US Offered To Draft NZ 3-Strikes Law, Fund Copyright Initiative 204
An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has just posted
hundreds of cables from US personnel in New Zealand that reveal
regular government lobbying on copyright, offers to draft New Zealand
three-strikes-and-you're-out legislation, and a recommendation to spend
over NZ$500,000 to fund a recording industry-backed IP enforcement
initiative. The funding raises the question of whether New Zealand is
aware that
local enforcement initiatives, including raids and court cases, have
been funded by the US government."
See ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Government is the best government (RIAA-)money can buy. Nothing new here...
Never forget that there are many tech/financial/multi-national companies that could buy the American record & movie industries outright with their spare cash.
Never stop asking "why can such a relatively small industry punch so far above its weight?"
Re:See ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The studios wield power because they control what the general population sees, and to a large extent, thinks. They also have done a fantastic job of Americanizing the world.
Re: (Score:2)
the most creative people in Hollywood are the accountants and the opportunities to hide money within private subcontractors all over the world in movie making seem endless.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't hide the parent company profits from the SEC, their auditors, or (if they are public companies) the public.
It's easier than you think. Just bounce it via a foreign corporation, which does not have reporting requirements.
Re:See ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people seem to miss the reason why this will NEVER be allowed and nipped in the bud.
Entertainment is the best, most functional propaganda arm of both capitalist system, and "american way". Abroad it has successfully advertised US system as working and US itself as a desirable. At the same time at home keeps US population itself pacified when its right are being trampled.
Do not underestimate the power of projected crowd control that entertainment industry is generating. For that reason alone, both government and current powerful interests will make sure key companies in entertainment industry will always remain in hands of those who will use them for their interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mix up "content creators" and "media".
Error on scale of mixing "strategy" and "tactics".
Re: (Score:2)
Only if when talking about US waging wars for oil, we're talking about secret agents hiding plans for cold fusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. One of the main aspects of best propaganda tool is that it must be both self-sustaining and appear prestigious. That requires concept of limited availability (prestige if you have it) and payment (self-sustainability).
On the other hand, they can rely on mass media networks to spread material to general masses for "free" (ad supported). This has been done successfully on global scale already.
Re: (Score:2)
It is new, that the New Zealand government will sell out it's own citizens interests, to suit US corporate interests. Punishing whole New Zealand families because of insatiable US corporate greed. Now that is new and really pathetically lame. New Zealand has surrender innocent until proven guilty for it's in fact going so far as guilt upon accusation and even what looks like another countries government, one for sale to the highest bidder, to write New Zealander's laws for them against New Zealander's inte
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't exactly call it proof. The actions are perfectly consistent with a country whose economy is significantly supported by exporting intellectual property. If that were the case, then this move would be in the best interests of the US population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you assume 'offer to help' comes without 'pushing for it'. you paint it as if n zealanders have come up with the law themselves, and in all their charity, u.s. govt 'offered' to help them.
it is never the case, as seen in the case of spanish three strikes law. wikileaks cables show that u.s. govt BULLIED spanish government into putting out the law. which, was unanimously rejected in parliament because the cable went ou
Re: (Score:2)
I do.
I don't. There's a distinction here that you're not comprehending. I'm not saying this is what actually happened, I'm saying that everything we've observed is consistent with this happening. So, simply from our observations, there is no proof that you talked about.
I'm sorry, but you're frothy-mouthed zealotry is causing you to make the assumptions, not just about what is happening out there, but also about
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you're saying, and I see that you see what I was saying (unlike the OP). I like to be careful around this topic, since it's filled with misinformation. You see, there's an entire ideology called Libertarianism (perhaps you've heard of it) that believes that the government should never be given the benefit of the doubt, and that when there is any lack of, or ambiguity in, information about the government's behaviour, the worst should automatically be assumed.
That works fine for maintaining a free
Re: (Score:2)
It is worse than that, this is a blatant violation of national sovereignty.
