Flying Nun on S92A
March 21st, 2009 at 10:04 am by David FarrarRoger Shepherd of Flying Nun writes in the Dom Post in favour of S92A. I think he has lots of things wrong:
In the current argument over Section 92 of the Copyright Act, several issues have been ignored or distorted. It seems to have been forgotten that downloading music or film without paying for it is stealing.
I don’t know of a single person who is against s92A who has argued that downloading music without paying for it should be legal. The argument is over whether s92A is appropriate and workable.
I cannot see anyone investing in digital music developments in New Zealand while illegal downloading goes unregulated and unpunished.
Here Shepherd is just flat out wrong. Illegal downloading is already punishable, and has always been punishable.
Copyright laws are a sign of a civilised society. We appreciate those in the creative industries who generate ideas, music and art and protect their work and their ability to make a living from it by giving them copyright protection.
Another red herring. No one is arguing there should be no copyright laws.
I think Section 92 is not a strong enough deterrent and should be tougher.
Losing one’s internet connection seems to me like a wimpy punishment for persistent theft. Perhaps we should be also looking at hefty fines that feed into a recording fund for our musicians.
Again Shepherd seems to be ignorant of the law. The Copyright Act allows a performer to go to Court and seek damages from an infringer. The issue for most people against S92A is that people can suffer consequences based on accusation without proof.
And remember the facts supplied by Google, as reported here.
Google says 57 percent of the takedown notices it has received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were sent by businesses trying to undermine a competitor.
About 37 percent of the notices weren’t valid copyright claims, Google wrote.
So there is an absolute need for there to be some independent decision maker on claims of infringement.
Still, Section 92 is a belated, moderate step in the right direction and fulfils the need to educate the public regarding copyright issues.
S92 goes well beyond education.
Let’s get on and implement it and remove the doubt and confusion that currently exist. If there are faults or problems with the process, they can be ironed out as it develops.
I prefer to listen to the Auckland District Law Society who say it is a confusing crap law. The law needs to be workable before it can be implemented.
Without Section 92, the wheels will fall off our local music industry and there will be no more homegrown successes
And blatant scare mongering. No one would dispute that illegal downloads do not pose a commercial threat to soem artists. But really claiming that without S92, there will never ever again by a sucessful homegrown musician is pathethic scare mongering.
It should be given the same respect as when the Head of the MPAA told the US Congress that video recorders would destroy the movie industry.
Related posts:
- Campbell Smith on s92A
- Herald reports on s92A delay
- TelstraClear kill off s92A Code
- s92A is dead and buried
March 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am
The music businesses problems will not be solved by Section 92. They are way bigger than that. They need a new business model, rather than try to repatch the bucket of infinite holes.
Horse, bolted etc…..
Vote:March 21st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Without Section 92, the wheels will fall off our local music industry and there will be no more homegrown successes
No, a constant state of navel-gazing and the fact that most NZ bands are mediocre is what is killing off our local music industry. People are too busy falling over themselves in a rush to sound patriotic to acknowledge most of our music is terrible and blaming piracy is an excuse for a bad album not selling.
Vote:March 21st, 2009 at 11:19 am
“In the current argument over Section 92 of the Copyright Act, several issues have been ignored or distorted. It seems to have been forgotten that downloading music or film without paying for it is stealing”
Yes, yes it is, it also seems he has forgotten guilt upon accusation is immoral and illegal in this fair country of ours.
Vote:Whats with the claim that no one will invest in digital music? it is laughable at best considering the massive growth online entertainment has experienced over the last 10 years in comparison to the mainstream entertainment industry.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
No, it’s copyright infringement.
Is it wrong? Most of the time. Is it criminal? Yes. Is it theft? No.
It’s copyright infringement. Theft is another crime entirely.
Just in case anyone didn’t get the point: Copyright Infringement =/= Theft.
Agreed, Agreed, and Thrice Agreed.
Vote:March 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
People wouldn’t steal music if it was more available (some older Kiwi music is missing from most music stores and is not available overseas at all) and less expensive. And from what I can gather the artists get bugger all from the retail price of a CD – it is mostly going to record labels.
Vote:I am sure people would be quite happy to pay $10 for an album direct from an artist – ie much less than the $22 or more that one pays in a store.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“Without Section 92, the wheels will fall off our local music industry and there will be no more homegrown successes”
Does anyone have any statistics on downloads for nz music torrents? The number is probably infinitesimal. However FlyingNun is probably right in that the wheels are about to fall off the nz music industry: not because of piracy but because NZ music is for the most part useless and in need of propping up by the government; and the national government is less likely to bankroll them as generously as labour (especially during a recession). When the government funded training wheels fall off, the industry will probably fall with them.
Vote:March 21st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
DPF, agree with your thrust, and agree that Roger Shepherd is out of touch with his customers. I think you’re arguing at cross purposes in one area though. Chris says:
You say:
There is a difference between punishable, and punished. The police don’t enforce the existing laws, hence the music industry are trying to make new laws. It would be better to enforce the laws we already have – the last government had a habit of making laws and then saying “ah, but don’t worry, we won’t enforce it.” We’d be better off getting rid of those laws, and then enforcing the ones that are left properly – because it would be clear that when we passed a law, we actually meant it.
I read somewhere about the business model for music companies (but cannot remember where, so cannot attribute). In the UK they got a bunch of teenagers in for a focus group, asked them questions etc. On the way out, they said to them there’s a table full of CDs here, as thanks for helping us, take what you want. And a bunch of them said nah, don’t worry, we’ll just download the ones we want. And at that point they knew the existing model was in trouble.
Interesting post on Offsetting Behaviour that is tangentially related, talking about maximising profit from ticket sales, and briefly mentions the possibility of a business model driven by touring, not cds:
Vote:http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2009/03/economics-of-scalping-trent-reznor.html
March 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
We were puzzled by this article too. Roger Shepherd is at the least out of touch and at the most scaremongering (as you say DPF). Either way, he doesn’t seem to understand S92A.
We wrote a brief response here, http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=225
Vote:March 21st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Deja vu?
Vote:Anti smacking.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 am
Jebus, if I were he I’d start looking for a new job. The guy appears to know nothing about the 21st-century music industry.
Vote: