Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

Trade Me has joined 31 consumer and lobby groups from New Zealand and overseas in writing to Trade Minister Tim Groser to voice concerns about the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement.

The company is a member of the New Zealand-born umbrella group the Fair Deal Coalition, which was set up last year during the Auckland round of the negotiations to lobby against possible provisions in the yet-to-be-completed trade agreement.

The coalition fears the trade agreement could unduly strengthen intellectual property rights, for example by extending copyright by 20 years and introducing new controls on parallel imports. …

In its letter, the coalition asked Groser to reflect on the “variety of sectors” that stood to be adversely affected by such provisions. “As a group we are diverse, but we share one thing in common: we seek appropriately balanced intellectual property laws,” it said.

Trade Me spokesman Paul Ford said the firm backed the coalition because it was concerned the agreement could “result in a crappy deal for both Kiwi consumers and a decent chunk of the Trade Me community”.

“We reckon parallel importing is pretty important to New Zealanders as it means Kiwi sellers can source goods direct from licensed suppliers around the globe, so buyers get more choice and, with any luck, better prices too,” he said.

The Fair Deal Coalition has attracted support from advocates in six of the 12 countries which are party to the trade negotiations, including the United States, Canada and Australia.

The group’s founders include Consumer NZ, InternetNZ, the Royal NZ Foundation for the Blind and the Telecommunications Users Association.

I’m one of those involved in the Fair Deal coalition, and it is great to see it gain supporters in the major countries involved in the TPP.

I’m all for free trade deals, but that doesn’t mean I want a deal at any price, and I think the proposed US chapter on intellectual property is not balanced or a fair deal. I think the current NZ intellectual property laws are relatively well balanced and we should not agree to anything that would force a change to them. If enough countries stand firm on these issues, I am hopeful the US will modify its position. And to be fair to the US, they have already moved a considerable way by agreeing to writing exceptions to copyright restrictions into the text – a first for a free trade deal with them. But the current proposed wording is still not suitable.

Consumer NZ spokesman Hadyn Green said his group believed the trade deal’s documents had provisions “which may remove parallel importing in New Zealand”. That would mean retailers could no longer import copyright goods, from software to branded clothes, without the permission of the manufacturer, which Consumer NZ feared would push up prices for many products.

Bans on parallel importing work against free trade, and should not be in FTA.

A Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry spokeswoman said last week that the parallel importing of copyright works had been raised in negotiations but there was no consensus among the negotiating parties on whether an agreement “should include specific provisions on this issue”.

Which hopefully means it won’t include such a provision.

Craig Foss has announced:

Commerce Minister Craig Foss has today released a supplementary order paper (SOP) to clarify issues around the patentability of computer programmes in the Patents Bill.

“Following consultation with the NZ software and IT sector, I am pleased to be further progressing the Patents Bill with this SOP. These changes ensure the Bill is consistent with the intention of the Commerce Select Committee recommendation that computer programs should not be patentable,” says Mr Foss.

Today’s change is to codify a test set out in UK case law to provide clarification around the “as such” wording used in SOP 120 (tabled 28 August 2012).

“I would like to thank the NZ software and IT sector for their engagement over the last few months. I’m confident we’ve reached a solution where we can continue to protect genuine inventions and encourage Kiwi businesses to export and grow.

The SOP is here. A key extra clause is:

A claim in a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such if the actual contribution made by the alleged invention lies solely in it being a computer program.

There had been considerable concern that the previous proposed wording with the “as such” clause could lead to a lack of clarity in the law, and that it might not achieve its intention that software is not patentable. This extra clause provides that clarity and is excellent news from the Government and Minister,

To also achieve greater clarity, the SOP provides an explicit example of what is not patentable in terms of software, namely that a chip for a washing machine is, but an online filing software system is not (the code is copyrighted though).

The Institute of IT Professionals has welcomed the announcement:

The Institute of IT Professionals, New Zealand’s largest IT representative body, strongly supports the Government’s announcement today clarifying that software will not be patentable in New Zealand, removing a major barrier to software-led innovation. …

“The Institute thanks Minister Foss for responding to industry concerns, clarifying the Patents Bill’s intention to remove patentability of software and for taking extra steps to ensure the law around software patents is clear and unambiguous,” Matthews said. “Software will not be patentable in New Zealand and a major barrier to software innovation has been removed”.

“We also acknowledge the work of United Future’s Peter Dunne, Labour’s Clare Curran and other political parties who have listened to the industry’s concerns and contributed towards a solution,” Matthews said. “It’s great that all parties support software-led innovation in New Zealand.”

I’d agree with the IITP that MPs from several parties helped contribute to getting a law that will be clear and good for New Zealand. The recommendation to do so was a unanimous one by a select committee.

Ian McCrae, chief executive of New Zealand’s largest software exporter Orion Health agreed, saying today “We welcome this announcement. Under the current regime, obvious things are getting patented. You might see a logical enhancement to your software, but you can’t do it because someone else has a patent. In general, software patents are counter-productive, often used obstructively and get in the way of innovation. We are a software company and as such, our best protection is to innovate and innovate fast.”

John Ascroft, Chief Innovation Officer of Jade Corporation said “We believe the patent process is onerous, not suited to the software industry, and challenges our investment in innovation.”

Orion and Jade together account for around 50% of software exports from New Zealand.

The decision is also welcomed by InternetNZ:

InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) welcomes today’s tabling of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that makes it clear that computer software is not patentable in New Zealand. …

The question of software patents has been an important issue for InternetNZ for several years. InternetNZ has previously made submissions on the issue, noting that software is inextricably linked to the good functioning of the Internet. Patenting software would not only make the continued development of the Internet more difficult, it would reduce innovation and could well stymie interoperability of various software platforms.

InternetNZ spokesperson Susan Chalmers says InternetNZ is happy to see the issue now resolved and looks forward to the passage and implementation of the Patents Bill, a long-awaited and much needed update to a large component of New Zealand’s intellectual property regime.

So it is a good outcome all around. Congratulations to Craig Foss for constructively working with industry groups to get this issue resolved, and kudos to other MPs such as Peter Dunne and Clare Curran who supported getting a good law.

