious that there's no necessary moral or logical connection between who does the work, and who gets the goods, because robots aren't going to need high pay, and if a robot replaces a human's job, that human shouldn't starve.

But thinking too deeply about this leads to the realisation that worshiping money IS wrong, and that the Communist slogan of "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" is, in fact, morally just (even if the means taken by the Bolsheviks to try to create such a state were self-defeating).

And that's just un-American.

Re:Democracy

[lennier]

Perhaps something along the lines of:

I think people should be expected to pay for things that they use that other people work to provide for them, and for which they expect payment in return.

But why should such an expectation exist in the first place?

Hello! I expect you to pay me five hundred dollars for passing this alley! Because, uh, I got up at 5am in the morning and walked a hundred miles to come and sit here and ask all passers-by to pay me five hundred dollars!

What? Just because I expect you to pay, and because I worked hard to get in a position to ask you to pay, and blistered my feet doing all this work, you don't feel obligated to pay me?

That, sir, is an outrage!

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but there is a difference between traditional goods and agalmic goods.

Re:Democracy

[Minix]

A large proportion of US Aid takes the form of tied loans for the purchase of military equipment. I guess if the arms were used to liberate the oppressed (q.v. Shaw's Major Barbara) that could be considered aid, but I am pretty sure this isn't the usual practice.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Breeding isn't the same thing as helping the human race. It can be, and currently is, counterproductive.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth of the world is that you get NOTHING for nothing. Just because you don't understand or see how things are paid for doesn't mean that they're not.

As someone pointed out above, I get air for nothing. I hear gravity is free, too. Sunlight? Free. The wind on my face, free. Rain falls, I don't get a bill for it. That's free, too. So, I guess your "truth of the world" is fairly specific to "things that I say have value."

Re:Democracy

[quenda]

an offense for you to collect your own rain and water your garden with it.

Please tell me you are talking about damming a creek on your farm, not collecting runoff from the house gutters.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

a good alternative : ever observed how Europe works? The American capitalistic model is "sold" to people as a good model to follow. It isn't. Pure free market economies are just as idiotic and ruinous to society as pure socialism.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not money that is the bad thing, its the fact that too many people are willing to screw over anyone they can to make a quick buck while ignoring the consequences.

Take for example, ("http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Pages/information.aspx"), completely messes up the surrounding area but companies are completely willing to do so to make some money. Then there's the mobile phone networks in the USA (why double dip regarding incoming and outgoing calls?), USA internet (crappy service with the companies charging more to reduce use rather then use the money given to them to increase capacity), USA congress ("this bill will pass so I will tack on a bit to give my friends back home a lucrative contract"), Wallstreet and other investors who believe that if a company isn't increasing it's profits by x% isn't worth anything (even if the company is increasing or holding steady on profits), the Teaparty (gub'mint is bad, let the corporations have free reign and the free market will keep them in check), ACTA, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the associated contracts involved, paparazzi ("lets follow around famous people 24/7 and take photos, someone will buy them), "Hollywood accounting", RIAA, MPAA, Sony and their recent actions, MS and their infiltration of Nokia.

I could keep on going but I think that should be enough to prove the point...

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

He also seems to be rather stupidly asserting that file sharing means illegally sharing copyrighted goods. I got my Linux distribution through file sharing, and I'm fairly sure that I didn't breach any copyright by doing that.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyhow, the danger is that "free" is becoming normalised to such an extent that a lot of people expect that all future books, films, music, etc., will also be freely available. And that is unsustainable. I respect your view, but I cannot agree with it.

The logical extension of this is that if someone creates something, they will not be allowed to publish it as they desire. In other words, you'll either need to publish it through a suitable agency, or not at all. How is this sustainable, or even reasonable?

After a little thought on your part, two things should become clear to you. The first is that your opinion is hyperbole - people have been able to get books from the library for years, without spending money to borrow them. Yes yes, taxes pay for libraries, but the cost doesn't come from the consumer's pocket, it comes from the rates they pay, so for all intents and purposes, they appear to be free to the consumer.

The second is that the market is quite clearly demanding lower pricing for these products, and this demand is not being met. As it stands, entry costs to these industries are excessively high. This renders meaningless any attempt to create a business causing competition that would, in theory, drive pricing down, as anyone starting a business along these lines would already be significantly in debt. At this stage, the only competition comes from the free media that you appear to revile.

Re:Democracy

[Kalriath]

The reason your mobile providers double dip in incoming and outgoing calls is because your crappy interconnect model that your providers are trying to foist on... er, New Zealand. It's called "Bill and Keep" where the originating network for the call gets to keep the entirety of the revenue from the call, despite the terminating carrier also incurring costs in delivering the call. In theory, that would be fine if the call volumes were pretty much level between the two carriers, but often they're not. In NZ, we have the CPP ("Calling Party Pays") model, where the person making the call pays for the call, and the originating mobile network has to pay a per-minute rate (called the "Mobile Termination Rate", or MTR) to the terminating network to cover their costs. The result is slightly higher costs to make calls, but no cost to receive them. The same principle applies to text messages, which is why I think it's cryptic that you guys are actually paying MORE than us to send SMS messages (20c US each, right? At both ends? In NZ it's 20c NZ to send, $0 to receive).

Re:Democracy

[Kalriath]

That's not even a tangentially related analogy. More like "Hello, I expect you to pay me $5 for walking through this alley, because I built it. That said, that guy over there is letting people walk through his alley for free."

Re:Democracy

[SuricouRaven]

Nope. The exclusive grant is for all rain that falls. If you intercept the rain at any point, you are in violation.

Re:Democracy

[Kalriath]

What funding? Seriously, what funding? I've never heard of this funding, and if there is verifiable evidence that the US ever provided funding to NZ (not a loan, by the way, since it's actually quite common for countries to lend each other money, or it used to be) then I'd love to hear it.

(A quick check of the history says you're talking about "lend-lease", where equipment was loaned to allied countries with the offer to buy it at 90% discount once the lease ended with the war. Further checking also says that New Zealand aid to the United States actually outstripped the aid from the US to NZ over a 2 year period of the war, with another 2 year period where US aid to NZ outstripped the reverse and the rest of the war it being a complete wash. In other words, you're talking out your arse).

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Food is pretty important. Do you expect to get that for free? Wouldn't fly well for thoose whom it actually cost resources to produce.

Air is pretty important. But cause theres an abundence and no cost invovled with supplying you with it, theres no cost to you. Or so you think. What happens when companies start taking all your air and pump out something else you don't like, (well its still air, just the poisonous kind you can't live with, both figuratively and literally). You bet someones gonna start paying for it. Carbon taxes? Air pollution ordenances?.

Same goes for naturally occuring water (though actually there are cost involved in giving that to you, its just very small, but you pay for infra structure to make the stuff come out of your taps). Yeah you said rain that waters your grass, but personnaly I couldn't care less about my lawn. Oh, and what if you were somewhere were clean drinkable water wasn't readily avaliable/naturally occuring, you bet you'd expect to pay for it when theres limited resources. (And I expect drinking water from rain is altered in some way before it reaches your tap, you pay for that). By the way, how would you react if someone took away the rain from your peice of land? If you wouldn't pay for it, then wouldn't that imply its not worth anything to you? What if someone turned it into acid rain? Oh, and you do pay for rain anyway, by paying for/leasing the land, you pay for the rights to use the land itself and the minerals and elements occuring on that land.

Sunshine? Yeah, someone will have to pay when they pollute the crap out of the atmosphere enough. Is it you? Well, if its not you, enjoy having no sunshine, Probably already paying someone to keep it readily availiable to you by preventing pollution. (Taxes again).

Linux or BSD? People donating their time, its their genorosity, not your given right, that you have free use.

Radio, TV, McDonalds newspapers? You don't pay for them directly. Someone else is benfiting from you using it, so they pay for you. McDonalds isn't letting you read newspapers for no reason, it helps with them selling food, so unless your getting food for free, a portion of the money you pay for the food goes into supplying you with newspapers. Radio and TV, someone else is paying for you to watch cause it benefits them for you to watch, remove the commercials, there will be no free to air TV. (well, here we have one gov. funded channel, which you pay for via taxes).

