Review of the Copyright Act 1994

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Review of the Copyright Act 1994

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79316 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#243008 23-Nov-2018 11:18

The Review of the Copyright Act 1994 is now underway. Feedback is sought and the date limit for responses is 5 April 2019 5pm.

The Review of the Copyright Act 1994 Issues Paper (PDF) is quite extensive and covers a lot of stuff that we've seen since the last review. It raises questions on many topics including TPM, video format-shift, infringing file share (P2P), started talking about Kodi boxes, ISP enforcement, etc. These questions are starting points for the discussion and feedback.

This page explains how to make a submission.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2132571 23-Nov-2018 11:42

Oh boy ... here we go!

Mike

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132574 23-Nov-2018 11:46

MikeAqua:

Oh boy ... here we go!

Yeppity! Need a sweepstake on how often the word Sky appears. How often "I'm happy to pay for content" appears

hio77

12999 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

#2132603 23-Nov-2018 12:28

tdgeek:

MikeAqua:

Oh boy ... here we go!

Yeppity! Need a sweepstake on how often the word Sky appears. How often "I'm happy to pay for content" appears

172 times.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132605 23-Nov-2018 12:35

OK. And tomorrows number? :-)

SaltyNZ

8241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2132607 23-Nov-2018 12:38

tdgeek:

OK. And tomorrows number? :-)

Exponential, obviously -- 29,584; 5,088,448; 875,213,056 etc.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

rugrat

3108 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2132662 23-Nov-2018 13:06

I've only skimmed it, but looks like ISP's safe harbor is under review:

424 : The ISP liability provisions may need to be reviewed in light of developing role of online platforms as content distributors.

425: We have also heard that ISP liability provisions reduce incentive on ISPs to help right holders.

In another part though it says safe harbor was put in to keep internet costs down.

I'll mention Sky so another count can be added for it's mention :)

SaltyNZ

8241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2132687 23-Nov-2018 13:16

rugrat:

425: We have also heard that ISP liability provisions reduce incentive on ISPs to help right holders.

In another part though it says safe harbor was put in to keep internet costs down.

I'm sure the rights holders would actually be quite happy to see all the ISPs go out of business, because then they could all go back to Sky TV again. Plus think of how much money we'd be saving as a country by halting the UFB project due to lack of interest.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132693 23-Nov-2018 13:28

I see zero moral justification for Copyright or "Intellectual Property" in general;

It goes against the fundamental natural concepts of evolution, adaptation, collective wisdom etc.
It goes against the fundamental economic concepts of free-market competition, iteration etc.
It goes against the fundamental legal concepts of free speech, thought and expression etc.
It goes against the fundamental logical concepts as to novelty (everything is based on something else, computers can generate every possible image or sound) etc.

It only serves to protect large monopolies who lobby for these laws, stifle innovation and free-market efficiency and contribute to unnecessary human suffering (e.g. imprisonment of innovators, blocking cheaper alternative medicines, patented seeds / crops etc.)

I am behind trademark protection (and generally crimes of moral turpitude) in so far as it relates to fraud / false pretenses; that is to say that I cannot pretend (or mislead the customer to believe) that I am Tesla US LLC however I should be free to take that car and improve on it if I can for the benefit of the market and mankind generally.

The argument that none will ever invest in new development and artists won't get paid etc is nonsense. As we've seen with the internet, open-source, streaming, sharing economy, crowdfunding, blockchain etc new markets, new business structures and new funding models will constantly evolve to completely disrupt the old paradigms (in the absence of oppressive regulation or with some way around it).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79316 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2132724 23-Nov-2018 14:32

The official press release:

Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Hon Kris Faafoi today released an issues paper marking the first stage of public consultation on changes to the Copyright Act 1994, saying all Kiwis should consider taking part.

“Copyright affects all New Zealanders. We create copyright works when we take a photograph, record a video, or write an email, and we use copyright works by watching a sports broadcast, streaming a movie, listening to music, or reading a book,” said Mr Faafoi.

“Copyright also gives creators of copyright works the right to prevent others copying or distributing their works without their permission.

