it was interesting to read the Herald story today and the comments from Campbell Smith, CEO of RIANZ.
Recording Industry Association chief executive Campbell Smith said most companies already turned a blind eye to personal copying, and association members had never taken legal action to prevent people taking copies for personal use.
"I think that's fair. You buy something for your own use and that's how it should be. We are in the business of trying to sell people music, not trying to prevent them doing what is reasonable."
When then did RIANZ then oppose format shifting in all of their submissions to the MED when the initial discussion papers were distributed?
RIANZ strongly opposes the proposal in the Position Paper to introduce a new format shifting exemption into the Act. In RIANZ's view, there is no need or economic justification for the introduction of a format shifting exception for sound recordings. The effect of such an exemption would simply be a green light for wholesale unauthorised copying and would effectively destroy the efforts of the industry within New Zealand to fight existing rampant piracy and educate the public as to the value of copyright. The introduction of such an exemption would send a confusing signal to the public, particularly young people. It would be impossible to convey a message that piracy harms right holders when users would be able to legally make copies of music in their own homes. It would also make taking action against known pirates so much more difficult that it currently is. More importantly, the introduction of a private copying exemption would be completely inconsistent with the government's initiatives to nurture and grow the music industry within New Zealand. Furthermore, the Ministry has not identified an economic justification or sufficient public policy reason for such an exemption and it is difficult to see how then it would satisfy the copyright framework articulated by the Ministry in both the Discussion Paper and the Position Paper.
I won't bother rambling on any more about RIANZ or the big music companies - we know they're dinosaurs stuck in the dark ages who need to get a grip on reality.
Other related posts:
Why a 24hr parking limit won’t fix the Wellington airport parking issue.
CCTV exposed. Why understanding network security is so important.
Anker make some of the best USB chargers and powerbanks available. Now you can get their products shipped directly to New Zealand
Comment by taniwha, on 11-Aug-2007 15:56
.. the act also makes it illegal for me to write a howto explaining how to play DVDs on ubuntu.....
Comment by riahon, on 12-Aug-2007 06:35
Is there such a term as 'vapour-law' ? or for those old enough to remember - is this a 'claytons-law'?
Comment by Russell Brown, on 12-Aug-2007 13:06
The time-shifting exception has actually been there since the Copyright Act 1994 -- the effect of the new amendment bill is to make the right much more conditional. And the condition in section 84(1)(c) is quite bizarre. That says you can only take advantage of the exception if you cannot "lawfully access" an on-demand version of the programme you want to record. That is, any on-demand version, free or not. Take a look at all the content available on tvnzondemand.co.nz. You won't be able to use your VCR or MySky to record any of it. Amazingly, TVNZ doesn't want this condition - I was actually at the select committee hearing in Auckland and heard TVNZ's counsel describe it as "unrealistic" and unnecessary. Who did campaign for it? RIANZ. BTW, if your friends come around, you won't be able to show them a TV programme you've recorded, because they're not part of your household.