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 ?

[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 ?

[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 ?

[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.

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

[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.

Re:I'm outraged!

[Seumas]

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

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.

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

[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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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:Come on.

[Ant P.]

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

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.

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!

[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.

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: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: Enforce them for you

[Seumas]

You spelled 'liberation' wrong. :P

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: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: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...

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.