Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Government Your Rights Online

New Zealand DMCA Moves Forward 153

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the like-a-plague dept.
nzgeek writes "The DMCA-like amendments to the New Zealand Copyright Act passed their first hurdle in parliament today, with an overwhelming 113 to 6 vote to pass the Bill to the Commerce Select Committee for further discussion. The detail-oriented can read the full debate (or rather lack of debate), and one enterprising New Zealand legal blogger has an excellent series of posts on the Bill, its background, and its implications. New Zealanders interested in fighting this legislation have until the 16th of February 2007 to make submissions to the Select Committee, before the committee makes its recommendations and sends the Bill back for a second reading."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Zealand DMCA Moves Forward

Comments Filter:
  • I don't understand the need for DMCA-like legislation when there are hard encryptions available to negate the question. DMCA is like claiming you're cracking a bank safe when all you did is slide a latch or ignore the "No Trespassing" sign.

    Aren't DMCA legislations just a means of guaranteeing that companies keep using insecure technologies?

    • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @02:24AM (#17297226) Homepage Journal
      o..k. Maybe you misunderstood the DMCA. It's a law that makes it illegal to crack any "protection mechanism", no matter how easy it is to do so. Most countries around the world that have DMCA-like laws put in some sensible exceptions of course. Fair use being the most obvious. And the work being "protected" has to actually be under copyright. As for whether or not this is "insecure".. I'm confused. A copyright "protection mechanism" has nothing to do with security. You don't use copyright protection mechanisms to keep secrets, you use them to electronically enforce copyright. Claiming that they are "insecure" makes as much sense as claiming that a parking inspector is "insecure".

      I'm no fan of laws that say what I can and cannot do with my own computer, but if you're going to attack them, at least be coherent.
      • by bit01 (644603) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @03:19AM (#17297402)

        And the work being "protected" has to actually be under copyright.

        Which is bizarre. DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.

        A copyright "protection mechanism" has nothing to do with security.

        Sorry, but that's double-think. Double-plus un-good.

        It has everything to do with security. The vendor's security. Security is all about physically enforcing somebody's view of ownership in the face of other people's different view of ownership. Ownership, by definition, is simply the legal right to control something to the exclusion of others. Security in general has nothing to do with secrecy though secrecy is often used to achieve security.

        In this case the vendor thinks they should be able to legally enforce their view of ownership. This happens to be in conflict with most people's view of ownership which includes the right to share. Reasonable people can dis/agree with either point of view.

        ---

        Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions"
          "In this case the vendor thinks they should be able to legally enforce their view of ownership. This happens to be in conflict with most people's view of ownership which includes the right to share. Reasonable people can dis/agree with either point of view."


          People copying and mass distributing ALSO break the 'copyright bargain', what about the copyright owner's rights of limiting distribution to people who actually
          • by Petrushka (815171)

            People copying and mass distributing ALSO break the 'copyright bargain', what about the copyright owner's rights of limiting distribution to people who actually PAY for their works? You think its 'fair' to only think about the users rights, but the copyright owners have rights too you know.

            You are terminally clueless. Of course copyright owners have rights too: those rights are protected by a thing called "copyright".

            • by Tim C (15259)
              Of course copyright owners have rights too: those rights are protected by a thing called "copyright".

              And yet, a great many people here act as though they do not.

              Copyright is a bargain, an agreement between Us (the non-creators) and Them (the creators). We started to break that agreement (by infringing copyright) long before They did (by implementing DRM). Now I'm not arguing whether or not Their response has on the whole been disproportionate, but We certainly seem to have brought it upon Ourselves.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by kryptkpr (180196)
                Copyright is a bargain, an agreement between Us (the non-creators) and Them (the creators).

                Yes. The bargain was we allow them hold a monopoly over their creations for a short term (20-30 years), at which point it becomes public domain.

                We started to break that agreement (by infringing copyright) long before They did (by implementing DRM).

                No.

                They started to break that agreement (by perpetually extending copyright to the point where none of us will ever get to enjoy something produced in our lifetime), long b
                • by Dabido (802599)
                  'Yes. The bargain was we allow them hold a monopoly over their creations for a short term (20-30 years), at which point it becomes public domain.'

                  In Australia and NZ for over one hundred years copyright has been the life of the creator plus fifty years. After those fifty years it becomes public domain.

                  'They started to break that agreement (by perpetually extending copyright to the point where none of us will ever get to enjoy something produced in our lifetime), long before We did (by infringing copy
                  • by kryptkpr (180196)
                    I'm not sure what you mean by, 'none of us will ever get to enjoy something produced in our lifetime'. You can get to enjoy the works in your life time. You just have to pay ... If you mean you can't get the song or book for free in your life time, I'd have to ask why you'd think you deserve it for free?

                    I believe you have me confused with someone who wants to just read the book. I want to take some of the ideas, and to make a better book out of it. There is no such thing as originality anyway, and there
                    • by Dabido (802599)
                      'I want to take some of the ideas, and to make a better book out of it.'

                      You can already do that. As long as you're not using the original text. [You also can't use the same characters etc. So, for instance, you can't re-write the Maltese Falcon and use Sam Spade etc. BUT, if you started basing your story on the Maltese Falcon you could use different characters and change the plot where you want it changed ... and like I aid, you'd have to use all your own words].

                      I'm pretty sure the copyright for 1
        • by msobkow (48369)

          It is the responsibility of companies and investors to understand the legal systems and constitutions of their target markets.

          Canadian legislation enshrines our right to make copies of media to lend to friends, but restricts outright piracy or sharing with the general public and people you don't know personally. Australian law has similar guarantees; I don't know about other jurisdictions.

          I think it's likely that Vista and DRM are illegal in Canada.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The biggest problem with this DRM, DMCA type stuff is in its explicitness. If you create content and own it, you have every right to sell the content to me under any conditions we both agree on. The issue is then whether most users understand that by purchasing DRM'd content, they've implicitly agreed to the DRM contract. And I think in most cases they don't. But can't we easily fix this with explicit labeling? If my CD says in big bold letters what I am and (more importantly) am not allowed to do with it,
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Akaihiryuu (786040)
        This message is ROT-26 encoded. You're violating the DMCA by decoding and reading it without permission.
      • by gringer (252588)
        It's a law that makes it illegal to crack any "protection mechanism", no matter how easy it is to do so.
        So, for example, decrypting this message in a non-approved way would be illegal?
        http://user.interface.org.nz.nyud.net:8080/~gringe r/pics/slashdot_mirror.svg [nyud.net]
      • by Alsee (515537) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @04:59AM (#17297862) Homepage
        Most countries around the world that have DMCA-like laws put in some sensible exceptions of course.

        No they don't.

        Fair use being the most obvious.

        Buahahahahaha!

        And the work being "protected" has to actually be under copyright.

        There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from putting DRM on public domain content. It's technically not criminal for you to strip the DRM off of public domain content, but it is still criminal for anyone to actually supply you with the means to do so.

        There are no meaningful execptions to any of the DMCA laws, there is certainly no Fair Use exception, and it even effectively enforces DRM on non-copyright content.

        if you're going to attack them

        If you're going to defend them... Chuckle. Here's a link to the text of the USA DMCA anti-circumvention law [cornell.edu].

        Note that 1201(c)... the supposedly "Fair Use" provision... note that it merely states that Fair Use defenses to copyright infringement are not affected. Fair Use is a defense to charges of copyright infringment, and only to charges of copyright infringment. Circumvention and trafficking circumvention tools are not copyright infringment, they are simply criminal. Therefore there *is no* Fair Use defense for DMCA violations. So in effect what 1201(c) really says is that a non-existant defense is not affected. That's the sort of stupid legal games you get when we allow industry lawyers to literally write the text of our laws. The Fair Use provision literally does nothing, but it sure looks pretty doesn't it? It sure creates the appearance that the law is reasonable, the appearance that it reasonably addresses and defends the public's interests. And that is far from the only example of legal tricks slipped into copyright law. The notice-and-takedown section of the has another great public interest sounding clause that doesn't actually do anything... the clause that gives the appearance that takedown orders are filed under penalty of purjury... it is effectively meaningless. Another lovely stunt they pulled was in the NET act, they slipped an apparently insignifigant single little sentence that redefined the legal term "financial gain". This redefinition of terms radically altered the very landscape of copyright law. It redefined "financial gain" to encompas almost any case of copyright infringment (especially P2P), and it took almost all fairly insignifigant cases of non-commercial copyright infringment and though the back door slammed them all under the extremely sever FELONY LAWS that were intened and designed only to apply to serious cases of COMMERCIAL copyright infringment. Individial noncommercial infringment was suddenly thrown under the laws intended to target major criminal commercial enterprice priracy. Individual non-commecial infringment which *was* considered a minor and purely civil matter was suddenly subject to 3 and 5 year felony prison terms. This is the sort of legal trickery you get when we literally allow industry lawyers to write our laws for us, and our legislators simply and ignorantly vote through that prepared text. Oops.... I'm ranting.

        Anyway, the point is that there is absolutely nothing reasonable or Fair about DMCA-style anti-circumvention law. And for purposes relevant here, the various international versions of the law are effectively the same as US law. The US "free trade" negotiators forcibly cram crazy terms into every single trade deal, and those terms pretty well prohibit any meaningful softening or exemptions to the DMCA. The law would become 100% worthless if they allowed any meaningful exception at all. DRM security is 100% dependent on circumvention means being COMPLETELY unavailable. If there is any meaningful excemption at all for anything, you would need some means of circumventing the DRM available. You would need someone to be able to supply you with
        • by msobkow (48369)

          Circumvention and trafficking circumvention tools are not copyright infringment, they are simply criminal.

          Yes, a lovely little Catch-22 they've tried to set up there, but the earlier precedent should be a priority IMNSHO.

          To my way of thinking, there are two directions to the legal timeline. Sometimes there legislation is added to clarify earlier situations, other times it's intended to replace existing legislation. But if there is no clear statement that earlier legislation is repealed, I would think

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MadJo (674225)

        And the work being "protected" has to actually be under copyright.

        Everything you bring out nowadays is automatically copyrighted. Everything.
        It used to be so that you had to register your copyright at an agency that kept a record of it, but that became expensive to maintain. So now every work that's put out, be that digitally, or on paper, on tape, on disk or any other means, is copyrighted.

        You don't use copyright protection mechanisms to keep secrets, you use them to electronically enforce copyright

        D

        • by Dabido (802599)
          'Everything you bring out nowadays is automatically copyrighted.
          Everything.
          '


          No, I think you misunderstood the parent. I think they were refering to publishing things in Public Domain [which some publishers still do]. For instance, the works of Shakespeare are in public domain. If I wanted to form a publishing company and release a book of Shakespeares Sonnets, I can. No need to pay royalties or get copyright permission. So, just because I brought out a book, doesn't mean the content is automatical
          • by MadJo (674225)
            I thought that you couldn't release works that aren't copyrighted, into the public domain any more. Because of the way the law works.
            Everything you create is copyrighted. (btw, you are indeed correct, it's not everything you release, but everything you create)
            You can, however, release it under a less-restrictive licence (Creative Commons for instance), but I don't believe the work can enter public domain from the get-go.
            • by Dabido (802599)
              'I thought that you couldn't release works that aren't copyrighted, into the public domain any more.'

              Um ... I think you mean something other than what you wrote. If a work ISN'T copyrighted, it is in Public Domain. So, Yes, you can't release works that aren't copyrighted into public domain, as they're already there.

              If you are the copyright holder of a work, then you can certainly release your work into public domain. Copyright is just the legal ability to make copies of a work. If you write on the
      • It's easy enough to claim "most countries that have a DMCA" when there are very few examples, and only one original.

        It's as specious as the US DEA argument that there is no valid research in the United States demonstrating medical use of cannabis, while other US departments prevent any such research from being done. Catch-22. It's Schedule I because there is no documented medical use; there is no documented medical use because it's illegal to research.

        Technically the viewpoint and phrasing is correct

    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @03:25AM (#17297440) Homepage
      Companies would rather you weren't able to break their technical protections in the first place, the DMCA is a legal-smackdown on those that do. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "hard encryption" because DRM implies that the key already is in your posession, but that they're relaying on obscurity/tamper-proof hardware to prevent compromise.

      The difficulty prevents more casual hackers, and DMCA prevents large commercial efforts, funding expensive equipment etc. and overall makes it more dangerous to create a huge cracking effort.