“The last significant review of the Copyright Act was completed more than a decade ago, and much has changed in that time. The digital environment has created new opportunities to disseminate and access works. For example, we have seen developments in artificial intelligence, data collection, virtual reality and 3-D printing.

“Kiwis are increasingly using digital content over the internet, sharing platforms and streaming services. So our copyright regime must be robust enough and flexible enough to deal with the challenges of technological advances.”

The Government is also looking at how it should coordinate the Copyright Act review with the protection of mātauranga Māori and taonga works in response to the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity (the Wai 262 report).

“We want to hear from anyone interested at this stage where we are sharing the issues paper,” Mr Faafoi said. “Once we have a good understanding of what is important to people and why, we will consider what changes are needed.”

Further information on the review and how to make a submission is available at www.mbie.govt.nz/copyright-review. Consultation is open for just over four months with submissions closing on Friday 5 April 2019.

allan

2044 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2132726 23-Nov-2018 14:35

MikeAqua:

Oh boy ... here we go!

Where is @PeterReader when you really need him to say that?

howdystranger

152 posts

Master Geek

#2132727 23-Nov-2018 14:35

solutionz:

I see zero moral justification for Copyright or "Intellectual Property" in general;

It goes against the fundamental natural concepts of evolution, adaptation, collective wisdom etc.
It goes against the fundamental economic concepts of free-market competition, iteration etc.
It goes against the fundamental legal concepts of free speech, thought and expression etc.
It goes against the fundamental logical concepts as to novelty (everything is based on something else, computers can generate every possible image or sound) etc.
It only serves to protect large monopolies who lobby for these laws, stifle innovation and free-market efficiency and contribute to unnecessary human suffering (e.g. imprisonment of innovators, blocking cheaper alternative medicines, patented seeds / crops etc.)

I am behind trademark protection (and generally crimes of moral turpitude) in so far as it relates to fraud / false pretenses; that is to say that I cannot pretend (or mislead the customer to believe) that I am Tesla US LLC however I should be free to take that car and improve on it if I can for the benefit of the market and mankind generally.

The argument that none will ever invest in new development and artists won't get paid etc is nonsense. As we've seen with the internet, open-source, streaming, sharing economy, crowdfunding, blockchain etc new markets, new business structures and new funding models will constantly evolve to completely disrupt the old paradigms (in the absence of oppressive regulation or with some way around it).

I think it's fair enough that, for example, if you write a book you have some protection against people ripping it off. That said, I think our copyright term is way too long currently and should be something much shorter like 20-30 years

SaltyNZ

8241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2132730 23-Nov-2018 14:42

solutionz:

I see zero moral justification for Copyright or "Intellectual Property" in general;

I wouldn't say there was zero moral justification but I agree with the general thrust of your argument: these concepts must exist to benefit society as a whole. Part of benefiting society is creating an incentive for people to do these things, but 'incentive' does not mean 'owns all rights to the idea and any others vaguely related to it including ones we haven't thought of ourselves exclusively forever'. In particular I believe giant corporations have massively distorted the landscape; Walt Disney copied Mickey Mouse from earlier cartoons, but Disney Corporation would happily have you eviscerated and your entrails displayed on the gates of Disney World for copying them if they thought they could get away with it.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

DarkShadow

1647 posts

Uber Geek

#2132731 23-Nov-2018 14:43

howdystranger:

That said, I think our copyright term is way too long currently and should be something much shorter like 20-30 years

That's not in the current consultation. They have to keep it at life+50 due to international treaty obligations.

irongarment

280 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132743 23-Nov-2018 14:45

DarkShadow:
howdystranger:

That said, I think our copyright term is way too long currently and should be something much shorter like 20-30 years

That's not in the current consultation. They have to keep it at life+50 due to international treaty obligations.

Just think! If it was 20 years then Windows 98 would be in the public domain now and we'd all be able to have it for free!

vexxxboy

4246 posts

Uber Geek

#2132744 23-Nov-2018 14:47

it should really nail home the fact that copyright is nothing to do with money and get back to the fact that copyright is the protection of the owners rights and how other people can use their property.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6