A potential TPP gotcha

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › A potential TPP gotcha

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1422655 6-Nov-2015 23:38

surfisup1000:
Who said anything about slamming people with 20k fines? How about $100 per infringement? Capped to $500 for multiple infringements. Enough to deter but not to bankrupt. And, make it easier for copyright holders to get names on IP addresses, but make them pay if they make mistakes. Due process.

I don't disagree with you on the amounts. We certainly don't want what happens in the US, which is to the extreme. But where I think there are benefits in the 3 strikes, is where people are unknowingly having their connection used for downloading. eg Your kid brings a friend home, and they are using wifi on their laptop to do it. You would never know. At least the first warning letter is a wakeup call to show that something has gone wrong. These sorts of things often don't catch the right people anyway, as they often know how to get around them.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1422663 7-Nov-2015 00:12

surfisup1000:
Kyanar:
surfisup1000:
The 3 strike rules are too onerous and much too costly to pursue infringers.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical, the facts speak for themselves. 1 conviction with limited damages awarded, vs millions of downloads since 3 strikes was introduced.

If NZ does not have a special exemption in the TPPA, I wonder if copyright holders can sue the government for the failure of the 3 strikes law to give them a fair go at pursuing offenders.

Remember, even stealing 1 program is a crime, why do we allow people to steal up to 3? Then award limited damages?

Stealing one bottle of Vodka is a crime too, but we don't slam people with $20,000 fines for doing so. Nor do we allow bottle shops to charge them $4,000 "fees" for doing so, nor do we ban people from driving on the roads for stealing a bottle of Vodka three times.

The copyright infringement laws are patently broken. The limited damages awarded in that case should be the gold standard, not the stupidity that US courts award.

Who said anything about slamming people with 20k fines? How about $100 per infringement? Capped to $500 for multiple infringements. Enough to deter but not to bankrupt. And, make it easier for copyright holders to get names on IP addresses, but make them pay if they make mistakes. Due process.

I believe the maximum New Zealand fine is $15k.

That is already a harsh penalty.

I am not aware of anything you could download that would be worth anything like that.

You may want a harsher penalty. People often do.

But, I don't think it is 'broken' in relation to any (alleged) profit lost.

Many serious and violent crime have far smaller penalties.

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1422714 7-Nov-2015 08:48

surfisup1000 . you sound like you work in the entertainment industry..

Regards,

Old3eyes

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1423027 8-Nov-2015 08:06

Maybe it's time to reconsider the whole concept of copyright. It was originally introduced to make sure the authors of books got a return on their investment of time and creativity. Nowadays, it's a mechanism to guarantee big profits to large corporations whose business is in the distribution of material rather than creation of it.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1423175 8-Nov-2015 16:00

frankv: Maybe it's time to reconsider the whole concept of copyright. It was originally introduced to make sure the authors of books got a return on their investment of time and creativity. Nowadays, it's a mechanism to guarantee big profits to large corporations whose business is in the distribution of material rather than creation of it.

As soon as anyone can explain to me how any creator remains "productive" once they are dead I will be happy to keep paying royalties after their death.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1423183 8-Nov-2015 16:31

I don't like it, but anyone suggesting that we could just get rid of it has their hea.. no Neil... Remember to be polite... Ahem. Is being unrealistic.

Whether or not you like it, there's a lot of value in traded copyrighted works. People and companies buy and sell franschises, intellectual property etc and given the length of copyright a really significant percentage of that value is tied up in copyright protections.

Compare it to housing perhaps (not a perfect analogy and I know many people won't like it - but please try to understand)...

Houses are really expensive, land is expensive as well... And many would argue it's disproportionally expensive in some parts of the country. Why not just legislate that land values should be cut by 75%? That would make housing and land affordable to a lot more people...

Sure, the current landowners (copyright holders) might be upset, but so what? Just because they invested in something with a realistic expectation that the value wouldn't be removed overnight? Tough.

And no, I don't like the seemingly ever increasing length of copyright, but going the other way quickly won't happen. There's too much money involved.

If anything, I'd be marginally in favour of a change for copyright that applied to new works only - that way the investment in them will match the (presumably vastly reduced) copyright length and protections. Of course, get ready for a lot less investment in entertainment because that WILL be a result.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1423216 8-Nov-2015 17:29

Talkiet: I don't like it, but anyone suggesting that we could just get rid of it has their hea.. no Neil... Remember to be polite... Ahem. Is being unrealistic.

Whether or not you like it, there's a lot of value in traded copyrighted works. People and companies buy and sell franschises, intellectual property etc and given the length of copyright a really significant percentage of that value is tied up in copyright protections.

Compare it to housing perhaps (not a perfect analogy and I know many people won't like it - but please try to understand)...

Houses are really expensive, land is expensive as well... And many would argue it's disproportionally expensive in some parts of the country. Why not just legislate that land values should be cut by 75%? That would make housing and land affordable to a lot more people...

Sure, the current landowners (copyright holders) might be upset, but so what? Just because they invested in something with a realistic expectation that the value wouldn't be removed overnight? Tough.

And no, I don't like the seemingly ever increasing length of copyright, but going the other way quickly won't happen. There's too much money involved.

If anything, I'd be marginally in favour of a change for copyright that applied to new works only - that way the investment in them will match the (presumably vastly reduced) copyright length and protections. Of course, get ready for a lot less investment in entertainment because that WILL be a result.

Cheers - N

Thats nice, however with land, before anyone can buy, someone must be willing to sell. You drop the price forcibly, people will simply refuse to sell.

The other thing, unlike copyright, no new land is being created, its of finite supply.

You drop the price of land, brilliant, I will simply own a much much bigger section, or multiple sections.

Copyright is little/no different to patents, except that often extremely large sums of money are often spent to create patents.
Patents however have a much more limited life expectancy where the creators have exclusive rights, copyright should be reduced to that same period.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1423220 8-Nov-2015 17:32

From articles I have read on the released tppa document, is that some of the terms in it are so vague and open to interpretation, that NZ could be open to legal challeneges in the future. Great for lawyers though, and at the end of the day lawyers are the main winners. Only time will tell.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1423224 8-Nov-2015 17:34

sir1963:
Talkiet: [snip]

Compare it to housing perhaps (not a perfect analogy and I know many people won't like it - but please try to understand)...
[snip]

Thats nice, however with land, before anyone can buy, someone must be willing to sell. You drop the price forcibly, people will simply refuse to sell.

The other thing, unlike copyright, no new land is being created, its of finite supply.

You drop the price of land, brilliant, I will simply own a much much bigger section, or multiple sections.

Copyright is little/no different to patents, except that often extremely large sums of money are often spent to create patents.
Patents however have a much more limited life expectancy where the creators have exclusive rights, copyright should be reduced to that same period.

See, I said people wouldn't like it.

I agree people might just not sell, but the lower value of the land will affect them in other ways... Lower equity or value will mean their ability to borrow is affected etc etc etc.

Do you get my point though? If copyrights were thrown out then you disrupt a vast amount of value.

Sure, you, as someone that doesn't have a lot of value tied up in it thinks that's a GREAT THING. Can you at least understand that other people/companies think it's a BAD THING?

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1424702 10-Nov-2015 20:47

Talkiet: I don't like it, but anyone suggesting that we could just get rid of it has their hea.. no Neil... Remember to be polite... Ahem. Is being unrealistic.

Whether or not you like it, there's a lot of value in traded copyrighted works. People and companies buy and sell franschises, intellectual property etc and given the length of copyright a really significant percentage of that value is tied up in copyright protections.

Compare it to housing perhaps (not a perfect analogy and I know many people won't like it - but please try to understand)...

Houses are really expensive, land is expensive as well... And many would argue it's disproportionally expensive in some parts of the country. Why not just legislate that land values should be cut by 75%? That would make housing and land affordable to a lot more people...

Sure, the current landowners (copyright holders) might be upset, but so what? Just because they invested in something with a realistic expectation that the value wouldn't be removed overnight? Tough.

And no, I don't like the seemingly ever increasing length of copyright, but going the other way quickly won't happen. There's too much money involved.

If anything, I'd be marginally in favour of a change for copyright that applied to new works only - that way the investment in them will match the (presumably vastly reduced) copyright length and protections. Of course, get ready for a lot less investment in entertainment because that WILL be a result.

Well, I'm not saying to throw it out altogether and overnight. And there will be screaming and wailing.

Copyright isn't like ownership of land, in that land ownership has been a well-known and workable economic system for a long time. By comparison, copyright and patents are artificial legalities which are quite recent... think of them as a failed experiment.

But, you know, if I'd invested in a shoe or clothing factory just before the tariffs got removed on imports, I'd be screaming too.

In the same way, investing in an industry which has reached its use-by date and is now dependent on Govt legal protection (rather than being valuable and prodictive in its own right), is asking for trouble.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1961775 21-Feb-2018 19:04

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership text has been released now.

Behodar

10501 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1961782 21-Feb-2018 19:21

If I'm reading it correctly (and it's in legalese so I may not be!) it seems that the 70-year copyright term is gone. Can anyone confirm?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1962115 22-Feb-2018 10:28

Behodar:

If I'm reading it correctly (and it's in legalese so I may not be!) it seems that the 70-year copyright term is gone. Can anyone confirm?

It appears so:

This clause has been suspended:

Article 18.63: Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights
Each Party shall provide that in cases in which the term of protection of a
work, performance or phonogram is to be calculated:
(a) on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less
than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death;
and
(b) on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term shall be:

(i) not less than 70 years from the end of the calendar year of
the first authorised publication of the work, performance
or phonogram; or
(ii) failing such authorised publication within 25 years from the
creation of the work, performance or phonogram, not less
than 70 years from the end of the calendar year of the
creation of the work, performance or phonogram.

(Article 18.63, page 18-34 in this link - PDF )

Edit - whoops my mistake for my unedited post where I'd looked at the link for the original TPP, not the list of suspended clauses.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1966422 1-Mar-2018 11:12

Trump rejoining the TPP is 'on the table'

"I would do TPP if we were able to make a substantially better deal. The deal was terrible, the way it was structured was terrible. If we did a substantially better deal, I would be open to TPP," Trump said in January

In 2016 it was:

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster, done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country. Just a continuing rape of our country. That's what it is too”

I seriously shudder to think what could be done to make it a "substantially better deal" for the US - when the CPTPP has 20 "suspended provisions" that were added to the TPP at the U.S.'s insistence and that are now no longer binding.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1966437 1-Mar-2018 11:42

sir1963:
frankv: Maybe it's time to reconsider the whole concept of copyright. It was originally introduced to make sure the authors of books got a return on their investment of time and creativity. Nowadays, it's a mechanism to guarantee big profits to large corporations whose business is in the distribution of material rather than creation of it.

As soon as anyone can explain to me how any creator remains "productive" once they are dead I will be happy to keep paying royalties after their death.

The artistic work is still property and it still generates income after the author's demise. No different to any other asset - a rental property or investment or business. Those aren't rescinded when the owner dies.

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22