      Also one of the important reasons is to stomp out end-user tools. already people expect to be able to transfer CDs to the iPod, not that many expect to transfer DVDs to their HTPC, video iPod, cell phone etc. but many enough. They can tell consumers "You weren't supposed to be able to do that with DVDs either" but they'll still get a "screw you" when trying to push HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

      If you don't see what use they have of the DMCA, you must really be blind. I'm not saying that it's good uses, but if you had the RIAA/MPAAs goal of control, profits and pay per view/playing, pushing it makes good sense.
    • DRM technology is theoretically impossible to prevent the copying of non-interactive works.

      For interactive works the question is more interesting, but the Starforce people try *damn hard* to prevent people from copying Windows video games, and that doesn't seem to slow RELOADED or DEViANCE down one bit.

    • is Playstation 2 Memory cards. 8 Mb of flash ram for $25 bucks. Why? Because of what Sony affectionately terms "Magic Gate", a really basic system of controls for what can and cannot be copied from a memory card. Thanks to this stuff triggering the DMCA, we get no 3rd party Memory cards (except the Nyco ones, that are also $25 dollars). This kind of stuff is what the DMCA is all about. It's about giving companies absolute legal control over their products. Hell, Lexmark tried to use it to keep 3rd party pri
  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @02:15AM (#17297200) Homepage
    Here lately we're starting to hear the beginnings of experiments into actually USING P2P techniques to distribute content and experiments in dropping DRM, and yet the DMCA is continuing its march across the WTO.

    I wonder how long it will be before the media people realize that it will always be a minority of people who will actually bother to copy and crack and skip commercials and never buy. This leaves the majority going along in their mainstream way taking things as they are packaged and delivered.

    I'm hopeful that the experiments in dropping DRM will be as successful as the software industry was when it gave up on their copy protection schemes that involved odd and flawed formats on floppies and CDs. (Is anyone here old enough to remember the floppies with the errors in specific locations and all that?) Now they haven't given up entirely, but they have definitely become more friendly about it as they matured. I'm hopeful that the content people mature more in their new digital frontiers and realize it's all pretty much the same thing as before and that people will continue buying regardless of other options being present.
  • Or writing a letter, or suchlike. But even if the law gets passed, it wont make any difference to me, will still keep playing DVDs in Xine, will still tell others how to play DVDs on Linux, and I doubt any enforcement will happen. But I thought the government was smarter than this, I guess not. If anything, the opposite should he happening, the government should really be actively seeking to eliminate DRM.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      But I thought the government was smarter than this, I guess not.

      They've stopped representing the public, and started governing the public instead - it's a trend of Labour I've noticed for a while now, especially since getting their second term. Still, it's damn annoying that something that affects every New Zealander is happening so quietly. The mainstream media (unsurprisingly) hasn't said a word about this one.

      I'll get my pen and paper out in the morning...
  • by chris_sawtell (10326) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @02:32AM (#17297248) Journal
    That's right. Introduce an important bill just as the country is closing down for the rituals surrounding the Christmas holiday and set the date for submissions just a few days after most people surface after the haze has cleared.

    If this is what is called Consultative Democracy, then frankly I've just become rather envious of the Fijians. Now we know why the leadership of the NZ Government was saying such condemnatory things about the actions of Cdr. Bainimarama.

    We are very isolated from the Real World(tm) here in Little Ol' NZ, so don't get to hear very much about what's happening out there. Do the governments of other countries which purport to be ruled "by the people for the people" get up to these tricks?
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by WK1 (987981)
      Don't know much about anywhere else, but dirty political tricks here in the USA are standard. Some might even say required.

      It's true what Col Mitchel said on Dakara, "I guess politics really do suck everywhere."
    • You're no exception in NZ at all.

      It's certainly like you describe here in the UK as well, and I hear it's the same in US.

      What seems to have happened is that politicians worldwide have now lost any intention of representing the interest of "The People" honestly, and always work against them in any way they can. The political system is only as good as its practitioners, and hence nowadays it's rotten to the core.

      I don't know if it was ever any better than this. Back in the days of the Founding Fathers in th
    • We're here with you.

      Current legislation is due to pass in NY concerning the downsizing of hospitals. We have a small, financially efficient, hospital in our little village that is due to be downsized... unless our legislators vote against the bill.

