Review of the Copyright Act 1994

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2132749 23-Nov-2018 14:51

irongarment:
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!

Which is a great example of why even 20 years is too long for software. At this point Windows 98 isn't even worth disassembly for educational purposes, let alone because someone might still want to use it. In my opinion, software copyright should last for 5 years or as long as the software is actively receiving patch support from the copyright owner, whichever is longer. If it isn't making you enough money to maintain it, then it clearly isn't worth anything to you, so it does not harm you if it is released.

And that's a nice way to also ensure that vendors continue to support their products. Quid pro quo, Clarice.

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

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

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132762 23-Nov-2018 15:22

A perfect example of adapting the law to today's world

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132763 23-Nov-2018 15:31

howdystranger:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

As processing, storage and machine learning advance it's not a stretch to imagine neural networks with the ability to efficiently pump out copious amounts of "novel" art.

In reality though if someone can improve on your work why shouldn't they be allowed to? Again this is fundamental to our human nature, let alone that of most other intelligent creatures. And logically it's virtually impossible to create something entirely new; you're simply capitalising on the goodwill (or ignorance) of generations prior that didn't aggressively pursue copyright on the great body of human knowledge you rely on a daily basis.

And as suggested markets will innovate; through DRM, crowdfunding, blockchain etc - rather than by the threat of a big stick. Look at the likes of Patreon, Kickstarter, ICOs etc.

I suspect in a few decades our ancestors will look back with similar contempt as we do a few hundred years ago when people were being burned at the stake for practicing science etc and upsetting my god...

Like "WTF you primitive savages actually tried to claim ownership of abstract ideas under the (in)direct threat of violence....??? What a handbrake on development that period was...."

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#2132773 23-Nov-2018 15:38

I'm not a fan of removing the ISP safe harbour provision. It's just an attempt to let some corporations use stand-over tactics and threats of litigation to try and make ISPs wear the burden and cost of protecting their IP for them. I think it would make ISPs gun shy and have a massively chilling effect on the internet here. Plus, it would do little to stop serious pirates, who pretty much have VPNs and usenet packages etc and wouldn't be caught.

I would like to see fair use exemptions (for education, research, criticism, review etc) put in to copyright law, much as other countries have.

I would like to see it made explicitly legal to import, advertise and sell mechanisms that defeat DRM, and for their use to be legal when exercising fair use rights.

I would like to see provisions explicitly affirming the legality of bypassing geoblocking to obtain product being sold in other countries at the price it is being sold for their (AKA digital parallel importing).

I also think that the penalties for infringing copyright for personal use should be much, much lower than where it's infringed for commercial purposes, and should be at most be on the basis of liquidated damages. Copying a book to read yourself isn't, and shouldn't be, remotely in the same league as making 10,000 copies for the purpose of sale. I'm OK with the penalties for large-scale commercial infringement being made more savage.

I think there is also a case that copyright shouldn't apply if a product isn't bona fide available for sale in the current market, as their is no lost sale to piracy for a product that isn't actually available for sale. That would encourage vendors to make their product available in NZ in a timely manner, and also mean that orphaned/abandoned product that no one is offering for sale falls out of copyright.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132779 23-Nov-2018 15:50

SaltyNZ:

irongarment:
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!

Which is a great example of why even 20 years is too long for software. At this point Windows 98 isn't even worth disassembly for educational purposes, let alone because someone might still want to use it. In my opinion, software copyright should last for 5 years or as long as the software is actively receiving patch support from the copyright owner, whichever is longer. If it isn't making you enough money to maintain it, then it clearly isn't worth anything to you, so it does not harm you if it is released.

And that's a nice way to also ensure that vendors continue to support their products. Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Not saying Microsoft should be forced to release their source code (binaries, encryption, DRM, keys are perfectly valid free-market alternatives to copyright) however without the threat of copyright you would have had a viable alternative to Windows long ago with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS

Again copyright predominately protects the monopolies with the resources to litigate it (whilst largely ignoring copyright themselves - i.e. Microsoft) and having a generally detrimental effect on innovation and society at large.

Handle9

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132807 23-Nov-2018 16:49

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).

This couldn't be more wrong. Intellectual property exists to protect the entity who come up with ideas from entities who want to profit from those ideas without rewarding the creator.

If an author writes a book should Amazon be able to copy the content word for word, sell it, and not pay the author? That goes against all principles of natural justice. There was work involved in creating the intellectual property, therefore the entity making the IP should have the right to profit from it's monetisation. Large corporations would benefit far more than individuals by the dissolution of IP. It would make business far more about selling and reach (which large corporates are good at) and less about innovation and ideas.

The devil is in the detail. The principles of copyright, patents and IP IMO are fundamentally sound however the challenges are around the edge cases (eg geoblocking, IP not available in a market etc) and the vested interests influencing the laws (eg how long should a patent be valid for, how do we stop excessive price gouging etc).

If an entity invests many millions in inventing a drug should they not have an exclusive right to profit from that drug for a period of time? How else do you reward innovation? They shouldn't be able to profit excessively or behave like a cartel but there should be a reasonable way to incentivise ideas.

