New Zealand DMCA Moves Forward 153
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."
Why does anyone need a DMCA? (Score:1, Insightful)
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?
Isn't it ironic somehow? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Will have a look at emailing some politicians (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Democracy in Action? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The iTunes store in NZ. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Boooooooo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. I like to legitimatly reverse engineer all kinds of stuff for hobby as for a living. The DMCA is the biggest source of stress in my life and i have 2 teen-age daughters.
Re:The iTunes store in NZ. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 copyright infringment for you to format shift, but it is criminal to do the decryption you need to do to fromat shift. And it is criminal for anyone to give you the instructions on how to decrypt. So even if they do have some exemption somewhere saying it's not criminal to decyrpt for certain purposes, it's *still* criminal for anyone to actually give you the tool or instructions to be able to decypt it.
So even when format shifting is not infringment, and even when decrypting is not criminal, it's still impossible because anyone supplying you the means/ability to do it is criminal.
-
Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (Score:1, Insightful)
"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 PAY for their works? You think its 'fair' to only think about the users rights, but the copyright owners have rights too you know.
"their view of ownership"? "people's view of ownership which includes the right to share"?
This isn't all a matter of opinions, there are definite legal limits to what both sides can do. Their view is that they created/own the damn works and therefore they have the right to limit distribution to people who actually PAY for it. We, the consumers, have the right to transfer between mediums, make BACKUP copies, and resell. "Sharing" doesn't mean copying and mass distributing it, which is what putting it on the internet means.
Until someone can find a method which can give BOTH sides ALL of their rights then the copyright holders are going to use the only means available to protect their rights. DRM
Re:Will have a look at emailing some politicians (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Is it really a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 nothing stopping them making a deal with their audience directly: Art for money, money for art. This does not require copyright, patents or the DMCA.
But most countries don't have a DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
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: there is no such research in the US. But there is in the rest of the world.
Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem with the media creators is that they want it both ways - they don't want to have to put big labels on their products precisely because they want you to buy their media assuming you can do what you want with it, when that's not the case. This is an implicit form of false advertising in my book. And this is where the real problem lies - not with DRM itself, but that the DRM contract is not obvious to most users. If the gov't is going to step in and enforce these laws, they need to also ensure that the media companies are not deceiving consumers.
Re:Democracy in Action? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 before We did (by infringing copyright).