Digital Copyright
April 17th, 2006 at 9:40 am by David FarrarThe current copyright law in NZ means that copying a song from a legally purchased CD to your iPod is in fact illegal, or more correctly an infringement of copyright.
The situation is the same in the US, and a few months ago it was amusing as recording industry executives fronted up to a Senate committee. The committee was initially sympathetic until a Senator asked whether the law stops him copying songs he has purchased on CDs onto his iPod, and it was revealed that yes it does.
Today Boing Boing notes that even the US President has fallen afoul of the digital copyright laws by having a Beatles song on his iPod.
The good news back home is that the copyright laws are being reviewed for the digital age, and at this stage the Government is recommending that “format shifting” be legalised. The bad news is that the review has been stalled for a couple of years.
Once the telco regulatory framework is out of the way, I’m hoping to try and get digital copyright law changes moving with some momentum.
Related posts:
- Digital Copyright
- Digital Copyright Bill
- Copyright (New Technologies) Bill
- Digital Copyright Workshops
April 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
You say:”….try and get digital copyright law changes moving with some momentum.”
Then you must be also opposed to a so called Free Trade Agreement with the US.
Since NZ will have to align itself to the DMCA in the US and ,lengthen copyright periods substantively, make copyright breach a criminal offence and so on.
This is the reason why it is ‘stalled’
Read this interesting piece from Electronic Frontiers Australia about the changes Australia had to make to get their FTA
Vote:http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/ipfta-paper.html
April 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
This is one of the myths – that DMCA has to be part of a free trade agreement, so let’s not try for one.
There is no doubt the US in free trade agreements wants DMCA provisions as part of any deal. But trade deals are about negotiations and compromises.
If we ever got to negotiate I would very strongly advocate for the NZG not to compromise on the DMCA issues, and have more sensible copyright laws.
What comes out of the negotiations would have to be judged on the overall value to NZ. It would take a hell of a lot to convince me to support a deal with DMCA laws – certainly more than what Australia got – their free trade deal was more in name than substance.
Vote:April 17th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Criminalising copyright breach isnt a myth, yet somehow you believe NZ will get a better deal than Australia. yeah right!
Its like saying we will get a better agriculture deal than Australia too. We would likely have agriculture access put off for 15 years instead of the Aussies 12 years.
I see Don is off to Washington to talk about defence and Trade ties. I wonder what he will promise to be gone by lunchtime this time around.
Allready you are tying yourself in knots with this tautology:
“…This is one of the myths – that DMCA has to be part of a free trade agreement..”
“..no doubt the US in free trade agreements wants DMCA provisions as part of any deal”
Do you know ANY FTA with the US that dont have major copyright provisions?
Vote:Look at this from the recent Jordan- US FTA IP rights section:
“… each party shall prohibit Civily and criminally..”
http://www.jordanusfta.com/free_trade_agreement_text_en.asp
April 17th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Try not to lie about what I said. I said it is a myth that DMCA has to be part of a free trade deal, not that DMCA provisions don’t criminalise copyright breaches.
Your second lie is that I claimed NZ would get a better deal than Australia. I didn’t. Only a moron would claim to predict a better outcome out of a hypothethical negotiation with no time period in mind, or knowledge of who will be in Govt on each side.
You then make a snide irrelevant comment about Don. This just tells everyone that you have no arguments and prefer to make snide comments than actually contribute to debate. Hence there is little point in engaging with you.
Fourthly your logic skills are so bad you think there is a contradiction between saying one party wants something, and that it is not necessairly part of an agreement with that party. If both parties got everything they wanted these deals would not take years to negotiate.
Finally you confuse intellectual property provisions generally with DMCA provisions. The devil is in the detail.
Vote:April 17th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
[Deleted by DPF and author banned. I can't be bothered by idiots today]
Vote:April 17th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
No mood for fuckwits today. You’re banned white line.
Vote:April 17th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Now that’s what I call an Act of Blog!
Vote:April 17th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Banning Whiteline. Gosh David I thought you were a fan of freedom of speech. I think your idea of freedom of speech only applies to people who have the same views as you!!
Vote:April 17th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
On *my* blog only one person has total freedom of speech – me. Everyone is a guest and if they piss me off they get asked to leave.
The stupdity of white line is I actually agree with him on the issue of digital copyright which this thread was about. He then tried to score stupid points about FTAs, Don Brash and finally me at which point I kicked him.
If he had posted “Are you concerned that a future US FTA could bring in US digital copyright laws” I would have agreed with him and said it will be a key area to watch during any negotiations.
Oh and if you think the only comments here are ones agreeing with me, then you must have missed the 10,000 or so which don’t.
Vote:April 18th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Good move David.
Shame on the format shifting law being stalled. Maybe we should find out which MP (preferably from Labour) is “breaking the law” by copying their CD collection onto their digital media player/PC and then hold it as some sort of threat.
I recently heard a podcast that introduced a geek political action group called IPac in the US. Their tactic to change tech laws for the best – send senators iPods as “gifts” containing open-domain videos and music so then they actually know what they are “against” (as that is who they are aiming to change). As you may well know, sometimes it is out of pure ignorance that certain laws get passed/failed.
Vote: