Copyright protest pics

Written By: - Date published: 2:40 pm, February 19th, 2009 - 44 comments
Categories: activism - Tags: ,

A reader has sent in some pics from today’s protest at Parliament against the ‘guilt by accusation’ copyright law. Looks like quite a striking protest, and not a bad turnout for such short notice.

You can click on the thumbnails below for full size.

UPDATE: In the comments Trevor Mallard and Clare Curran report that a Labour bill to stop the provision coming into force has been blocked by the National Party. Audio here.

44 comments on “Copyright protest pics”

  1. Tim Ellis 1

    Well that was a surprise. Before I opened this thread I was half-expecting the pictures to be blacked out!

  2. Tane 2

    Classic, wish I’d thought of that myself!

  3. Rex Widerstrom 3

    Well done those people.

    Ugghh Peter Dunne. I swear, if enough people turned up to lobby for forced public anal sex, Dunne’s pants would be round his ankles quicker than you can say “I’ll support anything (till there’s more votes in not supporting it”).

    You know I respect the fact this is your blog and all, but please don’t give the man space on this – or any other – issue. More than any politician in our history, his words mean nothing.

  4. Matthew Pilott 4

    Rex… jesus…

  5. Rex: Ever thought about starting your own blog? I really like reading your viewpoint on a lot of things (last comment, not so much) but I always have to trawl through the comments to find it 🙂

    Just a suggestion

  6. Redbaiter 6

    Rex is right. Why give any publicity to the odious compromiser and waffler Dunne, one of the most reptilian politicians in parliament?

  7. Matthew Pilott 7

    Rex: Ever thought about starting your own blog? I really like reading your viewpoint on a lot of things (last comment, not so much) but I always have to trawl through the comments to find it

    Or the odd guest post, where your views and those of this blog in general intersect…

  8. Tane 8

    Wow, not many Peter Dunne fans here. I can assure you I simply posted the photos I was sent. Didn’t really feel it was appropriate to censor them based on my own political preferences.

  9. sally 9

    The tape-over-mouths thing is fast loosing it’s impact through over-use, don’t you think?

  10. Ari 10

    Rex jesus

    If you lived in this egomaniac’s electorate, you’d understand. I seriously hope we split the rich vote next time enough to get rid of him.

  11. Rex Widerstrom 11

    Wow, a fan club! 😀

    Thanks, I’m truly flattered and I have toyed with the idea – especially as it might dovetail into a return to active poliics of some sort.

    But once you start a blog, people expect something every day and even when I was part of a group which created and maintained a certain infamous anonymous blog a few years back it was hard work fitting it round working for a living.

    I quite like debating underlying ideas as well as just the issues of the day and was about to write my first ever guest post over at Kiwipolitico, at Anita’s invitation, when a certain co-owner got his already overly tight panties in a bunch over my asking nicely if he’d not hack my comments to bits so as to make it read like I had gratuitously insulted Pascals bookie.

    If the Standard would ever like a piece on something that they consider falls within my ambit, they need only ask. Not that I’m getting sniffy and asking to be asked, as it were… just that I usually wouldn’t think of putting myself forward because one of the Standardistas has the background and expertise necessary to produce a good post.

    Tane: political preferences be damned… this is a matter of taste 😀 Your argument would only apply if Dunne had any politics beyond self-preservation and ego massage. Notice how Ari and Redbaiter agree? Find me another pollie that can do that!!

  12. Matthew Pilott 12

    Ari, granted and agreed, but it had a Ranapiaesque R-18 quality about it that made me retch.

  13. Well done those people.

    Ugghh Peter Dunne. I swear, if enough people turned up to lobby for forced public anal sex, Dunne’s pants would be round his ankles quicker than you can say “I’ll support anything (till there’s more votes in not supporting it’).

    You know I respect the fact this is your blog and all, but please don’t give the man space on this – or any other – issue. More than any politician in our history, his words mean nothing.

    On that note, how many votes do you think Dunne will be able to fish out of this?

  14. Trevor Mallard 14

    Presume people are becoming aware that Nats blocked the introduction of a bill from Clare Curran that would have stopped the provision coming into force.

  15. Duncan 15

    Trevor – seriously? What on earth is their motivation here?

  16. Clare Curran 16

    Just for everyones information, heres what I introduced (unsuccessfully) in the House today and heres my release. Labour takes the copyright issue very seriously and is listening and wanting to be constructive:

    Despite official advice on the importance of finding a solution to the copyright issue, the National Government today missed an opportunity to take steps in that direction when it refused leave for an Amendment Bill to the Copyright Act to be introduced.

    Labour spokesperson for communications and information technology Clare Curran today sought leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Act to ensure a workable code of practice was in place with the approval of the relevant Minister before Section 92A comes into force.

    Despite indications of support from most other parties, the National Party refused leave and is now sitting on its hands on the copyright issue, Curran said.

    Ministry of Economic Development senior officials in todays Commerce Select Committee said this was an issue of high priority and needed to be addressed quickly by the government, she said.