I’m personally very pleased that National has taken a balanced approach on intellectual property issues. While of course there are areas of disagreement, the current Government has consistently moved things in the right direction. To name a few:

• Repealed the previous three strikes guilt upon accusation copyright law
• Suspended the provision for termination of Internet accounts for repeat copyright infringement
• Set the copyright infringement filing fee at $25, $5 higher than recommended by officials
• Kept the fee at $25 when reviewed, despite massive opposition from the MPAA
• Have consistently rejected the US proposed IP chapter for the TPP
• Amended the law to exclude software from being patentable

Now as I said, there are still a few areas I’d like further change. but overall the direction in the last few years has been a positive one.

Judge David Harvey has blogged a keynote speech he gave to the Australian Digital Alliance Forum on copyright law in the modern era. It’s a fascinating essay on the history of copyright, the changes over time, the balancing of rights etc.

He summarises his own proposal for copyright going forward:

 1. Copyright should not be seen as a property right – either actual or inchoate

 2. A copyright owner’s rights should not be absolute.

 3. Copyright should be seen as an exception to the wider rights of freedom to receive and impart information guaranteed by Art. 19 ICCPR – and, given copyright does not engage until expression (according to current copyright theory),  it must be subject to the supremacy of Article 19.

 4. Interference with Article 19 rights requires justification by the “copyright owner”.[49]

 5. Once interference with the Art 19 right is justified, any restrictions to the general right and any advantages that accrue for the benefit of the “copyright owner” may be permitted to the extent that they are:

a) necessary to meet the copyright owners interests and justification and

b) proportionate in terms of the extent of the interference

 6. Concepts such as fair use, protection term, remedies (and their extent) fall within the tests of necessity and proportionality rather than exceptions to a copyright owner’s right.

 I like the idea of the major right being the right to receive and impart information, and copyright restrictions must fall within this right as justifiable limitations or exceptions. I think that is superior to having copyright as the “major right” and then having to justify exceptions to copyright for purposes of quoting, parody, satire, academic scrutiny etc.

Arstechnica reports:

The importation of copyrighted goods made abroad has been an increasingly contentious issue in recent years. Easy access to Internet resale markets like eBay and Amazon have made it possible for a new breed of entrepreneurs to buy low and sell high in a wide array of areas. The Supreme Court handed these resellers a major victory today, issuing a decision [PDF] that makes it clear that the “first sale” doctrine protects resellers, even when they move goods across national boundaries. 

Those upstarts have peeved a lot of corporations, and some of them used copyright law to fight back. Textbook maker John Wiley & Sons sued a Thai student-entrepreneur named Supap Kirtsaeng, who had been buying cheaper (but non-pirated) versions of various textbooks in his home country, bringing them to the US, and selling them to his fellow students stateside on eBay. The price differentials were so big that there was quite a bit of money to be made; at trial, the publishing company’s lawyers hammered home the fact that they had counted up $1.2 million in receipts over the life of Kirtsaeng’s business.

Wiley argued those profits should be barred by copyright law. Their right to control prices abroad was actually part of their copyright grant, they argued. The textbook company won a jury verdict against Kirtsaeng, which was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and Kirtsaeng appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his business was protected by the “first sale” doctrine.

Today’s decision vindicates the “first sale” doctrine, which allows the owner of a particular copy of a work to do whatever she wants with it after purchasing it. It overrides first sale losses in both the 9th and 2nd Circuits and makes it clear that digital commerce can flourish in the Internet era, even when it crosses borders.

This is good news. Once you purchase something you own it, and that ownership should include resale rights.

The world is increasingly becoming a global market. The days of different prices for different countries is crumbling under the Internet.

Stuff reports:

Kim Dotcom’s fight against extradition to the United States looks set to go to the Supreme Court after losing his latest legal battle.

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision that ordered the disclosure of the documents that are the basis of the case against Dotcom.

The court said extradition hearings were not trials and the full protections and procedures for criminal trials did not apply.

US authorities want to extradite the German-born internet entrepreneur to stand trial on criminal charges alleging copyright piracy and racketeering.

Dotcom’s lawyer, Paul Davison, QC, said his legal team would seek to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will need to give leave to appeal, as this would be the third appeal. The original ruling was in the District Court.  The first appeal was to the High Court and the second appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Stuff reports:

The Recording Industry Association is not admitting to any disappointment over the size of awards handed down by the Copyright Tribunal against people caught illegally sharing music.

The tribunal has released its third “Skynet” ruling, awarding $797.17 against a CallPlus customer who was caught pirating Elton John and Coldplay tracks.

The Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (Rianz), which represents major music labels, had asked for a $3931 penalty.

However, the tribunal instead ordered $7.17 in direct compensation, the repayment of $250 in fees Rianz had paid to get the case to the tribunal and a deterrent of $180 for each of the three “strikes”.

Now there are three cases decided, we are getting a good idea of the likely penalties.

In all three cases they have got stung for $250 of fees plus the trivial cost of the actual songs.

What has varied is the deterrent penalty which has ranged from $100 to $180 per song. This case had it at $180 and that is because the respondent didn’t file any claim at all,  This is probably the maximum deterrent that will be charged.

The $100 is for now the minimum. However in some cases they may go even lower. None of the respondents to date have had particularly strong excuses. If someone comes forward with a defence that they did take several steps to stop any file-sharing (put a password on the wireless etc) then their deterrent fee may be reduced even further.

“There are 20 legal services in New Zealand, many of them completely free, that give people the opportunity to access music online.

“The cost of the fine would have bought the person five years’ worth of access to Spotify premium, giving them access to more than 20 million tracks playable on multiple devices.”

A reasonable point.

David Fisher at NZ Herald reports:

John Key went to meet Hollywood bosses with a briefing from officials saying studio bosses were looking for easier ways to target New Zealanders who downloaded and shared films illegally.

Officials told the Prime Minister Hollywood objected to the $25 fee it had to pay each time a notice warning against copyright infringement was issued and wanted to pay less.

Yep, they hate it. They say it should be zero or at best a few cents. They think ISPs should act as their delivery agents for no charge at all, and that they should be able to send tens of thousands of infringment notices per month via ISPs at the ISPs expense.

What they also hate is that the NZ charge may set an international precedent of reasonable reimbursement of costs for ISPs.

The briefing stated the support came through the MPAA’s New Zealand arm – the Federation Against Copyright Theft – which saw the regime as becoming a “gold standard” for similar schemes around the world. Despite the support, Mr Key was told the studios behind the MPAA did not use it because the $25 fee paid to internet service providers to send warning notices was too high.

Yep, they threw their toys out. I give RIANZ credit that they are at least using the system they lobbied for.

A recent review of the scheme kept the fee at $25 because lower costs would hurt ISPs, who were forced to pay up to $100 to send each notice. Mr Key was told the MPAA’s involvement would lead to an increase in the number of warning notices sent to people and give a “critical mass” that would bring the cost down.

Opponents of the fee change warned cheaper costs could lead to a rise in vexatious complaints.

As reported, the Government recently decided to not give in to the demands from the MPAA and kept the fee at $25. What is also not widely known is that when the scheme was set up, the (then) MED recommended the fee be only $20 and it was in fact Cabinet that increased the fee to $25.

The Copyright Tribunal has delivered its first decision under the relatively new file-sharing law. The key aspects are:

• Infringement notices sent on 24 Nov 11, 19 Jun 12 and and 30 Jul 12.
• Cost of songs calculated at $6.57 for three songs. Rejected RIANZ submission that you should multiply costs of songs by average number of downloads.
• The costs to RIANZ of the three notices was $75 or $25 a notice. Determined that the account holder should pay 1/3 of the initial notice, 2/3 of second notice and 1005 of third notice so $50 of the $75 in total.
• Account holder to pay 100% of the $200 Tribunal fee
• A deterrent fee of $120 per infringement
• This makes a total fine of $616.57 – pretty expensive for three songs.

Future decisions are likely to reference this one. It is likely that $600 is close to the minimum an account holder will pay if found to have infringed – unless they make the case for mitigating circumstances such as demonstrating they took steps to stop people with access to the account from file-sharing.

Stuff reports:

The United States has warned the tiny Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda not to retaliate against US restrictions on internet gambling by suspending copyrights or patents, a move that would authorise the “theft” of intellectual property like movies and music.

“The United States has urged Antigua to consider solutions that would benefit its broader economy. However, Antigua has repeatedly stymied these negotiations with certain unrealistic demands,” Nkenge Harmon, a spokeswoman for the US Trade Representative’s office, said.

The strong statement came after Antigua said it would suspend US copyrights and patents, an unusual form of retaliation, unless the United States took its demands for compensation more seriously in a ruling Antigua won at the World Trade Organisation.

“The economy of Antigua and Barbuda has been devastated by the United States government’s long campaign to prevent American consumers from gambling on-line with offshore gaming operators,” Antigua’s Finance Minister Harold Lovell said in a statement.

“We once again ask … the United States of America to act in accordance with the WTO’s decisions in this matter.”

Antigua, a former British colony with few natural resources, has knocked heads with the United States since the late 1990s, when it began building an Internet gambling industry to replace jobs in its declining tourist industry.

The gambling sector at its height employed more than 4000 people and was worth more than US$3.4 billion to the country’s economy, but it has shrunk to less than 500 people because of US restrictions, the Antiguan government says.

The United States said it never intended as part of its WTO commitments to allow foreign companies to offer online gambling services. In 2007, it began a formal WTO procedure to withdraw the gambling concession and reached a compensation package with all WTO members, except Antigua.

Antigua argued in a case first brought to the WTO in 2003 that US laws barring the placing of bets across states lines by electronic means violated global trade rules.

It won a partial victory in 2005 when the WTO ruled a US law allowing only domestic companies to provide online horse-race gambling services discriminated against foreign companies.

When the United States failed to change the law, the WTO in 2007 gave Antigua the right to retaliate by waiving intellectual property rights protections on some US$21 million worth of US goods annually, which was far less than the US$3.44 billion the island country requested.

The key thing here is that Antigua won in the WTO. It is hugely disappointing that the US broke the commitments it agreed to, when it joined the WTO. Australia lost the NZ case on apples access, and they have done the right thing and now allowed access. The US should have accepted the WTO ruling. By choosing not to, they owe Antigua compensation.

If the US wants countries to sign trade agreements with them, especially ones with intellectual property requirements in them, then they need to show that they will honour the commitments they agree to. Otherwise there isn’t much incentive for other countries to conclude an agreement.

I blogged a few days ago with some approval what Kim Dotcom said would end copyright piracy:

1. Create great stuff 
2. Make it easy to buy 
3. Same day worldwide release 
4. Fair price 
5. Works on any device

I said:

I basically agree with Dotcom on this. It would not end “piracy” entirely, but it would massively decrease it.

Pat Pilcher has published a response from RIANZ:

“The music industry has delivered on all five points suggested by Dotcom”

And they’ve responded to each of Kim DotCom’s 5 points with the following:

1- Create great stuff 
“Great” is obviously subjective but with legal digital services offering tens of millions of music tracks there’s surely something for everyone out there.

2- Make it easy to buy
New Zealanders have access to 20 legal digital music services, not only for buying but for on-demand and curated playback. The world leading brands in each category i-tunes, Spotify and Pandora are open for business in New Zealand.

These are available 24/7 and very easy to use. The website nztop40.co.nzprovides multiple links to the most popular international and local tracks and albums every week.

3- Same day worldwide release
The overwhelming majority of newly released music is available simultaneously worldwide. In fact due to time zone differences New Zealand is often the first country in the world to have access to new superstar releases.

4- Fair price 
Music has never been cheaper to buy or access. Some on-demand services even have a totally free option. Tracks from albums are can be purchased individually, often for under $2. Premium on-demand services are as little as $3 per week.

5- Works on any device 
Tracks and albums purchased from legal digital download services are DRM – free and all are usable across multiple devices using Android and iOS operating systems – i.e. the overwhelming majority of devices in the marketplace. Likewise on-demand services all have apps for multiple platforms and devices.

RIANZ makes the point despite this, music piracy continues unabated, and has grown every year since 2006.

It is disappointing that music piracy is at levels, when it is so easy and relatively inexpensive to buy the music online legally.  I’ve got around 380 songs purchased through itunes, and would never consider torrenting a song I can get on itunes.  People should pay for content, when they can.

Pat Pilcher writes:

Kim Dotcom has become a regular fixture on Twitter and not so long ago he posted a tweet on what he believes needs to happen if piracy is to end. As ironic as that may sound, Kim Dotcom’s logic is inescapably robust.

Here’s what his end to piracy manifesto says:

1. Create great stuff 
2. Make it easy to buy 
3. Same day worldwide release 
4. Fair price 
5. Works on any device

I basically agree with Dotcom on this. It would not end “piracy” entirely, but it would massively decrease it.

I get so annoyed when I try to buy a movie or a TV series and I can’t buy it on itunes or Amazon. It means the producers are refusing to take my money. How stupid is that?

Susan Chalmers writes at the NZ Herald on the TPP:

I’m not an economist, but I do understand what a net loss or a net gain is. Most people will be familiar with the concept – at the end of the day, are you better or worse off? To figure that one out you need to know what you’ve brought in, and what you’ve paid out.

We’ve recently heard what New Zealand could bring in under the Trans Pacific Partnership – US$2.9 billion by 2025. But that figure is based on a hypothetical situation involving 21 countries, not the 11 that are negotiating. Even so, the Prime Minister recently embraced and advanced this figure.

What’s missing? Our leaders haven’t told us what the costs will be.

The biggest cost that New Zealand could sustain under the TPP would be in the intellectual property, particularly copyright. This is because the most powerful party to the negotiations – the United States – is a net exporter of copyrighted goods (movies, books, TV shows, songs, games, etc) while all other TPP parties are net importers.

The interests that drive US trade policy in copyright are Hollywood and the recording industry. They want stronger and more powerful legal rights that would bring more money to them, often at the expense of many different sectors of society and business.

I’m all for the benefits of liberalising trade with other countries. That does provide benefits. But as Susan says, we also have to be aware of the costs to New Zealand, if the TPP includes US drafted changes to our copyright laws.

The Government has rightly said that any decision on TPP will be based on whether it is a net gain to New Zealand. But again, one can only calculate a net gain if you actually calculate the costs.

Now ideally NZ holds firm and doesn’t agree to any provisions that require changes to our IP laws.

Since the Government has not run its own analysis of potential costs, perhaps we can look elsewhere for guidance. Australia is a good place to start. Like New Zealand, Australia is a net importer of copyrighted goods and wants better access to the US agricultural markets – for sugar and beef exports in particular. …

A report from the Australian Productivity Commission – the Government’s independent research and advisory body – indicated that Australia suffered a net loss under AUSFTA as a whole because of accepting the US copyright demands.

Maybe the NZ Productivity Commission could look at the the benefits to the NZ economy of balanced IP laws?

So why has our political leadership not talked about the costs of accepting the US copyright demands? For instance, the cost of paying decades more in royalties to overseas companies, losing parallel imports, not to mention all the taxpayer money to support US copyright litigation here in New Zealand.

Trade agreements are meant to liberalise trade. Banning parallel imports is putting up barriers to trade.

Regardless of the reason for our leaders not acknowledging the potential costs, it is now time to run that analysis, as any normal business would. New Zealand’s copyright negotiators have been holding the line throughout 15 TPP rounds, working to stave off these costs for the country. Let’s encourage our elected officials not only to give them some support, but to explain exactly what the country is about to commit to. Shouldn’t we know?

We should.

Tom Pullar-Strecker at Stuff reports:

The first judgments under the controversial ‘SkyNet’ law that is designed to help stamp out music piracy are edging closer as the wraps come off another service, Pandora, that lets people listen to music legally online.

A Justice Ministry spokesman said the Recording Industry Association, which represents major record labels, had asked the tribunal to make awards against 15 people who the association has accused of illegally accessing music over file-sharing networks.

All 15 had received their “third strike” and could be liable for penalties running into thousands of dollars.

In four of the cases, the tribunal now had all the information it needed to begin its deliberations, the spokesman said, though no date has yet been scheduled for those to start.

None had requested to appear in front of the tribunal in person and they had instead asked for their cases to be judged on the written evidence “so they are ready to proceed and have a decision made,” the spokesman said.

A lot of people will be reading the first judgments with interest. The two major issues will be what constitutes proof of infringement, and what is an appropriate level of penalty within the bounds laid down by the law.

I don’t regard it as a bad thing that there is a simple fairly cost-effective remedy for rights holders to get sanctions against those who infringe by downloading a free copy, rather than paying for it. But the law is imperfect with its assumption of liability, so again great interest in how these first cases are resolved.

A good article by Geoff Cumming at the NZ Herald:

If you think opponents of the Trans Pacific Partnership are typically anti-free trade/anti-globalisation conspiracy theorists, consider these unlikely bedfellows: librarians, software exporters, researchers, book lovers, fans of DVDs, media creatives and people who download music. The negotiations for a trade deal covering 11 Pacific nations have managed to unite these apparently unconnected sectors in alarm.

I wouldn’t say they are opponents. Some people are opposed to the TPP no matter what its form is. They often oppose all trade deals.

Other groups and individuals have concerns over potential provisions – especially those in the US written draft intellectual property chapter. To date the NZ Govt and other countries have not agreed to these, and have proposed alternative wording which would mean no change in current NZ law.

Parallel importing is in the firing line, according to the leaked draft of the US position. This could affect not just knock-off copies but our freedom to source licensed brands without the premium charged by licensees.

Trade deals are meant to liberalise trade. Restricting parallel imports is actually going in the other direction.

Apart from the damage to our Christmas shopping budgets, the Libraries Association says a ban on parallel imports would slow down access to new-release books in libraries. A longer copyright length would restrict what libraries are able to digitise. They could be prevented from overriding technological protection measures such as zone restrictions on DVDs. Users of iPhones and iPads may risk fines for “jailbreaking” devices to add non-licensed functions. Longer copyright periods would narrow the options for musicians and media creatives.

The longer copyright term proposed is especially worrying. We already have life plus 50 years. I actually think that is too long. Life + 20 years is more than adequate when you consider the purpose of copyright is to reward and incentivise creators.

Internet and copyright law specialist Rick Shera is concerned about proposals to increase powers to prosecute and hike penalties – up to US$150,000 ($180,000) per infringement.

“There have been cases in the US where housewives have been sued over [downloading] five to 10 songs,” says Shera. “You could end up with an iPod with $4 million of infringements on it, as rights holders are able to seek a multiple of the damages suffered.”

And we have seen here that the music rights body will try and claim 90 times the value of a song based on hypothetical situations.

The film and music industries, which are driving the US goals on IP, want internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor internet activity for copyright breaches at their own expense and to pass on alleged abusers’ names to rights holders, says Shera.

Telecommunications Users Association chief executive Paul Brislen says the huge monitoring costs would be passed to consumers.

“If ISPs are required to filter stuff or block websites, it’s the consumer who pays at the end of the day. It will lead to things like deep pocket inspections [filtering] of everybody’s content which will slow down the internet and raises privacy issues. ISPs risk being sued for the behaviour of their customers – it becomes quite laughable. You get lawyers claiming to represent rights holders and demanding take-downs for content they don’t have any rights to or clients they don’t represent. It’s the kind of nonsense that only the American legal system engages in.”

I think our current law is a pretty good balance. ISPs do have to respond to requests to pass on notices to customers whom allegedly infringe. But they get their costs (in the main) reimbursed.

The devil is in the detail – and it quickly descends into terminology that only trade treaty specialists and techno geeks can decipher. Susan Chalmers is policy lead for internet NZ and spokeswoman for Fair Deal, a coalition of the interest groups. She believes that the draft US position threatens the very workings of the internet, for instance by challenging the right to store copied material, known as caching. “The internet works by making temporary copies, or ‘transient reproductions’, of data in order to transmit it from point A to point B,” says Chalmers. “The US proposals threaten the exception [in copyright law] that ensures that copyright owners don’t abuse their power by suing anyone who intentionally or unintentionally makes a temporary copy.

Basically the US draft says any copying is infringement, but then says we’ll give you an exception for caching and the like. We actually need copyright laws that focus on use of material, not the fact it may be copied. The Internet is the world’s largest copying machine.

A summary:

Contentious wish list

Interest groups’ key concerns over leaked draft of US IP chapter.

• Extension of copyright terms, eg, from 50 to 70 years for books after author’s death.

• Clampdown on exceptions to copyright rules, e.g, “fair use” provisions.

• Patents on software (New Zealand has already reversed its plan to exclude software in review of patent law).

• Parallel imports subject to veto.

• Internet service providers responsible for monitoring and policing.

• Rights holders can insist on removal of material.

• Offence to circumvent technological protection measures (e.g, region codes on DVDs, technology locks on iPhones).

I’m actually up in Auckland for a couple of TPP events today. My hope is that the NZ Government will continue to maintain its position that the TPP IP chapter should be consistent with current NZ intellectual property laws.

I’ve been supplied a copy of the submission made by RIANZ seeking $4,675 from a woman for file-sharing 11 songs!! This is $425 a song.

RIANZ dropped the prosecution after the woman’s lawyer pointed out she had never received any of the three notices required under the Copyright Act (detection, warning, or enforcement). None of these were sent to her billing address – the ISP (Slingshot) just sent them to the e-mail address that was established with her account (which she had never used or accessed or has a password for). So the first she knew of the issue was when she received the tribunal proceedings seeking $4,675, which is $425 a song.

It is good RIANZ dropped the prosecution when they become aware that she had never received the notices. Of course, they risked losing the case if they had proceeded. But regardless what is concerning is the amount of damages they were seeking.

The cost of each song is $2.39 and the Copyright Act says that should be what damages are based on. RIANZ however construct a hypothetical scenario saying they think each song would have been downloaded by 90 other people, while she made it available for upload (note she didn’t even know that bittorrent software made it available for upload – she thought it was just a downloading tool) and hence she should be fined for the estimated 90 copies other people may have uploaded. I’d be very unimpressed if the Copyright Tribunal starts handing out penalties on the basis of hypothetical ratios of possible uploading – rather than on the actual evidence of any infringing.  Her lawyer says this would be penalising her on the basis of assumed or hypothetical activity, rather than established fact.

RIANZ use their hypothetical maths to say she should pay $1,175 for the songs, but then claims that is not a sufficient deterrent! They seek an extra $3,500 on top of that.

The lawyer for the woman pointed out that $425 per song compares to the following:

• $500 + $133 court costs for the average first time drink driver (20% over)
• $500 + court costs for the average driving while disqualified
• $500 + court costs for the average common assault
• Diversion and a $200 donation to charity for first time cannabis use

The lawyer submitted that an appropriate fine, if she was found to have infringed is $315 which is $30 a song approx. This would cover the filing costs for RIANZ and the cost of the songs if purchased.

This case was dropped, but eventually RIANZ will manage to find a case which isn’t so flawed that they have to drop it. It will be interesting to see how the Tribunal rules on their heroic attempts to seek punitive damages based on hypothetical additional infringing.

The RIANZ submission is below.

20121130184431260

Tech Liberty blogs:

The RIANZ has withdrawn one of the first three cases to go to the Copyright Tribunal. The withdrawal happened after all submissions had been made but before the formal hearing at the Tribunal.

Tech Liberty helped the defendant with her submission along with pro bono assistance from lawyers and Susan Chalmers at InternetNZ.

The case

The defendant was a student in a flatting situation and was the account holder for the flat’s shared internet account. She has never used file sharing software and we had to explain to her what it was and how it worked. It seems likely that one of her flatmates had it installed.

The flat never received the first detection notice and they didn’t really understand the second warning notice. She did show it to her flatmates and asked them to stop doing anything they were doing. They denied doing anything, so she checked to make sure that their wireless network was properly protected by a password in case they had been hacked. The third notice was a mess – addressed to the wrong person, Telecom eventually withdrew it and replaced it with another one.

Then came the notice from the Ministry of Justice that action was being taken against the account holder. The defendant was very upset and worried, and contacted her local Citizen’s Advice Bureau for help, who put her on to us.

This sounds like a great example of an innocent person being caught up in the law – which I suspect is why RIANZ dropped the case – it would have made for a very bad poster child.

I don’t advocate that saying “My flatmate did it” should be an absolute get out of jail card, as the law would be pretty ineffective if you could just dodge liability that way. But I do think it should be a factor the Tribunal can take into account.

RIANZ claimed a total of $2669.25 in penalties. This was made up as follows:

1. $1075.50 as the cost of the music.
2. $373.75 to repay the cost of the notices and tribunal fee.
3. $1250 as a deterrent.

The cost of the music was calculated as being five tracks (total number of notices) multiplied by the $2.39 cost of each track on the iTunes store. The observant may notice that this works out to $11.95 rather than $1075.50. RIANZ decided, based on some self-serving research, that each track had probably been downloaded 90 times and therefore the cost should be multipled by 90. There is no basis in the Copyright Act or Tribunal regulations for this claim.