Libraries? Honestly, I don't know if libraries pay for licensing fees or just the cover cost of a book. Though if they don't and this extends to movie rental companies (when they existed), that'd be like best return on investment ever. Buy a DVD for $30, rent it to who knows how many people for $7 a night. Either way, you do pay for reading a library book, the staff in the libraries aren't free, and neither is the rest of their opperating cost. Whats worse is you pay for them wether you use them or not. But their benifits far outweigh their cost in a community. Still useless to the author who gets no money out of it though (assuming they really don't pay licensing). Enjoy having that author not write another book for you when they get no money for their first book, have to go do something else for a living, to pay for food, so they can, you know, live.

Yeah, indies want you to share their music, because thats probably the most profitable business model they have. If they were well known and could make you pay for their music, I'd imagine most of them would. If they didn't it would be their genorosity giving you free stuff, not your right to take stuff from them for free.

So a book publisher found that some piracy helps sales, therefore you surmise that piracy should be accepted and legal, opening the doors to mass free distribution of your work, netting you no money per copy distributed. Sure, there are a lot of people who will still pay for your work even if they can get it for free illegally, but if they illegal part were removed, what qualms would pe

Re:Democracy

[mcgrew]

Paying for support for Linux is not paying for Linux any more than paying for support for Windows is paying for Windows.

Just because somebody's paid for the music (and decades ago radio didn't pay for music, the labels would pay THEM to play it, and the practice was illegal) doesn't mean it's not free. If someone buys me a beer at the bar, that's a free beer. And I don't get adverts; there's a row of buttons on the radio that I press when a commercial starts. But radio's business model still seems sound. The station has wages and other overhead to pay, too. But the adverisers are paying for the radio, not me.

I don't pay for the library any more than I pay for roads and policemen. I don't get a bill every time I call the cops, nor every time I drive on the roads unless it's a toll road. And the publisher doesn't get paid every time someone checks a book out of the library, they only get paid once, when the library buys the book.

As to the newspaper, if you say "you're paying for the newspaper in the price of your food", you're missing the point -- the newspaper doesn't get paid every time a copy is read, only when a copy is sold. If I buy a newspaper, read it, and give it to you, you just got a free newspaper.

Food at the breadline is free. Yes, someone bought that food, but it's free for the poor people who eat there.

Re:Democracy

[mcgrew]

The pirates are the ones suing their customers, not file sharers. It was always legal to tape your LPs and share with your friends, only when music became digital did it become criminal to share music.

Today's copyright laws are a crime against art.

Re:Democracy

[mcgrew]

Here in the US it depends on your carrier. IINM, Cellular One is like New Zealand, where you pay by the minute if you make a call but incoming calls are free. Different carriers charge different rates for stuff. The one I have now, Boost Mobile, costs me $50 per month, but it's a flat fee that covers unlimited calls, long distance, roaming, internet, text, email, and one or two other things.

Re:Democracy

[mcgrew]

My beef isn't against capitalism, my beef is with the worship of money and wealth. I'm getting old, and the world has changed a great deal since I was young. The obsession with money has gotten incredibly bad in the last 20 years. The rich people who wield power used to seem to have morals and feelings, now it seems they care about nothing at all except money.

It's been a year or so since the book study was reported on; someone here pointed it to me via a link. It shouldn't be hard to find a reference. But in the present books, movies, and music are free; you can check books, CDs, and DVDs out at my local library without paying a dime. I've been a regular library patron since I was about seven years old, and libraries have gotten better and better all my life.

Re:Democracy

[mcgrew]

File sharing should be legal because the "nobody will pay for what they can get free" is a lie perpetuated by the RIAA. Every study not funded by them has shown that music file sharers spend more on music than non-sharers. The incredibly expensive Photoshop probably owes most of its market share to piracy; dirt-poor college students pirate it, then wind up paying for a legal copy when they become gainfully employed.

I don't know how many sucessful artists have benefitted from "free", but I can point to two of them.

Roger McGuinn, from the old '60s band The Byrds, got "too old" according to the labels, and he couldn't get a new album and wound up playing bars in near poverty. He credited the old outlaw Napser for getting his career back; Napster introduced his music to a new generation of music lovers.

Cory Doctorow credits his status as a NYT best seller to the fact that he posts all his books on craphound.com for free.

Actually, though, "free" is almost the only thing that sells books and music. You're not going to buy a CD from an artist you've never heard. Cover art doesn't sell records, and never has. The music you buy will be music you hear for free -- on the radio, at a friend's house, P2P, etc.

That is the real reason the RIAA wants file sharing to be illegal -- they have radio, the indies have P2P, and radio is better. The indies are their competetion, and that's why they're against file sharing. Were it not for independant artists, they'd be all for file sharing.

After all, if you base your criteria primarily on money

But I don't. If I send you a copy of a Doctorow book by email, it didin't cost Doctorow anything, and most likely will result in a paper copy on your shelf. File sharing should be legal so more people can be acquainted with more art.

Activities that don't harm others should not be illegal, and file sharing harms no one, despite what the industry liars say. They have you and most people fooled. That's why so relatively few release their stuff that way; they've bought into the lie that if I can get it for free I won't buy it.

The reason for the cliche of the struggling artist is because there are so many of them, and 90% of them suck. It's supply and demand; there is a huge supply of music, and almost nobody has unlimited funds.

any full-time artist with less than stellar popularity will have significant troubles

How are you to become popular if nobody's ever heard of you?

Culture is being destroyed by the insanely long copyright terms. Art is like science and technology, in that everything new is built on what came before. Imagine how technology would stagnate if a patent lasted 150 years? That's how culture is stagnating.

Paying for pirate copies is bad because that actually does harm the artist and publisher; you're only going to buy the same work twice if the first copy is destroyed. The money that went to the pirate should have gone to the publisher. Had the pirate not sold an illigitimate copy, the buyer would have bought a legit copy. Not so with a file share. 90% of what you download you're not going to buy because you don't like it!

If a person downloads a copy for free, then he is much less likely to buy a legitimate copy.

You're still not getting it. Unless he's heard it, he isn't going to buy it. The only way you're going to pay for a song is either if you've heard it for free, or you've heard enough of that artist's work that you trust him or her.

Like Doctorow says, no artist ever went broke from piracy, but many have starved from obscurity. A shared file is an advertisement, and should be seen as such. I urge youto read Makers (uh, I think that's the one, it could be Little Brother)

Actually, there is one group of artists that don't benefit from free -- that's artists who suck. If Oprah says "buy this book" you might, and it might turn out to be garbage

Re:Democracy

[SuricouRaven]

Nope. It's always been *illegal* to tape your LPs and share with friends - copyright law has existed since before the first audio recording was set in wax cylinder, and there is no 'but it was just for a friend' exception. Just because the law was unenforced and largely unenforceable doesn't make it legal.

Re:Democracy

[mcgrew]

I've been trying to confirm or deny it, but google is failing me today; the only thing I can find on the 1976 copyright act is a rather short wikipedia article. Everything else talks of current law, even though "1976" is in the search. So I can find no citation either way.

Re:Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I would gladly work my entire life, and spend all my money on a system that would be completely self sufficient and produce food which can feed the population. That way, no people are needed to work on the farms, or for the farms in any way. Every person would get food, and you wouldn't HAVE to work, The only things needed then are luxuries and perhaps medical care and a roof above your head.

Terminology perhaps....

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw what looks to be a document...or a memo.
I didn't see any cables...

First the Middle East, now the Kiwis?

[Anonymous Coward]

First people in the Middle East took to the streets, now New Zealand will follow after these latest developments? Or will it just die out with a sizzle like the Canadian #copyrightgate cables? Canada will never stand up to their neighbours, but NZ might.

Re:First the Middle East, now the Kiwis?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from New Zealand. I've lived my whole life here, and I can tell you that we are a nation of fucking idiots. Think of it in terms of republicans vs democrats - if the parties tell their voters something, they'll believe it without question. Well, our government tells us stuff, and people just believe it. Doesn't matter how fucking stupid it is. Currently, the recession that's plaguing the world wouldn't have been a problem, nor the earthquake that destroyed Christchurch, if the students paid back their loans. Or perhaps, if we spent more. And saved more. At the same time.

Wow!

[DaMattster]

There are citizens suffering here in the states from unemployment and inept government that hasn't been able to turn the country around. The ineptness is both democrat and republican alike. The government is under a budget crunch and we are spending money in New Zealand over something so stupid as copyright law when research to show that major media companies were losing money over piracy. This whole thing makes me sick. Perhaps, the U.S. is now going to meet the same fate as Rome. Be ready for the dark ages.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are getting pretty close to it already.
Just consider the laws that Microsoft are sponsoring in an increasing number of states.
You know the laws that will stop GM, Ford, John Deere, Caterpillar, Boeing, Apple, Macdonalds, Mattel, Wallmart and just about everyone else selling anything at all. Why? Because all it takes is ONE person in ONE of the thousands of companies in their supply chain in any part of the world to use just ONE bit of 'pirated' Microsoft Software.
If these laws get enforced then IMHO the USA will become a 4th World Nation overnight. Unemployment will (apart from MS itself) hit 40%+.
Enjoy the future. It won't be long in coming.

Re:Wow!

[SuricouRaven]

Of course it won't be enforced. Microsoft is too sensible for that. They'll just use it to harass small companies who can't afford a decade-long legal battle.

Re:Wow!

[JoeCommodore]

The concept here is also to bolster US law - by successfully lobbying in other countries to pass such stuff, they can then turn back to the US officials saying, "see all the other countries are doing it!" and then persuade them to to the same at home. Similar to MS stacking the cards for ISO certification.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming and none of you can see it, makes you sort of peasants rather unable to fart without the correct identification.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup they call it "harmonization", which is newspeak for make-our-laws-like-other-laws, which industry only does when said law is in their favor.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

We barbarians need that bridge over to Alaska in order to avoid the shots from a certain hunting rifle for fun and profit. I heard there are much better chances for successful barbarizing coming from the South. The land connection helps there. There also needs to be a sufficient number of angry and betrayed Goths to cause some serious fire damage for Washington area and hasten the fall of the empire for the dark ages to come.

Re:Wow!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Um, the US is offering to foot the bill.

Also, be careful using that logic. You could use it to argue that school education is a frivolous luxury at this time.

This has been going on for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a New Zealander and the lobbying from the US isn't a recent issue, in fact it has been regularly reported in the mainstream press for as long as I can remember and not only for copyright reasons. I think the worst part is that the US diplomats have at times threatened us with economically damaging measures for not playing ball (NZ does export a lot to the US and being a small country makes us vulnerable to change). I feel that we've actually done an OK job of pushing back in the past, but the US is both patient and happy to keep trying until it finds an administration that gives it favour, as has happened here.

To be honest I think that Australia is worse off from this sort of lobbying though. They haven't had an anti-nuclear past and this has led them to 'enjoy' a closer relationship with the US than we have(!)

Re: Enforce them for you

[Anonymous Coward]

That is better known as an invasion.

Re: Enforce them for you

[Seumas]

You spelled 'liberation' wrong. :P

Protections and rights from WHAT BASIS?

[fnj]

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the government has the power to deem that corporations should have these protections and rights?

Re:Protections and rights from WHAT BASIS?

[Aryden]

Article I, section 8, part D

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

This gives congress the specific power of determining who is and is not a citizen of the United States.

Re:Protections and rights from WHAT BASIS?

[fnj]

You're kidding, right? We're taking about CORPORATIONS here.

Re:Protections and rights from WHAT BASIS?

[Aryden]

I do not believe a corporation is a person anymore than I believe and car is a person. Neither of which are. However, there is justification (in their minds) for what they have done.

Yeah, so....

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm. Didn't new zealand actually pass this in the end? Shouldn't there now be a massive shitstorm and repeal of the law in NZ?

Re:Yeah, so....

[Legal.Troll]

Nah, actually the NZ government should just use NZ taxpayer dollars to pay the US government back. That way everyone wins (except people who erroneously think they have some God-given right to take whatever they want for free).

In this thread:

[Legal.Troll]

A bunch of anarchist twits drone on about their stupid fantasy world and how the big bad Entirety of Civilization is stacked against them.

Money the US Doen't have

[Anonymous Coward]

When the US is running a 1.6 Trillion dollar budget deficit, why are we wasting half a million in borrowed money to manipulate kiwi politics?

Re:Money the US Doen't have

[Legal.Troll]

To increase tax revenue, moron.

Seriously?

[fahrbot-bot]

The population of New Zealand is 4.5 million - half that of New York City.
Isn't the media industries worry over this much ado over, seriously, nothing?

Re:Seriously?

[lennier]

The population of New Zealand is 4.5 million - half that of New York City.
Isn't the media industries worry over this much ado over, seriously, nothing?

Actually it's more of an unexpected party for the media industry. They've heard that there's a bit of a dragon's hoard down south and they're looking for a burglar to help them get it. They expect to deal with a few trolls and the odd elf, that's normal in this industry, but it's shaping up to be more of a battle of five armies than they counted on.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats insignificant about 4.5 million people??? Dude I'm from New Zealand and its sure a big deal over here. In case ya hadn't noticed, New York is enormous by anyone's standards.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bro, I don't think you understand how many movies I've downloaded in the past few years.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, NZ is, theoretically at least, a sovereign country with the right and power to make its own laws and run its own economy.

That means it's part of the great global laboratory in which every country competes to see whose experiments work better than others. And if a liberal copyright system was seen to work in NZ, that would imply that it could also work in Australia, or Canada, or Europe...

Can't risk that.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're a test case.

A small enough population that logistically it can be carried out at relatively low cost. If the plans work, then expect to see it being rolled out to other bigger countries.

however they lack privacy rights

[decora]

corporations do not have a right to privacy like people do, so at least they arent 'totally people'

Re:however they lack privacy rights

[clang_jangle]

And lawyers don't have extended canine teeth for piercing the jugular, so at least they aren't "totally vampires".

Re:however they lack privacy rights

[Aryden]

Private companies do. Public companies do not.

No wonder our country is going bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

If the RIAA wants to worm their way into other countries then let them lobby those foreign governments directly. But I guess that's bad for business because THEY would have to pay for it themselves. How come none of this stuff is ever on the budget chopping block first instead of things like social security and medicare?

Re:No wonder our country is going bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

"How come none of this stuff is ever on the budget chopping block first instead of things like social security and medicare?"

Please tell me this is a rhetorical question. Nobody gets rich off of social security or medicare, so cut the hell out of them! It doesn't matter one lonely little shit that people's lives depend on them, the only thing that matter in the USA is that the rich continue to get richer - anything else just gets in the way.

Tired of it!

[Anonymous Coward]

My country is failing. The dollar is collapsing, and jobs are still disappearing. And what are you jackasses doing with my heard earned tax dollars? Making other countries just as broken as this one already is. So much for escaping since you baboons will just go screw my future government up. Fix your own country first, or just let it rot away. In any case, quit jacking with other ones to just level the playkng field.

Mod to 6, if it were possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent should be modded to 6 if it were possible. We're way past "the emperor has no clothes" in this country. The only question now is, "so waddya gonna do about it?".

Re:Some research is in order?

[symbolic]

According to sources I've read, the notion of corporate "personhood" only became viable when a court reporter took a judge's comment made during a case (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company), and elevated it to the status of a ruling by including it within the case's headnotes. No such ruling per se, ever took place. This "ruling" was clearly the result of a coincidental set of events that, under ordinary circumstances, may well have never happened.

Thanks.

[w0mprat]

I'm a Kiwi. In spain they were made aware by Wikileaks, of the equivelent diplomatic cables BEFORE the legislation was passed, naturally the 3-strikes law was thrown out.

Could have let us known sooner, thank you. It would have been terrifically useful in getting this thing stopped.

No surprises the 3-strikes law seems to be popping up in many countries with open diplomatic channels to the US. In some cases (ie the British equivelent) the language in the law is word-for-word identical.

This makes me very concerned.

Re:Thanks.

[lennier]

No surprises the 3-strikes law seems to be popping up in many countries with open diplomatic channels to the US. In some cases (ie the British equivelent) the language in the law is word-for-word identical.

Yes, that's hardly cricket. If it were truly British it would be called the Leg Before Wicket, Bowled For A Six At Silly Mid Off law.

You don't have the option to not vote for it

[Anonymous Coward]

All political parties will end up supporting it. You vote how you want, left, right or not at all. It's going to happen unless you fight to stop it.

Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in the end of the day all you need is Tor and Privoxy.....good luck with tracking IP address...

Not Again

[Anonymous Coward]

After the nuclear ships mess and expulsion from ANZUS I thought NZ politicians knew how to say NO to Uncle Sam.

(although you could argue that it's US corporations instead of the US govt. this time).

Canada beware

[alexo]

This is what you're looking at should the Conservatives manage to win a majority today.

i stand corrected

[decora]

thanks