Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Music Piracy Politics

NZ MP Enjoys Copyright Infringement, Votes For 3 Strikes 220

Posted by timothy
from the one-law-for-the-lion-and-the-ass dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NZ MP Enjoys Copyright Infringement, Votes For 3 Strikes

Comments Filter:
  • by youngone (975102) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @11:39PM (#35825144)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So in other words she's just like Sarah Palin bringing in the mouthbreather votes in the US. Too bad.

    • by grouchomarxist (127479) on Friday April 15, 2011 @01:24AM (#35825616)

      For some reason I find this billboard of her amusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MtAlbert_2009_Billboards2.jpg [wikipedia.org]

    • by w0mprat (1317953)

      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.

    • Um, Melisaa Lee [melissalee.co.nz] != Melissa Lee [wikipedia.org].

  • It's passed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shermo (1284310) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @11:41PM (#35825154)

    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.

    • by Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @11:57PM (#35825204)

      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.

      • In the UK we have the Queen do this job herself ....

        • by delinear (991444)
          The Queen theoretically has this power but it's a one shot deal at best. If she ever exercised it Parliament would take it away, it's just good to make it look like there's a higher power with a veto over anything too mad.
    • by Dunbal (464142) *
      Seems a lot of things all around the world are getting voted for "urgently" nowadays. It's the new political trick. Don't even bother reading it, just vote for it quickly so you can pretend it never happened.
      • 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.

  • Right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by obeythefist (719316) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @11:45PM (#35825174) Journal

    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.

  • by Palmsie (1550787) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @11:55PM (#35825198)

    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...

    • by brit74 (831798)
      It seems to me that "independent distributors" will end up having all the same problems with piracy that big companies do. The only thing that will give is the amount of money going into creating them in the first place. If 90% of the public pirates, then the investment put into creating books, music, software, etc will also be forced to decline, which generally means poorer quality and more bugs. I see things unraveling and the public being unhappy with the result. I hope you like fan fiction and YouTu
      • Re:Ah who cares... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by afidel (530433) on Friday April 15, 2011 @01:07AM (#35825556)
        If 90% of the public pirates, then the investment put into creating books, music, software, etc will also be forced to decline, which generally means poorer quality and more bugs.

        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?
      • by Palmsie (1550787)

        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.

      • 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.

  • by imidan (559239) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @11:59PM (#35825218)

    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.

    • by brit74 (831798)

      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).

      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

      • by imidan (559239)

        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

        • "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

  • by gmhowell (26755) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Friday April 15, 2011 @12:02AM (#35825234) Homepage Journal

    Wouldn't the NZ equiv of the RIAA count it as at least one strike per track?

    • 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)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Friday April 15, 2011 @12:26AM (#35825348) Homepage Journal
    This is exactly the sort of thing we need to put a stop to! People enjoying music! If you're playing music in your car, driving down the street and someone else hears it, that's a public performance, and that's copyright infringement! If you make a song your ring tone and you didn't pay for it in ring tone format, that's a copyright infringement! If you hum a tune, that's copyright infringement! If you think about the jingle of that sub shop while you're buying a sub there, that's copyright infringement! Every single even remotely music-related thing you do on a daily basis should either generate revenue for the music industry or be considered copyright infringement! Now we've paid for the very best politicians money can buy to make this happen, so you people should mind your own business and go back to fucking sheep. And by the way, that tune that's playing when your're fucking sheep? Copyright infringement.
    • Re:But See... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CodeBuster (516420) on Friday April 15, 2011 @02:35AM (#35825852)

      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

    • by delinear (991444)
      Maybe I'm getting old but, while I have very liberal views when it comes to copyright and fair use and the way the law should be, I have no problem with the RIAA going after people driving around with their car stereos blaring, people with annoying ring tones and people who insist on humming in my vicinity. Maybe we just found a useful function for the RIAA!
  • When I put

    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.

  • by Ken Broadfoot (3675) on Friday April 15, 2011 @01:20AM (#35825604) Homepage Journal

    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)

    by dimethylxanthine (946092) <mr.fruitNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 15, 2011 @01:27AM (#35825626) Homepage
    Instead of war on poverty
    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.
  • 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.

Nothing succeeds like success. -- Alexandre Dumas

Working...