A lot of us will be very interested in what fines are levied. For my 2c I think it should be something along the lines of twice the cost of the music plus the cost of the notices and tribunal fee for routine cases.

When we met the defendant she was very worried about the case and what it would mean for her. It caused her significant distress and preparing a defence interrupted both her studies and her part time job. The thought of a $2669 penalty weighed heavily on her and her plans for the future.

She immediately cancelled the flat’s internet account and her and her flatmates were from that point without an internet connection at home. Obviously this was not good for their studies, social lives or personal business (e.g. online banking).

The flatmates refused to acknowledge any responsibility or offer to pay any money towards the penalty. Relationships in the flat broke down and the defendant left the flat soon after.

There’s a lesson here. Don’t be the account holder for your flat unless you trust your flatmates not to do stuff which could make you liable.

The notices from Telecom had a number of technical faults, of which the main ones were:

• Telecom sent out an incorrect notice then withdrew it and sent out another. Even the corrected notice had some errors and used different infringement numbers and the whole situation was very confusing.
• The second and third notices did not specify which first and second notices they were following on from, as required by the regulations. This made working out the timelines very difficult.
• The corrected third and final enforcement notice was sent for an infringement that happened within the 28 day stand down period after the warning notice, which means it was not a valid enforcement notice.

The defendant did ask the Copyright Tribunal for a formal hearing which she intended to attend.

It is disturbing that a third strike was issued based on an invalid notice. You would think for the initial cases, RIANZ would be triple-checking the notices.

Stuff reports:

Australian television boss Tim Worner says the station will not be spooked into fast-tracking imported television series and dramas because of internet pirates.

Yeah, stuff the viewers who want to see their favourite shows promptly. They’ll see them when we tell them they can see them.

We now live in a global market. Channels are, in my  opinion, losing relevance. People are about content, and will bypass traditional channels too get it. Evenetually I hope the future will be that people can purchase their favourite TV series directly from the producers within a day of release.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s communications spokeswoman, Clare Curran, has taken her colleague Shane Jones to task for wading into her portfolio area and criticising a Green Party bill to allow exemptions to copyright for the sake of satire.

In the Weekend Herald, Mr Jones said Green MP Gareth Hughes’ proposed bill to allow copyrighted work to be used for parody or satire was part of a “Green agenda” of economic vandalism and would endanger jobs by damaging companies’ brands.

However, Ms Curran said she did not agree with Mr Jones and his comments were contrary to Labour’s general policy on the issue.

She later told the Herald she had contacted Mr Jones.

She said Mr Hughes’ Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill was in line with Labour’s policy.

“From my perspective and our policy perspective, it’s the mark of a civilised society to do so. So my view and our policy view are not in accord with Shane Jones’ views. We will have a discussion with him when we get back [from the United States].”

Labour’s caucus was yet to discuss the bill, but she would recommend the party support it if it was drawn from the member’s ballot.

The main article on what Jones said is here. Danyl has also commented here.

On this issue I agree with Clare and Gareth. I think parody and satire should be “fair use” of material under our laws – as it is in the United States. Companies should not be able to prevent satire or parody by resort to copyright laws.

However there is an issue about how far fair use stretches. Few would say you shouldn’t be able to highlight and mock extracts from an advertisement, but is it fair use to say take an entire five minute video, and edit it into a parody? Does it make a difference if a competitor does it, or a lobby group?

There is also the reality that any attempt to remove a parody or satire of an ad, will probably just see the ad get wider publicity and hosted more widely.

If Gareth’s bill gets drawn, I hope it passes first reading. There would be some interesting factors to consider at select committee though about how far “fair use” (or “fair dealing” extends.  How would we feel if some US lobby group did ads using Fonterra’s intellectual property to try and damage their brand in the US and cause harm to NZ exports?

For me the principle is clear, that parody and satire should be allowed. The details may need some work.

Later in this post, I’ll come to how the NZ law enforcement agencies have behaved, but initially I want to cover Dotcom himself. While I admire his intelligence, technical, gaming and PR skills, I’m not quite in the category that he is a poor little innocent victim.

First of all, it is worth recalling he does have a less than clean record to date, before Megaupload. Specifically:

• hacking, including selling access codes
• arrested trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers
• convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud and 10 counts of data espionage
• accepting gang-related stolen goods
• guilty of insider trading in Germany’s then largest ever case of its type
• guilty of embezzlement

The pattern is someone who is very focused on making money, and pushes the rules, sometimes breaking them.

There is also a reasonable amount of evidence he is a bit of a fantasist, as detailed here. No that’s fine – we all want to be James Bond to some degree, but it is perhaps a reason not to regard everything he says as the holy gospel.

We then have Megaupload. This case is essentially about copyright infringement. I think most people know I was a prominent campaigner against the original S92A and the blackout campaign as it would have seen people lose Internet access upon accusation.

I’ve generally been against most of the demands of the music and film industries with NZ copyright law, and am involved in the fair deal campaign to support NZ standing firm in the TPP negotiations against any provisions which would require a change to our domestic intellectual property laws.

I’m also very firmly in the camp that Internet sites should not be held responsible for the actions of their users, so long as they comply with the law.

However on the basis of evidence seen to date, I don’t quite buy the argument that Megaupload was merely a file-sharing service the same as YouTube or Rapidshare. Their business model is one that arguably encouraged peoplee to not just share popular infringing material, but to make money from it – as did Megauplaod. Quite different to non-commercial torrent sharing.

It is claimed for example that one user, VW, uploaded 17,000 files over six years resulting in 334 million views, and none of the files had ever been deleted, despite takedown notices. My understanding is that links to files were deleted, but not files.

In my personal opinion, Dotcom built a business absolutely based on making money from people sharing popular files, that they did not have copyright of. There is a reason it become 4% of all Internet traffic.

However there is a big *If*. He may have done it legally. While one can debate the ethics of certain actions, it is the law which states enforce. He may have managed to set up his business model in such a way that he made tens of millions from the site, and didn’t break US laws. Ultimately this issue will be decided by Judges – initially in NZ on whether there is enough evidence of offences that would be illegal in both NZ and the US – and then if extradited in the US in a trial.

As with his previous actions, I think Dotcom set out to push the law to its boundary. He may have stepped over. He may not have. That is for the legal system to decide. But I don’t accept the analogy that Megaupload operated just like YouTube or Rapidshare, and that a guilty verdict for Dotcom would affect those other sites greatly.

We then come to the NZ side of things. The exact details of the GCSB role should be made public soon, and will be fascinating. Graeme Edgeler has an excellent post on this issue. He raises the issue of should the GCSB have been involved at all, even of Dotcom did not have residency.

The overall impression I have of NZ law enforcement agencies is they were desperately keen to impress the boys from the US. To have the FBI and likes over here saying this guy is wanted for hundreds of millions of dollars of charges, and this case will be globally massive seemed to have got people into a mindset that we have to make sure we don’t disappoint Uncle Sam by just sending in Constable Smith to interview Dotcom.

Caution seems to have been thrown to the wind, in an attempt to impress that we are up to the job. Ironically the opposite has happened, and NZ authorities have ended up with egg on their face several times. Nowhere it seems were senior officials saying “Hey, let’s slow down and make sure everything is watertight and double checked”. The list of mistakes include:

• An arguably over the top use of Police resources in the original raid. Armed Police were warranted as Dotcom did have weapons and did not initially surrender, but not sure quite that much force was needed.
• A paperwork error saw his property seized without giving proper notice
• Invalid search warrants for the raid
• The probable unlawful interception of communications by the GCSB

NZ authorities absolutely have an obligation to assist the US with legal extradition efforts. I am not one of those saying we should not have co-operated. If someone broke the law in NZ, and lived in the US, we value the fact that extradition treaties allow them to be sent to NZ.

Whether or not Dotcom broke US law is a matter for Judges. It is unknown at this stage if any significant evidence will be inadmissible due to mistakes made by NZ authorities.  Time will tell. And as I have said, I think Dotcom’s strategy was to push the boundary of the law as far as he could, and he may or may not have stepped outside it. Ultimately that is not a matter for us.

What is a matter for us, is the response from NZ law enforcement agencies. I doubt I am alone is concluding the culture was shall we say too overly enthusiastic, and not cautious enough. The end result has been considerable embarrassment for them, for the Government, and potentially a significant weakening of the case against Dotcom. Hopefully there will be lessons learnt.

Chris Keall at NBR reports:

The government is keeping the fee for an infringement notice under the file sharing law at $25, Commerce Minister Craig Foss said this afternoon in a briefing paper to cabinet.

NZ FACT – representing the major Hollywood studios – had wanted the fee dropped to “pennies”.

The Recording Industry Association of NZ (Rianz), representing multinational and local music labels, submitted the fee needed to be dropped to $2 or less for it to send a serious number of infringement notices.

This is excellent news. A drop would have seen ISPs not getting reimbursed for the costs they incur in processing these notices, and could have led to an avalanche of them.

The briefing paper reveals the number of notices sent by four of the five largest ISPs:

Telecom: 1238
Vodafone: 417
TelstraClear: 398
Orcon: 115

What I am interested in, is how many got second strikes or third strikes. If those who download copyrighted material stop after a first strike warning, then the regime is working effectively.

Tom Pullar-Strecker reports:

Record companies have asked for three Kiwi internet users to be hauled in front of the Copyright Tribunal and fined under the controversial “Skynet” copyright law for allegedly pirating music.

Previously the Recording Industry Association (Rianz) had limited itself to sending more than 2700 warnings to people it believed it had caught illegally sharing music through peer-to-peer networks.

There was surprise in July when it emerged the association had chosen not to take action against any of the first three internet users who had received third and final “enforcement notices” under the three-strikes regime.

But Justice Ministry spokesman Nathan Green confirmed that Rianz, which represents big labels, including EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner, had now bared its teeth by making an example of three others who had received their final notices.

“Three applications for an order requiring payment to a rights owner under Section 122(O) of the Copyright Act 1994 have been received from the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand,” he said.

From a policy point of view, I’m glad we now have some cases going to the Tribunal. It means we may learn what the Tribunal will regard as sufficient proof of infringement, what they regard as an acceptable defence (if one is offered), and what they regard as an appropriate penalty (within the legislation).

Made two purchases yesterday:

1. A Blu-ray DVD player so I can watch movies and TV shows of content providers who are willing to take money off me.
2. A 1 TB Media player so I can watch movies and TV shows of content providers who are not willing to take money off me.

I think that is a very balanced purchase!

I was in the UK for a friend’s wedding during the inaugural Nethui in 2011, so the 2012 Nethui was the first one for me.

There were over 500 people in attendance, and I was really pleased that it was a preetty diverse group of people. It wasn’t just the usual suspects of the Internet techos and the policy wonks. There were teachers there interested in the Internet as an education tool. Farmers were there, librarians were there, game developers were there. Oh yeah, lawyers also

Organizing a conference with over 60 sessions (plus a bar camp at the end) is a massive achievement, and kudos to especially Richard Wood, plus also all the INZ staff, for delivering a high quality event. InternetNZ subsidise it by a six figure sum so that registration for it is only $40.

Should also mention the Showgizmo smartphone app. I found it pretty useful. It had the schedule for the conference in it, so very easy to check what was on. You could select which sessions you wanted to attend, and it would show you just those, and/or give you calendar reminders for them. It also had the names and twitter feeds for all 500 delegates. Plus as a bonus if you scanned in someone’s ID tag on your smartphone, then it would add them to your favourites. Could do with some tweaking to interface with programmes like Outlook more, but overall a pretty good app for event organisers and attendees to use.

I was involved in a few sessions. I chaired a session on copyright and the Internet which had around 300 people attend. The video will be on the website for those are interested. Some good discussion, and the best point made was by chance the last. One of the lawyers there (Rochelle) said that a lot of problems would be solved if copyright law changed from focusing on copying to use. I thought that was a great idea. The Internet is a giant copying machine, as is each individual PC. Having laws against copying is like having laws against eating.

But what you can do is have laws on use of copyrighted material. If for example you copy a movie you purchase, just so you have it on a backup machine – then that is fine. But if you copy it and give it to someone – that is an infringement. And if you copy it and sell the copy to someone – that is a criminal offence. Focus on use, not copying.

There was also a good session on harmful speech on the Internet and the Law Commission’s proposals for a Communications Tribunal to deal with some of it, chaired excellently by Judge Harvey.  I retain some reservations about what may be proposed, but am waiting to see the details.