Patent law is actually pretty strict what you can patent however it is poorly enforced and relies on civil litigation which is expensive.

Handle9

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132808 23-Nov-2018 16:52

solutionz:

Not saying Microsoft should be forced to release their source code (binaries, encryption, DRM, keys are perfectly valid free-market alternatives to copyright) however without the threat of copyright you would have had a viable alternative to Windows long ago with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS

Again copyright predominately protects the monopolies with the resources to litigate it (whilst largely ignoring copyright themselves - i.e. Microsoft) and having a generally detrimental effect on innovation and society at large.

There are lots of alternatives to Windows - OSX, Unix, Android, iOs, Palm OS etc etc. What you are talking about is a copy of Windows which is different.

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.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132814 23-Nov-2018 17:32

Handle9:

This couldn't be more wrong. Intellectual property exists to protect the entity who come up with ideas from entities who want to profit from those ideas without rewarding the creator.

Intellectual property exists to protect the greedy. Information and ideas should always be free, and anyone who want to profit from a government granted monopoly on an idea is morally and ethically bankrupt.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2132822 23-Nov-2018 18:07

I believe in copyright but it should be limited to no more than 10 years. That is more than enough time to get a return on investment.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132823 23-Nov-2018 18:10

solutionz:

Like "WTF you primitive savages actually tried to claim ownership of abstract ideas under the (in)direct threat of violence....??? What a handbrake on development that period was...."

Ideas are not part of the review. If you have an idea for King King type of movie, series, book, game, thats fine. If I write a book on that idea and you copy it and "improve it" i.e. plagiarising it, and sell it, thats not.

irongarment

280 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132825 23-Nov-2018 18:11

Don't worry. We'll just get the law that the Americans want. And we'll lap it up.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132874 23-Nov-2018 18:17

Lias:

Handle9:

This couldn't be more wrong. Intellectual property exists to protect the entity who come up with ideas from entities who want to profit from those ideas without rewarding the creator.

Intellectual property exists to protect the greedy. Information and ideas should always be free, and anyone who want to profit from a government granted monopoly on an idea is morally and ethically bankrupt.

Im all in favour of getting something for free or a penny that someone else has invested big money, or wonderfully creative and innovative thinking, and employed many people and supported the infrastructure of printing, advertising, transport, distribution and so on, so that I can copy it and sell it easily....

Its then not worth creating.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2132880 23-Nov-2018 18:36

Handle9: This couldn't be more wrong. Intellectual property exists to protect the entity who come up with ideas from entities who want to profit from those ideas without rewarding the creator. If an author writes a book should Amazon be able to copy the content word for word, sell it, and not pay the author? That goes against all principles of natural justice.

That's a pretty localised view (i.e. based on the time and place you just happen to live) and has no basis in natural justice or natural law. It's like people a couple hundred years ago and currently in backwater locales claiming authority over religion etc. Intellectual property and by extension ownership of any abstract ideas have no basis outside of pure corruption.

Have a look at open source software and most of the internet in regards to the "but what if someone copies?" question...

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132885 23-Nov-2018 18:48

solutionz:
Handle9: This couldn't be more wrong. Intellectual property exists to protect the entity who come up with ideas from entities who want to profit from those ideas without rewarding the creator. If an author writes a book should Amazon be able to copy the content word for word, sell it, and not pay the author? That goes against all principles of natural justice.

That's a pretty localised view (i.e. based on the time and place you just happen to live) and has no basis in natural justice or natural law. It's like people a couple hundred years ago and currently in backwater locales claiming authority over religion etc. Intellectual property and by extension ownership of any abstract ideas have no basis outside of pure corruption.

Have a look at open source software and most of the internet in regards to the "but what if someone copies?" question...

What has open source software get to do with this thread?

Handle9

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2132886 23-Nov-2018 18:48

solutionz:
Handle9: This couldn't be more wrong. Intellectual property exists to protect the entity who come up with ideas from entities who want to profit from those ideas without rewarding the creator. If an author writes a book should Amazon be able to copy the content word for word, sell it, and not pay the author? That goes against all principles of natural justice.

That's a pretty localised view (i.e. based on the time and place you just happen to live) and has no basis in natural justice or natural law. It's like people a couple hundred years ago and currently in backwater locales claiming authority over religion etc. Intellectual property and by extension ownership of any abstract ideas have no basis outside of pure corruption.

Have a look at open source software and most of the internet in regards to the "but what if someone copies?" question...

Natural justice carries with it the duty to act fairly and without bias.

You can not touch, feel or define an abstract idea. Copyright and IP doesn't deal with abstract ideas, it deals with specific product. It's not that complicated in principle but like all things can be manipulated or gamed.

It has served very well for hundreds of years and has only recently become a problem due to technology and the system being gamed.

Equating source software to an artistic work is pretty ludicrous and you have not addressed the fundamental question of what is fair?

There seems to be a degree of zealotism in this topic which is unfortunate.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6