      No vote means passing by default.

      And it's over the Christmas holidays.

      I suppose we'll all be driving 30 to 40 miles for the nearest hospital, or paying an extra $2k for an ambulance roll out.

      Yay Democracy?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lawpoop (604919)
      There are similar tricks happening here in the good ol' US and A.

      Our congress is routinely passing bills at 4 in the morning, which were written by lawyers from industry in secret committees, with copies of said 1,000-page bills distributed to congresspeople only 24 hours before the vote.
    • by Marillion (33728)

      Okay - I realise it's unfashionable to read legislation before commenting on Slashdot - instead it's far more fun to leap into hyperbole. I at least read the general remarks that preceed the statutory changes.

      This seems to be legislation that tries to strike a fair balance. It grants ISP's common carrier status [so your ISP doesn't have a legal incentive to add content filtering]. Specifically clarifies libraries, archives and education right to the work [the bill intends to continue existing standards

  • by JamesNK (967097) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @02:37AM (#17297264) Homepage

    Although the bill passed with an overwhelming margin, that doesn't mean a lot of the MPs will support it next time it comes up for vote. In New Zealand MPs often support a bill in its first reading because they feel it requires more thought and debate.

    For example recently a bill to raise the New Zealand drinking age to 20 was passed in its first reading by a large margin before being voted down in the second - MPs back off from drinking age hike [nzherald.co.nz]

    • by Coryoth (254751) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @03:52AM (#17297574) Homepage Journal
      Indeed. I just wrote a long email detailing my concerns (primarily the issue of treating copyright as a property right, that copyright should be about providing incentive for content creators and any laws should be made with this fact firmly in mind, the protection of fair use rights - to allow individuals full access to do as they wish with works for personal use, and about the steady creep of ever longer copyright terms) to the MPs who provided personal addresses (as opposed to their official parliamentry addesses). I think as long as you sound reasonable, serious, and actually raise deeper issues for them to think about, many MPs will actually pay some attention to this. The reality is that most people, politicians included, simply haven't really thought about copyright issues all that seriously. Giving them some reasons to dwell on, and think a little more deeply, about the full implications can, I strongly suspect, make a difference.

      In case you're interested in writing as well, here is the list of email addresses [parliament.nz]. I strongly suggest that anyone who can write an intelligent thoughtful email to help get MPs seriously thinking about these issues should do so.
  • The smart move (Score:3, Interesting)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @03:32AM (#17297480)
    The best thing for everyone at this point would be for the investors in the entertainment industry to invest in oil futures and leave entertainment to Youtube. People get their free entertainment and the investors can still make money since oil stocks are likely to climb for the forseeable future. Okay the entertainment will mostly be Weird Al wantabes and uncle Simon getting hit in the nuts by a baseball but hey it'll be free and everyone will be happy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chandon Seldon (43083)

      There's no reason to expect that entertainment quality would degrade overall if the entertainment industry gave up and copyright law was abolished entirely. We'd lose out on Britney Spears songs, but with Britney's marketing dept out of the way others could produce similar product for the ad revenues from product placement in music videos. I don't think you really fear pop music getting more commercialized.

      Basically the only thing that wouldn't have a funding model is really high budget movies and video g

  • by killjoe (766577) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @03:40AM (#17297516)
    Recently apple opened up their iTunes store in NZ. On that very day the NZ govt passed a law making it legal for people to copy their music from one format to another. Before that it was illegal in NZ to rip your CDs to MP3 or any other format.

    Here is the odd thing. If it's now your right to be able to format shift the music you bought wouldn't any technology that prevents you from doing that be illegal?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alsee (515537)
      Here is the odd thing. If it's now your right to be able to format shift the music you bought wouldn't any technology that prevents you from doing that be illegal?

      They way it works is that you don't actually get a "right" to format shift.... they merely made it "not copyright infringment" to format shift.

      And then they make it criminal to to do the decryption needed to be able to format shift. Note that they do not make it copyright infringment to decrypt, they make it just plain crimina.

      So it is not copyrig
    • by Trogre (513942)
      Really? Could you please link to the act that made this legal?

      thanks
    • by jimicus (737525)
      If it's now your right to be able to format shift the music you bought wouldn't any technology that prevents you from doing that be illegal?

      There is a difference between something being "a right" and something being "not wrong".

      IANAL, but AFAICT most legal systems work on the basis that you can do anything you like as long as it's not on the big list of things which are "wrong" - but that does not prevent someone else putting barriers to stop you doing something, as long as those barriers aren't specificall
    • Yes, I live in NZ and I don't recall hearing anything about this law. I think you are thinking about the law that this article refers to, which hasn't yet passed - it's still in the select committee stage.
    • That apparent paradox is the key to the media companies' strategy.

      It used to be media companies were content to simply abide by copyright law. If someone broke copyright law, the companies would go after them. But aside from that, we customers could do what we wanted with their products.

      Then technology made it increasingly easy for people to break copyright law, and harder for media companies to find out who broke it and stop them. So they started implementing technology of their own: copy protection.

      Natura
  • by kiwi_mcd (655047) <ian.mcdonaldNO@SPAMjandi.co.nz> on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @04:18AM (#17297684) Homepage
    From my blog:

    My notes I posted to mailing list reproduced on this:

    Here is the major announcement from the government:
    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?Docum entID=28024 [beehive.govt.nz]

    and the actual proposed legislation is here:
    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5A88D15B-C4A 1-42C2-AE75-9200DD87F738/48250/DBHOH_BILL_7735_401 93.pdf [parliament.nz]

    Some quick highlights as I read the act: (Note I am not a lawyer)
    - Reverse engineering IS allowed under some circumstances - basically for interoperability
    - format shifting is allowed but only initially for 2 years, this can be extended though (or not)
    - time shifting is allowed provided you don't keep it and it's not available on demand
    - ISPs are basically not liable (provided they follow take down notices)
    - allowed to alter commercial software if the vendor doesn't fix problems in reasonable time
    - anti-TPM (DRM via another name) is prohibited for sale or for producing (seems to cover open source). Fines of $150K or 5 years jail. Doesn't seem to prohibit if you have a copy but you can't write it yourself, sell it or tell others about it. Does make it an offence if you use it to copy copyrighted material. But you are allowed to use anti-TPM for "interoperability of software" so conceivably you could use software to play Itunes or DVDs on Linux. But this only applies if
    you have asked vendor for a copy you can use and they don't supply in a reasonable time.

    Overall this seems to be much better than DMCA of the USA but not perfect. It is probably better than people could have hoped for.

    Ian

    • And where in there is fair use protected?

      Where exactly are the provisions allowing me to make backups of the media I *paid* *for*?

      DRM is a method of breaking the social contract whereby society agrees to police the rights of 'rights holders' in return for the eventual access to the created entity. Why should be put protections in place for that DRM?

      It is of course already exactly as illegal to break copyright as it has always been, why are we looking at introducing another level of protection for only one s
      • And where in there is fair use protected?

        New Zealand doesn't have a broad "fair use" doctrine, just specific exceptions to standard copyright law (currently including backing up computer software, and time shifitng TV shows). I'm not saying this is a good thing (beats having an indefinite "pay for a license or pay for a lawyer to argue fair use" thing though), but it's not surprising that this law has no broad fair use provisions.
    • time shifting is allowed provided you don't keep it and it's not available on demand

      I regularly tape, er DVR, stuff hear that is ODable. For premium, for example.
      Half the stuff I tape is for time-shifting reasons.
      I wonder what the media company would say about it.
      Considering they advertised time-shifting as a reason to rent the DVR I doubt they would like it.
      Whether they "invested" in our DMCA I don't know but I can guess they wouldn't sell/rent many DVRs, read none, if that applied.

  • The New Zealand government has bugger all interest in property rights. As far as I can tell, the current morality is something along these lines. If you steal a car, then you are a criminal and the car is not your property or the property of any you sell it to. If the government steals a car, then it is their car and they can damn well do what they want with it.

    The government does not give a damn about property rights. They are just doing a deal with someone in return for something else. In this case,
  • by femto (459605) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @06:05AM (#17298128) Homepage

    The more I think about it, I'm coming around to the idea that the DMCA (and its ilk) might not be the end of the world.

    Think about it... What would your reaction be if you were in business and your chief competitor cut their own legs off at the knee caps? Would you view it as a bad thing?

    Now recast that as RIAA and friends vs. Creative Commons and friends. Surely the DMCA will only serve to drive people towards the Commons?

    So in the absence of the abolition of copyright, perhaps copyright+DMCA is a better position for the producers of Free content than copyright-DMCA? Think of the DMCA as the equivalent of the GPL's "liberty or death" clause, applied to the RIAA's content. The DMCA ensures that non-free content will die, leaving Free content to take its place.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by crosbie (446285)
      That's right. Anal retentive publishers using the DMCA restrict themselves and their art into obscurity, whilst libertarian artists emancipate their fans, proliferate their art, and reap the audience adulation.

      If you don't want the public to have your art, don't publish it.

      The notion that the artist has a human right to prevent their published art being copied is a myth - it is, and always has been, an artifical monopoly created out of incumbent commercial interest.

      If artists wish compensation, there's noth
    • Surely the DMCA will only serve to drive people towards the Commons?

      This might be the case if Joe Average wasn't an utter moron. The issue here goes further than just government and legislation. The problem is that Joe Sixpack will still continue to buy the stuff. He'll probably bitch and complain a little bit about the inconvenience at some point, but he'll continue to pay for it, validating the media companies' business models and continuing to allow them to make obscene profits and use that money to pass
    • by westlake (615356)
      Think of the DMCA as the equivalent of the GPL's "liberty or death" clause, applied to the RIAA's content. The DMCA ensures that non-free content will die, leaving Free content to take its place.

      I am thinking.

      I am thinking that in ten years I haven't heard one word spoken about the GPL outside the insular domains of techie forums like Slashdot. That the "liberty or death" rhetoric so freely spun out here has no resonance with end users.

      Farewell, Napster. Hello, iTunes for Windows.

      I am thinking that Fr

  • by delt0r (999393)
    So I have just read the whole thing. Takes a while. Anyway this is a long way from DMCA. Fair use is fully protected and now we have fair use (we didn't in NZ untill now). For NZ its a big step forward IMO.

    Now when I say fair use I mean you are alowed to use cracks etc if the DRM is preventing fair use. You are can also distrubute these cracks providing you have ensured that its only going to be used for fair use provisions. Its by far the best "DMCA" i have seen. You are even able to decompile code to crea
  • So, how does if effect my bittorrent downloads?
  • All of the replies claiming that this law is reasonable, I think have overlooked a few key things:
    • The Ministry of Economic Development has previously stated that it's not the Government's place to protect TPMs (aka DRM). This position has changed. Why? My guesses: free trade, WIPO, Apple.
    • The one good change (format-shifting allowed for fair use) has an automatic 2 year sunset clause unless it is specifically extended. WTF!? Do the backers of this bill know something that we don't about a new format bein
    • by Dubwise (921106)
      All of the replies claiming that this law is reasonable, I think have overlooked a few key things:

      All good points. And the interesting thing is that while the format-shifting exception has been there since the first discussion document in in 2001, the anti-circumventiontion stuff came in relatively late and has not been well justified. The impression is that the change is a result of lobbying from (a) music industry interests, who strongly opposed format-shifting, (b) US trade interests (there is a desi
  • There is an online petition [petitiononline.com] against the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill [parliament.nz]. This should probably have been part of the original post. If you live in New Zealand or are a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident, please do consider signing the petition. Thank you.
  • New Zealanders interested in fighting this legislation have until the 16th of February 2007 to make submissions to the Select Committee, before the committee makes its recommendations and sends the Bill back for a second reading."

    Should read:
    New Zealanders interested in fighting this legislation have until the 16th of February 2007 to piss into the wind, before the committee rubber stamps the bill and collects their brand new sailboats from NZRIAA/NZMPAA.
  • That:

    1. That the NZ Government is basically the most corrupt that the country has ever had, including under Muldoon (for examples, look up the recent media stories on the PM forging works of art for sale, the PM dodging speeding convictions for a high-speed motorcade to a sports match that would have landed anyone else in Jail, the ruling parties blatant breach of election spending laws, and in the Auditor-Generals clear report the blatant misuse of public funds for political purposes, and using its cont

  • Listen up America! This is what you get when you aren't politically active enough in letting your representative know what you want.

You will be successful in your work.

Working...