On the margins of Nethui, we saw the launch of the Fair Deal campaign about the TPP. I am a strong supporter of genuinely free trade agreements and also a strong supporter of the Fair Deal campaign. The campaign is calling on the NZ Government to maintain its current negotiating position of rejecting the elements of the US proposed intellectual property chapter, where they would require a change to our current IP laws or policies. I’ll blog more on the campaign as it goes. Feel free to check out the campaign website, and NBR has a story on the launch also.

I also took part in a panel on Open Government. Sadly there was little time for questions as there were two opening speakers and then seven panelists. My major point was that we should now look at amending the OIA to require pro-active release of certain Government information (such as Cabinet papers) after a certain period of time (say six months). This is not intended to change the criteria for release, but to recognise that people do not know what they don’t know, and hence what to ask for. An automatic pro-active release would open up Government considerably. I may draft a members’ bill to this end when I get the time and see if a backbench MP wants to submit it. I also see this as good for Government too, as knowing that all papers will automatically be released will ensure due care is taken in their drafting and approval.

Overall I thought it was a fabulous event, mainly due to the quality of the people there and their willingness to engage. Sarah Putt from Computerworld did not have a good initial impression, but Lance Wiggs’ response is one I endorse.

Talking of one of the keynote speakers, Pamela Jones Harbour, I would make this point. No she was not a Lawrence Lessig, but what she did do was not just deliver a keynote address, but actually stayed for the whole conference and participated in many of the sessions. Personally I thought it pretty cool that a former US Federal Trade Commissioner stayed on and participated the way she did. Also notable was that Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff didn’t just turn up for one session, but was there for at least two days, and engaging in multiple sessions. Nethui isn’t like other conference where it is all about the keynote speakers (even though I agree they are important), but it is about the engagement.

UPDATE: Almost forgot the highlight. As part of the digital divide panel, we heard from Emma whose family had benefited from the computers in homes programmes. Emma told us her life story including losing her kids for a while, drugs, crime but how computers in homes had made such a big difference to her and her kids, and how well her family are doing now. She was on the verge of tears speaking about her mistakes (and speaking to 500 strangers is daunting for most people), and most of the audience were emotionally captivated. She got the sole standing ovation of Nethui, and made things very real.

I was going to do a lengthy blog explaining the context of the comments by Judge Harvey which led to him recusing himself from the Dotcom extradition hearing – but Russell Brown has done it for me. The key part:

Tweeting the proceedings is actively encouraged at NetHui, and I relayed Judge Harvey’s lucid observation that:

The problem is not technology, the problem is behaviour. We have met the enemy and he is us. #nethui

At least twice, Judge Harvey smiled and firmly declined to comment when Kim Dotcom’s extradition case, which he was hearing, came up. I complimented him afterwards on the job he’d done. …

It wasn’t quite the end of the day for me. I’d agreed to stand in for Nat Torkington chairing a 6.30pm session announcing the launch of Fair Deal, a public awareness campaign about the potential threat to New Zealand consumer rights posed by the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement negotiations currently being undertaken by New Zealand, the US and several other countries.

Deep unease with the US stance on intellectual property chapter of the agreement is the default view in New Zealand. It threatens to drag us back into issues such as rights to temporary copies (ie: the right to use the actual internet), which have been settled for years in our soevereign copyright law.

My panel – Internet NZ policy lead Susan Chalmers, Neil Jarvis of the Royal Foundation of the Blind, Catalyst IT director Don Christie and Trade Me operations manager Michael O’Connell – discussed their objections. Don noted that the New Zealand officials negotiating on our behalf have thus far taken a pretty solid line.

David Farrar commented from the floor on government attitudes (also fairly sound but the temptation will always be there to compromise on edge issues just to get an agreement signed). And Judge Harvey was there too. He spoke about the US position on something else that has long been settled in our law – the right to own and operate a device a region-free DVD player. I’ll assume Hamish Fletcher’s transcript in his Herald story is roughly accurate:

Under TPP and the American Digital Millennium copyright provisions you will not be able to do that, that will be prohibited… if you do you will be a criminal – that’s what will happen. Even before the 2008 amendments it wasn’t criminalised. There are all sorts of ways this whole thing is being ramped up and if I could use Russell [Brown’s] tweet from earlier on: we have met the enemy and he is [the] U.S.

Fletcher’s story didn’t appear until the following Monday, five days later, – but when it did, it appeared in the lead position on the Herald’s home page, under the headline US ‘the enemy’ says Dotcom judge.

Inevitably, the story was picked up from there by internet news services as Megaupload Judge Calls U.S. “The Enemy”. In making a play on his own words, Judge Harvey had created a perception of bias that has eventually led to him opting to stand aside from the Kim Dotcom case. He has done the right thing. But it bears reiterating that he was not discussing the Kim Dotcom case at the time.

So the comment was a play on his own quote from earlier in the day, and as Russell says was not at all discussing the Dotcom case.

I think it is a pity, for all sides, at the outcome. As Russell outlined Judge Harvey is an expert on both copyright law (he chaired the copyright tribunal) and Internet law. I’m not suggesting the outcome of the extradition hearing will be different with a different Judge, but that public acceptance of the decision would have been very high with Judge Harvey – especially if it was that the requirements for extradition had been met.

Nathan Torkington has blogged on this also, as has Chris Keall at NBR.

The NZ Herald reports:

In another of the rulings Thursday, the justices said online music stores will not have to pay royalties on song previews to publishers and songwriters.

The high court ruled song previews what a customer would listen to before purchasing digital music from online retailers such as an iTune constitutes research under copyright legislation and thus the consumer should not pay a royalty.

“Short, low-quality previews do not compete with, or adversely affect, the downloading of the works themselves. Instead, their effect is to increase the sale and dissemination of copyrighted musical works,” said the ruling.

I’m not sure what is more scary – the stupidity or the greed of the music studios in trying to get people to pay for previews. I often listen to a song preview before buying it – it helps me decide whether to buy it. The previews are never the entire song, and I’ve never heard of anyone copying the previews, as they are incomplete.

The fifth ruling found that photocopying textbooks for classroom use in public schools does not infringe copyright laws, and should not be subject to a tariff

I’m not sure if this means entire textbooks can be copied, but it should allow chapters to be photocopied for academic use.