NZ MP Enjoys Copyright Infringement, Votes For 3 Strikes 220
An anonymous reader writes "As New Zealand politicians are looking to rush through a new copyright law, 92A, which imposes a 'three strikes' regime on people accused of file sharing, some New Zealanders were a bit amused to see Parliament Member Melissa Lee stand up to speak in favor of the bill just hours after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend. Does that count as her first strike?"
National Party token Asian (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So in other words she's just like Sarah Palin bringing in the mouthbreather votes in the US. Too bad.
Re:National Party token Asian (Score:5, Funny)
For some reason I find this billboard of her amusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MtAlbert_2009_Billboards2.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Poor albert... Or lucky albert. Depends on the perspective...
Re: (Score:2)
Melissa Lee is just the National Party's token Asian, and after a by election shambles has probably risen about as far in the party as she is ever going to. She is not very smart, and every time she opens her mouth in public she proves it again. She is however quite nice looking, and probably brings a bunch of Asian votes.
You also just described most of the National party and a good fraction of the opposition. John Key is not stupid like most of them although most of his intelligence is devoted to corralling a bunch of idiots to prevent a dangerously stupid but useful government from falling on it's face too hard.
The depth and magnitude of the asshattery that incumbent political party manifests beggars belief. It's been a government by photo oppurtunity riding a trojan horse crisis all the way to the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Melisaa Lee [melissalee.co.nz] != Melissa Lee [wikipedia.org].
It's passed (Score:5, Interesting)
This was voted upon under urgency and passed 111 to 11. The only chance of it not becoming law is if the Governor-General blocks it, but I don't think that ever happens.
Re:It's passed (Score:5, Funny)
The Governor-General, for those non-colonials, exercises the supreme executive power of the Commonwealth. This still involves rum rationing, beating back the filthy natives and occasionally blocking legislation that interferes with their profligate lifestyles.
In Australia, all of their functions could theoretically be fulfilled by a giant rubber stamp that hates change and is uncomfortable around dark people.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK we have the Queen do this job herself ....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case though the bill was passed through the final stages. It wasn't like the bill was introduced and pushed through entirely under urgency with no select committee. The language of the bill has been changed a lot in response to public submissions etc. and compared to the previously passed "three strikes" law it is an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
111 to 11 sounds to me like ~all~ the parties had some people voting for it ;) Unless it was a vote along party lines and the 111 represents the major parties, and the 11 are independants/minor parties. Either way, voting for the 11 next time around ain't likely to change much.
Re: (Score:3)
Right (Score:5, Interesting)
New Zealand simply needs a national day of action, where three people place copyright infringement claims against every member of parliament who voted for the three strikes laws. Just to see what happens.
In fact it's probably worth putting in three infringement claims against everyone just to see how long it takes to shut NZ's internet down.
Re: (Score:2)
Cronyism will likely ensure that they will be practically immune from punishment.
Ah who cares... (Score:3)
Indeed, big media has gotten new media wrong for decades, if not centuries. However, for the first time in history we have the technology to support new media WITHOUT big media. It doesn't take a giant publisher to create a best selling book anymore and put it on e-readers, apps, itunes, or other distribution systems. Nor does it take big developers to distribute boxes of games or other products.
What we will eventually see is the decline (but not abolishment) of big media in favor of independent distributors. The point is that they can do anything they want for copyright laws but the internet and its users are much too savvy and agile . They can't stop the momentum and they'll keep throwing money at the problem thinking it will stop the hemorrhagic. How often do we see on /. articles about how piracy is the result of poor products not poor regulations. Ah who cares...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ah who cares... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you think that? The people doing the actual work at not generally receiving even 10% of the proceeds that their effort generates so why do you think cutting out the middle men will result in lesser quality goods even IF there was a 90% piracy rate?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they will have the same problem because they will have the freedom to experiment with their own products. For example, we've seen a shift toward 99 cent books and apps, away from the traditional models of valuing products by X (e.g. author, topic, length, etc). With more variation the best models will prevail, and by best I mean most successful and profitable. Clearly the models employed now are not working because people are turning to piracy.
