Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 
15164 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1422655 6-Nov-2015 23:38
Send private message

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

779 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.

 
 
 
 


8198 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  # 1422714 7-Nov-2015 08:48
One person supports this post
Send private message

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




Regards,

Old3eyes


2989 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1423027 8-Nov-2015 08:06
3 people support this post
Send private message

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.

991 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

  # 1423175 8-Nov-2015 16:00
Send private message

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.

4201 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1423183 8-Nov-2015 16:31
Send private message

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 the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


991 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

  # 1423216 8-Nov-2015 17:29
Send private message

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.






 
 
 
 


15164 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1423220 8-Nov-2015 17:32
Send private message

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.

4201 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1423224 8-Nov-2015 17:34
Send private message

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 the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


2989 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1424702 10-Nov-2015 20:47
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.


6732 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 1961782 21-Feb-2018 19:21
Send private message

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?




8724 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1962115 22-Feb-2018 10:28
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

 

 




8724 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1966422 1-Mar-2018 11:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.


2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1966437 1-Mar-2018 11:42
Send private message

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 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Arlo unveils its first video doorbell
Posted 21-Oct-2019 08:27


New Zealand students shortlisted for James Dyson Award
Posted 21-Oct-2019 08:18


Norton LifeLock Launches Norton 360
Posted 21-Oct-2019 08:11


Microsoft New Zealand Partner Awards results
Posted 18-Oct-2019 10:18


Logitech introduces new Made for Google keyboard and mouse devices
Posted 16-Oct-2019 13:36


MATTR launches to accelerate decentralised identity
Posted 16-Oct-2019 10:28


Vodafone X-Squad powers up for customers
Posted 16-Oct-2019 08:15


D Link ANZ launches EXO Smart Mesh Wi Fi Routers with McAfee protection
Posted 15-Oct-2019 11:31


Major Japanese retailer partners with smart New Zealand technology IMAGR
Posted 14-Oct-2019 10:29


Ola pioneers one-time passcode feature to fight rideshare fraud
Posted 14-Oct-2019 10:24


Spark Sport new home of NZC matches from 2020
Posted 10-Oct-2019 09:59


Meet Nola, Noel Leeming's new digital employee
Posted 4-Oct-2019 08:07


Registrations for Sprout Accelerator open for 2020 season
Posted 4-Oct-2019 08:02


Teletrac Navman welcomes AI tech leader Jens Meggers as new President
Posted 4-Oct-2019 07:41


Vodafone makes voice of 4G (VoLTE) official
Posted 4-Oct-2019 07:36



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.