Re: (Score:2)
Starr by replacing corruption prône humants at the helm by an AI sourds l'île an interesting proposition
Re: (Score:2)
this is the reason why private interests, be it corporations or powerful people owning them or other things, are so hostile to social democrat parties and try to provoke hate and instill fear in people against them.
Re: (Score:3)
really. i dont know whether i should respond to your typical american ignorance or not. it reeks of self-induced morondom.
there is NO relevance in between a 'democratic republic' and a 'social democracy'. moron. a democratic republic can have BOTH social democrat, or, capitalist parties in power. the GOVERNANCE method has no relevance to ECONOMIC policy. moreover, there is NO relevance in between a republic and socialis
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I did use the incorrect terms. I meant a "representative republic" (as outlined in the US Constitution) rather than "democratic republic".
The major reason that the economy of the US grew to become the largest and fastest-growing, far outstripping the more socialist-leaning governments is due in main to the ability to engage in a relatively free market capitalist economy. The more capitalism was allowed to flourish, the better off the economies and people were and are. Until recently, the US under
Jesus (Score:2)
If I'd heard anyone claim that the US is literally (offering to) writing other countries' IP laws, I'd tell them to remove their tinfoil hats. If these leaked memos are accurate, I guess I was being very naive thinking that.
Re: (Score:3)
The intense government lobbying for tougher copyright laws is not new, just the specific revelations ("We'll even write your laws for you!")
Re: Enforce them for you (Score:4, Insightful)
You spelled 'liberation' wrong. :P
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't "the US" per se, it's US government being used to enforce the mafiAA's agenda. This sort of corruption is rampant and it's every US taxpayer's burden. We desperately need to take back our government from the large, corporate interests which are systematically bleeding all the wealth from this country.
This is the second way America tries to invade (Score:2)
The first way of course being sending in military and bombing the place.
The second way is of course this, spreading their greedy imperialism to all countries - or as the Borg would say ASSIMILATE
Re:This is the second way America tries to invade (Score:5, Informative)
It's amazing, really. Not only did they insist that the NZ government keep ACTA a secret [keionline.org] from its people (all attendee's people, actually)
But they stepped in to assist in re-drafting the bill [wikileaks.ch] to make it more palatable & passable, for NZ legislators
and instructed the government to implement a new security force [wikileaks.ch] to enforce it, even offering to assist in its initial funding. All that's missing is an offer to have American troops enforce the law for them.
Re: (Score:2)
NZ is made safe as a consumer of US export quality media, the US gov can offer 'aid' to NZ. US security contractors know how to thank the US political system as NZ requests flow.
Nothing really new in a classic US trade deal. Whats in it for NZ legislators
Re: (Score:2)
Not so. The law is also specifically written to hold the account holder of a connection (whether it be a company, household, public library, hospital, or even parliament itself) responsible for any infringing activity on that connection, whether it be because of a free public wifi, insecure hotspot, internet kiosk, trojan/rootkit, or even 11-year old nephews.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, New Zealand has quite a significant lot of oil.
Glad I am not a kiwi... (Score:5, Interesting)
Glad I am not a kiwi...
Oh wait, this kind of crap is probably going on here in Australia just as much as it is across the pond.
The real trick is to vote for people who DON'T support the ever increasing power of big content companies. And unlike the USA, here in Australia such people actually stand a chance of getting elected (and in fact a number of such people are currently in parliament, including the Australian Greens)
No idea whether such parties or politicians exist in New Zealand but if they do, vote for someone that isn't going to bow down before SONY or Warner or News Corp or Disney.
Re: (Score:3)
Roll on the November election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Labour-Green is nowhere near as disastrous as anything involving the disgustingly racist Maori Party. All about creating two sets of laws, one for the Maoris and one for everyone else. I pray noone is stupid enough to vote for Mana, with Mr Harawira (you know, the guy who referred to all Europeans as "land-stealing white mother-fuckers") in charge.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So does this mean Australia will be sending troops to liberate nations such as the US and spreading democracy and freedom around the world?
Why would we bother?
I'm from New Zealand (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like to share this video which demonstrates the level of understanding our MP's have
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJdPkrpFXBM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand didn't make that Freedom on the Net report. Neither did France, another forerunner in 3-strikes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That video is rather annoying to watch. What does Miss South Carolina have to do with this? It also doesn't seem fair to take snippets of speeches and mix 'em up like that. Why not link to the original speeches? They're much scarier!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfGYfg37aUA [youtube.com]
Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
This might be interpreted as a serious attempt to undermine New Zealand's democratic processes by a foreign power. While I think people should be expected to pay for what they use, my feelings are that it is a broken business model that encourages most people to download and that this incessant criminisation of mostly young internet users can only lead to alienation and profound long-term problems. The creative minds that produce the output should be perhaps given more room to develop novel ways to distribute output rather than leaving everything to a bunch of accountants and lawyers who are just nasty.
Re:Democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
While I think people should be expected to pay for what they use
I don't. I don't expect you to pay for the most important thing in your life -- air. I don't expect you to pay for the rain that waters your grass (although I expect people who dirty them to pay for cleanup). I don't expect you to pay for sunshine. I don't expect you to pay for Linux or BSD. I don't expect you to pay for the free music from the radio, nor do I think you're obligated to listen to the commercials. And you have the (still legal in most places) right to be able to record that radio. I don't expect you to pay for over the air TV (yes, I know Brits pay). I don't expect you to pay to read a library book, or a newspaper McDonald's sets out for customers to read.
I have dozens of books that I'd would never have bought had I not previously read the author's other books for free at the library.
I don't expect you to pay for 90% of the music that's recorded; indies who WANT you to share their music. The indies have the correct business model -- give the music away and sell CDs, tickets, T-shirts, etc.
A book publisher recently discovered that piracy sells books! It takes a few weeks for a newly published book to hit the internet, so he commissioned a study to find out how much the piracy was hurting sales. He was amazed when the results came back -- rather than the expected drop in sales, there was a sales spike.
Who was it that said "letting you light your candle from my flame costs me nothing and doubles the light"?
IMO file sharing should be legal; it should be illegal for me to sell you a pirate copy, but not to give you one.
Our money-obsessed, money-worshiping society is sick.
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Democracy (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Democracy (Score:4, Informative)
Bolivia is one such incident [wikipedia.org]. It was put in place by the world bank who demanded as part of a loan to get them back on their feet they privatise the water system and used to charge people up to 1/4 of their income on water. It was illegal to collect rainwater.
Not the first time the world bank has royally screwed up a country [wikipedia.org]. Just ask Jamaica [assatashakur.org] how that's working out for them..
Sorry for the wikipedia links, I'm sure people can find other examples, consider these starters.
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How the... what.
Just what.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US Foreign Policy is not about promoting the US political system to the rest of the world - its about promoting the US Economy (i.e. US Corporations) in foreign countries so as to benefit the rich and powerful. Otherwise the US would promote democracy in foreign countries, instead of favouring Dictators in most foreign nations. Otherwise they wouldn't mess with foreign countries' democratic process, but let it run its course whatever the results. The US is only apparently a democracy internally, externally
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
an offense for you to collect your own rain and water your garden with it.
Please tell me you are talking about damming a creek on your farm, not collecting runoff from the house gutters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been trying to confirm or deny it, but google is failing me today; the only thing I can find on the 1976 copyright act is a rather short wikipedia article. Everything else talks of current law, even though "1976" is in the search. So I can find no citation either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Paying for support for Linux is not paying for Linux any more than paying for support for Windows is paying for Windows.
Just because somebody's paid for the music (and decades ago radio didn't pay for music, the labels would pay THEM to play it, and the practice was illegal) doesn't mean it's not free. If someone buys me a beer at the bar, that's a free beer. And I don't get adverts; there's a row of buttons on the radio that I press when a commercial starts. But radio's business model still seems sound. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Our money-obsessed, money-worshiping society is sick.
Just wondering - what do you think would make a good alternative? That next time I want to fill up my car with gas that I take a sheep into the station? The people who create goods should expect to feed their families, this isn't the result of a "money-obsessed, money-worshiping society". Many many people improve our lives by donating their time for free, for sure. But at the end of the day, everyone needs to eat and if people see others enjoying their hard work and at the same time are unable to sustain th
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was the 'worshipping' part that was the objection.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who create goods should expect to feed their families, this isn't the result of a "money-obsessed, money-worshiping society".
No, actually, the people who have families should expect to feed their families, just because they're human beings and are already doing a productive and difficult job: bringing new humans into the world and educating them. So they should get a family-raising allowance from the productive labour of others just because they're helping the human race.
And in fact, the productive labour should really be done by robots, rather than people, because that's more efficient. And once it is, it will be obvious that th
Re: (Score:2)
The reason your mobile providers double dip in incoming and outgoing calls is because your crappy interconnect model that your providers are trying to foist on... er, New Zealand. It's called "Bill and Keep" where the originating network for the call gets to keep the entirety of the revenue from the call, despite the terminating carrier also incurring costs in delivering the call. In theory, that would be fine if the call volumes were pretty much level between the two carriers, but often they're not. In
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US it depends on your carrier. IINM, Cellular One is like New Zealand, where you pay by the minute if you make a call but incoming calls are free. Different carriers charge different rates for stuff. The one I have now, Boost Mobile, costs me $50 per month, but it's a flat fee that covers unlimited calls, long distance, roaming, internet, text, email, and one or two other things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps something along the lines of:
But why should such an expectation exist in the first place?
Hello! I expect you to pay me five hundred dollars for passing this alley! Because, uh, I got up at 5am in the morning and walked a hundred miles to come and sit here and ask all passers-by to pay me five hundred dollars!
What? Just because I expect you to pay, and because I worked hard to get in a position to ask you to pay, and blistered my feet doing all this work, you don't feel obligated to pay me?
That, sir, is an outrage!
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even a tangentially related analogy. More like "Hello, I expect you to pay me $5 for walking through this alley, because I built it. That said, that guy over there is letting people walk through his alley for free."
Re: (Score:2)
File sharing should be legal because the "nobody will pay for what they can get free" is a lie perpetuated by the RIAA. Every study not funded by them has shown that music file sharers spend more on music than non-sharers. The incredibly expensive Photoshop probably owes most of its market share to piracy; dirt-poor college students pirate it, then wind up paying for a legal copy when they become gainfully employed.
I don't know how many sucessful artists have benefitted from "free", but I can point to two o
Re: (Score:2)
Who was it that said "letting you light your candle from my flame costs me nothing and doubles the light"?
A dirty thieving light-pirate, that's who.
Re: (Score:2)
What funding? Seriously, what funding? I've never heard of this funding, and if there is verifiable evidence that the US ever provided funding to NZ (not a loan, by the way, since it's actually quite common for countries to lend each other money, or it used to be) then I'd love to hear it.
(A quick check of the history says you're talking about "lend-lease", where equipment was loaned to allied countries with the offer to buy it at 90% discount once the lease ended with the war. Further checking also says
Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The concept here is also to bolster US law - by successfully lobbying in other countries to pass such stuff, they can then turn back to the US officials saying, "see all the other countries are doing it!" and then persuade them to to the same at home. Similar to MS stacking the cards for ISO certification.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the US is offering to foot the bill.
Also, be careful using that logic. You could use it to argue that school education is a frivolous luxury at this time.
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
This has been going on for decades (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a New Zealander and the lobbying from the US isn't a recent issue, in fact it has been regularly reported in the mainstream press for as long as I can remember and not only for copyright reasons. I think the worst part is that the US diplomats have at times threatened us with economically damaging measures for not playing ball (NZ does export a lot to the US and being a small country makes us vulnerable to change). I feel that we've actually done an OK job of pushing back in the past, but the US is both patient and happy to keep trying until it finds an administration that gives it favour, as has happened here.
To be honest I think that Australia is worse off from this sort of lobbying though. They haven't had an anti-nuclear past and this has led them to 'enjoy' a closer relationship with the US than we have(!)
Seriously? (Score:2)
Isn't the media industries worry over this much ado over, seriously, nothing?
Re: (Score:2)
The population of New Zealand is 4.5 million - half that of New York City.
Isn't the media industries worry over this much ado over, seriously, nothing?
Actually it's more of an unexpected party for the media industry. They've heard that there's a bit of a dragon's hoard down south and they're looking for a burglar to help them get it. They expect to deal with a few trolls and the odd elf, that's normal in this industry, but it's shaping up to be more of a battle of five armies than they counted on.
Thanks. (Score:3)
Could have let us known sooner, thank you. It would have been terrifically useful in getting this thing stopped.
No surprises the 3-strikes law seems to be popping up in many countries with open diplomatic channels to the US. In some cases (ie the British equivelent) the language in the law is word-for-word identical.
This makes me very concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
No surprises the 3-strikes law seems to be popping up in many countries with open diplomatic channels to the US. In some cases (ie the British equivelent) the language in the law is word-for-word identical.
Yes, that's hardly cricket. If it were truly British it would be called the Leg Before Wicket, Bowled For A Six At Silly Mid Off law.
Canada beware (Score:2)
This is what you're looking at should the Conservatives manage to win a majority today.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but corporations are people, too. And, therefore, are also the people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Corporations are NOT people.Corporations may be made up of people acting in concert but are a legal construct and should be treated that way with legal rights limitations. Corporate bullshit seems may be running the country only because the nobody pays attention to this stuff which is broadcast here but mostly ignored by TV (corporate sponsored) news outlets. Our ignorance is gonna kill us.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations ARE people. They are deemed artificial persons with all the Constitutional protections and rights of 'real' people (and the added benefits of a corporation, to boot). The SCOTUS has upheld this in their previous decisions. Therefore, if a corporation is a person and you are a person, and this is a country of "we the people", then representing the interests of a Fortune 100 that happens to line the coffers of political campaigns and legislative actions becomes just as viable and just as much a d
Re:I'm outraged! (Score:5, Insightful)
Words on paper do not have the power to redefine reality. Corporations are *not* people. SCOTUS is corrupt and their rulings mean nothing IRL. The fact that so many people tolerate this kind of silly word juggling doesn't help, either.
***glare***
Re: (Score:2)
T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to debate whether "overturned" is an inappropriate word for that sentence, that's a completely different argument than whether the decision in question would be moot. And you argued about whether the decision would be rendered moot.
If you want more parties, convince more people to vote other than Democrat/Republican, it's the only way it's going to really happen.
The Republicrats spend billions to convince people that there can be only two. I can't compete with that
Re: (Score:2)
and again, it's not a matter of congress changing a law, as the preceding decision would still be binding.
The preceding decision would not be binding on lower courts. If the Supreme Court decides that, under the Title IX law, that funding for male and female sports should be substantially similar, then a change to the law in question will free all the lower court from following the Supreme Court ruling. The case in question may still be held to be settled as per the previous law, but often the law changes such that the previous case will have the outcome change as well. Without more details as to what change
Protections and rights from WHAT BASIS? (Score:2)
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the government has the power to deem that corporations should have these protections and rights?
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding, right? We're taking about CORPORATIONS here.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad corporations aren't burdened with any of the personal/social responsibilities of people. Sure, they can't literally vote, but their money serves as a good proxy. They can't easily be jailed or otherwise punished - in a manner that would directly affect those actually running the corporation. They aren't subject
Re:Some research is in order? (Score:2)
According to sources I've read, the notion of corporate "personhood" only became viable when a court reporter took a judge's comment made during a case (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company), and elevated it to the status of a ruling by including it within the case's headnotes. No such ruling per se, ever took place. This "ruling" was clearly the result of a coincidental set of events that, under ordinary circumstances, may well have never happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think america gets to be imperialists? You are just another land the corporations own.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure if you periodically transmit the message "No law enforcement", nobody will police it.
Re: (Score:2)