90% of how many? (Score:2)
If 90% of the public pirates, then the investment put into creating books, music, software, etc will also be forced to decline
if 99% of a million people who saw your work pirate it and only 1% buy, you are still better off than if only a thousand people saw it.
It's the same thing as patenting 'on the Internet' (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's the same kind of problem that prevents most people from getting up in arms about DRM. They just don't make the connection between the physical world and the digital world. For most of us on Slashdot, we see music (or text, or video, or whatever) as just another data stream. We see data as being the same stuff regardless of the delivery medium. Other people see a fundamental difference between, say, an MP3 file and a CD.
When they have a CD, they have a solid thing in front of them that they can point at and say, 'there's my music'. With music on a computer that they got over the Internet, it's a lot harder to point at a thing. It's scary, because it's one thing to talk about copying a CD and ending up with a big pile of pirated CDs, and it's quite another to talk about copying an MP3, and suddenly there's potentially an infinite number of pirate copies with no obvious physical consequences. There are physical and monetary barriers to making a bazillion copies of a CD, but no boundaries at all to copying an MP3.
Of course, to us, it doesn't make any difference. We know that the data are the same regardless of media. And it's obvious to us that people like Lee should realize that getting a pirate compilation from her friend is the same thing that a lot of us do on the Internet with music files. But it's absolutely not obvious to her (at least, I assume, from the obvious dissonance between her actions and her words).
I'm not even trying to take a position pro- or anti- in this case; I'm more interested in Lee having a consistent opinion of music sharing than in what that opinion actually is.
Re: (Score:3)
That's basically true. Although, things are a whole lot better for businesses if people are getting limited compilations of music, rather than going out and just pirating it off the internet. Why do I say
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely agree with you. I'd expect that the RIAA does not. It's clear to me that some limited amount of music sharing is good for sales; introducing people to new music is likely to make people want more of it (if they like it). Hey, that's what the radio is for, right? But the industry has got this crazy black and white view of copyright violation. I mean, they were complaining about people ripping CDs to put them on their iPods, like they were losing sales from that activity. They're getting re
Re: (Score:2)
"P.S. - I used to work at a particular office job. I would go to work, and I would have a pen that I got from the supply cupboard. Sometimes, I would forget to take the pen out of my pocket before I went home. Maybe, on the way home, I would stop and buy groceries, and I would write a check using that pen. She maintained that that was stealing. My opinion was that the ink that I used to do that was more than made up for by the work email that I would respond to when I got home. We were never able to see eye
Not quite one strike (Score:3)
Wouldn't the NZ equiv of the RIAA count it as at least one strike per track?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the NZ equiv of the RIAA count it as at least one strike per track?
Actually, you're free to "pirate "as much as you want until you get your letter, then if you continue you get another letter, and so on.
But See... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But See... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly the sort of thing we need to put a stop to! People enjoying music!
The big music labels already do that quite well enough on their own
Re: (Score:2)
I put those two bits of information together and.. (Score:3)
Parliament Member Melissa Lee stand up to speak in favor of the bill
with
hours after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend
I get "Just doing what she is told to do without knowing or even asking why."
I.e., a good little corporate soldier.
Strikes for her and her friend. (Score:3)
If the compilation of songs has three or more songs on it. It is ALL THREE STRIKES..
For her and her friend...
Changes (Score:3, Interesting)
They have a war on copyright so police can bother me.
And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do
Cos if the prices were fair I'd be giving it back to you.
You gotta operate the easy way,
(RIAA) - "I made a G today",
But you made it in a sleazy way -
Selling tracks to the kids, "I gotta get paid"
Well hey - It's just the way it...
-----
Increase the peace.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's a false dichotomy, but that certainly is one of the choices.
Fair use? (Score:2)
Maybe I did not get it - and it's not explicit in the linked article either.
But, assuming that her friend did not illegally got the music tracks (but e.g. owns the CDs), where is here the copyright infringement? At least in the US and most Europe countries, copying music that you "own" for a friend is OK under "fair use" or "private copy" exceptions of the copyright law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if she even realizes her own hypocrisy? He video will most likely get slashdotted and she'll just see the numbers as support for her position.
As a long-time supporter for reduction of IP constraints, I get hurt more than most. Soon, my options to publish DRM free material may even be curtailed by such limited political attitudes and understanding.
GrpA
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, copyright laws are only supposed to apply to the actual copying of data. Thus, if I copy a cassette tape, give it to you, and you play it, you aren't breaking the law unless you decide to copy the tape yourself.
File sharing is a bit of a different animal, legally speaking, since computers love to make copies. The content cartels have successfully argued that file sharing is illegal for both parties since uploaders are technically "copying" copyrighted data to send it over the Internet,
Re:yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Accessory to crime (Score:5, Insightful)
As has been said since the dawn of internet time, copyright infringement is NOT theft. They are different both in reality and more importantly, in the legal system. You can't use situations describing theft to explain your points regarding copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
yes it should.
Yes ... and no. I don't know how many songs were in the compilation, but doesn't the RIAA & 'big music' (and their international equivalents) sue based on each song constituting a violation? If the songs come from different music companies and/or governing bodies doesn't that count as multiple violations? She may be out of strikes already.
Isn't this pubic confession normally enough justification for a search of her home and car to determine if she has other compilations that have been illegally produc
Re: (Score:3)
No, it shouldn't count as her first strike.
"Compilation" implies to me that multiple files were involved, so it should count as her first and second strikes, and if that compilation involved three or more files her third strike as well.
Re:Not enough information. (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA:
Ok. Shower... Reading ... And then bed! listening to a compilation a friend did for me of K Pop. Fab. Thanks Jay.
So unless "Jay" is a Korean pop star, I'd say no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not enough information. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not enough information. (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, those immortal words: "Out, damn'd spotify! out, I say!"
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
Ok. Shower... Reading ... And then bed! listening to a compilation a friend did for me of K Pop. Fab. Thanks Jay.
So unless "Jay" is a Korean pop star, I'd say no.
I thought 'K Pop' was the publishing world's nickname for K Fed's original bedtime stories he reads to his assorted children over the phone (based on various custody & child support battles). I think she meant to finish with "Thanks, K".
Sensationalist Article (Score:3)
The article only shows half the story.
Ms Lee said last night the compilation was made of songs that were legally downloaded and paid for. "I'm not a pirate. I have never downloaded anything illegally in my life." Earlier she had told the House she did not even know how file-sharing through peer-to-peer systems worked.
Source [nzherald.co.nz]
In New Zealand, format shifting is legal.
Re:Sensationalist Article (Score:5, Insightful)
I do like that an elected official who has portion of the fate of her nation in her hands (albeit a small one) isn't bright enough to know how file sharing works....
Re: (Score:3)
I would think that Lee not understanding the subtle nuances of copyright law that are never enforced is more likely.
Re:Sensationalist Article (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if it's legal. Just accuse her three times and she's out. The legality of her actions doesn't matter now.
Re: (Score:2)
Earlier she had told the House she did not even know how file-sharing through peer-to-peer systems worked.
So she votes to make something illegal that she doesn't even understand? I guess that's what happens when laws are rushed through under urgency. One can only assume that this was one of the terms with Warner to keeping The Hobbit in NZ.
Re: (Score:3)
So she votes to make something illegal that she doesn't even understand?
I think that sums up the work of your average politician. They are not evil, just incredibly dense outside their field of expertise, which happens to be back stabbing.
Re:Sensationalist Article (Score:4, Insightful)
So she votes to make something illegal that she doesn't even understand?
I think that sums up the work of your average politician.
Yep, seems par for the course.
RIAA representative goes in and gives their version of the P2P story.
Politician rolls eyes.
Politician goes to parliament and repeats story.
Law passed.
I don't think her understanding is important, none of the people who vote on the law would understand it either. The only problem with the system is that only the RIAA representative gets to tell his side of the story, the people aren't represented.
Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.
No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.
The difference here is that you don't need to be found guilty of murder, I can just accuse you of it. Three accusations and you're off to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.
No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal, and if it were a violation it is quite different than setting up a server to share music on a large scale. An important element of a crime is intent. When intent is combined with the severity of the offense you often have the difference between an infraction (small fine), misdemeanor and felony.
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people.
Um, no.
Re: (Score:2)
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal
But that is not what happened here. You are making an argument based on a false premise.
This was a user-generated compilation, meaning it was NOT the original CDs. And who would make up a compilation CD for another person and then just loan it to them? Nobody. There would be no expectation of returning the disc. This is quite clearly a violation of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Her friend didn't loan just any legal CD/DVD, (s)he loaned a CD/DVD with music copied explicitly for the use of somebody else.
Owning a copyrighted CD/DVD means I can make copies for my own use, not for the use by others.
Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (Score:4, Insightful)
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,
because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).
Keep reading. Somewhere after the above, and probably in small print, you will most likely find something like: except as allowed by law in your jurisdiction. Loaning a CD/DVD to a friend probably falls under fair use and is probably not considered "distribution" in a legal sense. MPAA bluffs and unenforceable terms do not make things illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Loaning a disc to a friend isn't infringement unless you use a private copy while it is in their possession, since a single copy is changing hands.
Re: (Score:2)
MPAA bluffs and unenforceable terms do not make things illegal.
Yet it's enough to get us three strike laws around the world that rely on no more evidence than an accusation from the **AAs...
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand it correctly, that is not what "fair use" in US copyright law covers, however it seems to be permitted by the first sale doctrine (i.e. selling or giving away a copy does not constitute infringement because a copy has not been made).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can write whatever they like, but that doesn't make it illegal. Nor do big scary letters give the MPAA power to waive your rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Distribution does not mean handing a legally purchased copy to someone else.
Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (Score:5, Informative)
Loaning a CD or DVD to a friend is not a violation of copyright. Copyright is the monopoly right to make copies which is reserved to the copyright owner. A copyright owner doesn't have any inherent entitlement to control what happens to the copies that are sold, apart from activities that would infringe on the owner's copyrights (eg public performances & unlicensed copying). Re-sales and loans do not infringe provided that no copies are made.
That's why the software industry came up with the insidious concept of "licensing" rather than selling the copies of software that they distribute. That's why EULAs are, unfortunately, enforceable in many jursidictions - because the EULA states that something that looks like an outright purchase is actually just a one-sided bullshit licence contract.
EULAs don't apply to books, CDs, or DVDs.... yet. That's one more reason why streaming services represent a corrosion of consumer rights - they replace irrevocable sales of a physical object with revocable licence agreements for services that carry a huge number of additional obligations and restrictions on the licensee.
Re: (Score:2)
EULAs don't apply to books, CDs, or DVDs.... yet.
I think you mean anymore. The current state of affirs with books etc is precisely because the same breed of evil greedy bastards tried to pull this bullshit before. For some reason it was considered much less acceptable in the past and was legislated out of existence.
Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (Score:4, Informative)
Don;t be silly - if I lend someone a DVD, no illegal copy has been made. How is it copyright infringement? Next you'll claim that if I lend you a book or a newspaper, it's copyright infringement.
Again, copyright infringement involves violation of the limitations on the right to make a copy. No copy of the DVD made, no copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not obtuse and not a troll, just good at reading comprehension given the original comment says "loans to a friend".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm in one case a copy has been made, in the other case, no copy has been made. With the copy made, you are now distributing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You being silly, the copy of the DVD is in your head! Now erase it before you loan it to other's!
Other's?
Other's fucking WHAT?
Jesus, I'm not a grammar nazi normally but dude, what the fuck is the point of the apostrophe in your sentence?
Re: (Score:3)
Loaning a otherwise legal copy via CD or DVD is illegal distribution. Not that it's likely to be enforced, but strictly speaking the law is quite clear.
Wrong. NZ's Copyright Act (Section 9) states:
(subsection 2 regards software, subsection 3 refers to rentals, neither of which are relevant here)
Translated into English, in New Z
Re: (Score:2)
Please note - lending is not "distribution" within the meaning of the copyright act, since no copy is being made, which is a requirement for "distribution" under section 106.3.
Re: (Score:2)
You have been found guilty of making a copy in your brain, please report to your local RIAA office for your court ordered lobotomy!
Not really too far off making a copy in cache.
Luckily most RIAA output is pretty forgettable, you can probably get away with claiming you just made a .tmp copy and almost instantly deleted it :)
Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (Score:5, Informative)
That was true of the bill that was originally tabled, and rejected. But in this hastily resurrected form, the accusations do have to be reviewed by a "Copyright Tribunal", allowing the accused to mount a defence against the presumption of guilt. And if the tribunal decides that terminating your internet access is a fitting punishment, they then have to put it before a court.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not at all. You seem to be confusing two different things here. A few months offline is one of the penalties that will be available to the tribunal if the government minister in charge decides to activate that part of the bill at a future date (initially, fines will be the only penalty available). If the tribunal does decide to use suspension of intern
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that it will start from a presumption of guilt (ie, the accuser doesn't really need to provide real evidence, and if the accused fails to defend they will automatically lose, with the tribunal only considering what the penalty should be based on the seriousness of the accusations). But once evidence is filed in defence, it will come down to the merits of that evidence vs the accuser's, just as in a proper court of justice, only it is still in front of the tribunal so the cost of defendin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.
A closer analogy would be that murdering one person is same as murdering thousands. A single murder, while still bad, is acceptable in the grand scheme of things. But thousands of people murdering thousands of people wouldn't be tolerated in any decent society.
Re: (Score:2)
But thousands of people murdering thousands of people wouldn't be tolerated in any decent society.
Soooo, never heard of a little thing called war, now have we?
Re: (Score:2)
Who the FUCK modded this Insightful?
If I buy a CD, and I loan this CD to someone else, that's copyright infringement?
I don't think so.
Get a clue, mods.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me not to buy my kid any more DVDs, then.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape.
Consider another scenario. Someone buys the songs from Apple iTunes and their license allows them to burn a CD to create a custom mix. This burned mix CD would be legal. As I said originally, its not certain there is a copyright violation in this case. Maybe there was but more info seems necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So did "jay" delete his mp3s when he lent her the CD?
Otherwise I'm seeing two copies, in two hands. Not one dude with a backup.
If he made 50 backups and lent them to his friends - is that allowed?
Not that I agree with the state of copyright or anything, but lending one 'backup' or format shift is just as wrong as lending the same to many people, no? Copies were created. There are multiple people in possession of copies concurrently, with only one licence paid.
Re: (Score:2)
So did "jay" delete his mp3s when he lent her the CD? Otherwise I'm seeing two copies, in two hands. Not one dude with a backup. If he made 50 backups and lent them to his friends - is that allowed? Not that I agree with the state of copyright or anything, but lending one 'backup' or format shift is just as wrong as lending the same to many people, no? Copies were created. There are multiple people in possession of copies concurrently, with only one licence paid.
I don't think it is that cut and dry.
http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php [eff.org]
3. How Do You Know If It's Fair Use?
There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. The factors to be considered include:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You, sir, are completely missing the point.
The question is not whether it's that cut and dry legally. The point is it is that cut and dry LOGICALLY. The whole problem in the first place is that the law does not follow logic.
I buy ten CDs, mix a song from each to a new CD and loan THAT to a friend. She enjoyed that very much. But I am still in possession and able to use my original and paid-for music while she is ALSO able to listen to at least parts of that music.
If I make available my music collection to t
Re: (Score:2)
It is legal to own. That ownership is not transferrable. It is not legal to sell, rent, loan or broadcast unless the local law explicitly grants some rights along those lines (only Germany IIRC).
Read the EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)