    Section 92A of the Copyright Act is due to come into effect on 28 Feb. More time is required for the affected parties to negotiate the issues and reach agreement on a workable code that upholds the principles copyright protects while not placing an unreasonable burden on the internet service providers.

    Labour considered a variety of measures including delaying the enactment of the clause, however, only the government can do this by revisiting the date of commencement and I call on Commerce Minister Simon Power to do so urgently.

    ?The Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill creates a mechanism for developing guidelines, something not included in the existing legislation. This Bill therefore proposed to amend section 92A to include the following clause:

    (3) A policy as required by subsection (1) must be in accordance with guidelines developed by industry groupings representing the interests of telecommunications carriers and rights holders and agreed by the responsible Minister.

    The effect of this would have ensured that the parties would have developed guidelines before the section became effective.

    I intend to submit the Bill to the ballot as a Private Members Bill so that these issues can be addressed.

    It is in keeping with the objective of the Act which is to ensure a robust intellectual property rights system for the continuing growth of New Zealand?s creative and innovative sectors.

    The wider issue of the future of copyright law in a digital age is complex and fast changing. In order for the Section 92A to be effective, a workable code of practice between the rights holders and the internet service providers must be achieved.

    There is widespread and growing support for an education campaign around the complex issue of copyright. Its time the government took action on this issue, said Curran.

  17. higherstandard 17

    When all the blogs left and right are wailing one can safely assume the proposed legislation is cak.

    More to the point why did the previous Minister of Wine and Cheese introduce the bill and why are the current twats supporting it ?

  18. Doug 18

    I thought this Bill was in the Name of Judith Tisard, Just another bill labour introduced and now rails against, along with the EFA. How many more ill thought out bills to come?.

  19. Lew 19

    Trevor said,

    Presume people are becoming aware that Nats blocked the introduction of a bill from Clare Curran that would have stopped the provision coming into force.

    This is confirmed. You can listen to the audio.

    L

  20. Chris S 20

    Doug, she did seem hell-bent on keeping that clause in there even after it was removed by the select committee.

    However, Chris Finlayson also supported that particular clause (I believe he was a part of that particular committee) and stood behind it, on record.

    Why the hell are you trying to play partisan with this? People are crying from left and right to have it removed. Labour were bad for putting it in there, but National are worse for ignoring almost everyone else (including ACT, for shits sake) and dragging it through.

    They even shot down Clare’s amendment without even hearing it read for the first time which shows how open they are about improving the law.

  21. Simon 21

    Clare Curran
    February 19, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    Just for everyones information, heres what I introduced (unsuccessfully) in the House today and heres my release. Labour takes the copyright issue very seriously and is listening and wanting to be constructive:

    Curran honestly believes that the electorate can be fooled into forgetting that this heinous Act is Liarbour legislation.

    Oh you’re “listening” now are you Liarbour? Oh you want to be “constructive” now Liarbour? Like you’ve got a solid Party history of doing either.

  22. Matthew Pilott 22

    Simon, if Labour introduces legislation, and National passes said legislation, who would you blame for it?

    By your use of ‘Liarbour’, I very much doubt to get an honest or intelligent answer, but I had to ask, just to see you try. So what’s it going to be?

  23. Chris S 23

    Simon: Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.

    I’m quite happy to afford anybody (yes, even Dunne) political capitol if they’re willing to axe this law.

  24. Felix 24

    “Liarbour”?

    Really Simon? Are you the same Simon who thinks typing “Pol Clark” ? makes a bold statement?

  25. Chris 25

    I agree wholeheartedly with the comments regarding Reichfurherminister Dunne. My impression is that he’s a nasty little fascist, who would be entirely happy selling his grandmother if it won him votes.

    I don’t bag politicians (they’re human too), but RFM Dunne is an exception.

  26. Lew 26

    Amateur night.

    L

  27. Tane 27

    What’s with everyone’s obsession with comparing New Zealand political figures to foreign totalitarians? Does anyone actually think it’ll encourage people to take them more seriously?

  28. Redbaiter 28

    “Curran honestly believes that the electorate can be fooled into forgetting that this heinous Act is Liarbour legislation.”

    Its all about “language”. Was it that or something else she wrote about in that Communist Party magazine? It just strikes me as the ultimate in deceit when the left posture as protectors of free speech. How many historical examples of the left attacking freedom of expression do you want me to provide?? Clare’s article on language is one of the most Stalinist documents I have ever read.

  29. Graeme 29

    Presume people are becoming aware that Nats blocked the introduction of a bill from Clare Curran that would have stopped the provision coming into force.

    This is confirmed. You can listen to the audio.

    Not confirmed. You can read the proposed bill above. It would not have stopped the provision coming into force.

  30. Redbaiter 30

    Oh sorry for the double posting, and gratitude for processing so quick. (caught me by surprise)

  31. Rex Widerstrom 31

    Besides, Dunne wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes in the Third Reich. Batshit crazy as they were, they actually believed in something, He’d have been spotted for a sycophant (and thus a likely traitor) and summarily executed.

    Okay, now the thought is creeping into my mind that the Third Reich wasn’t all bad 😉 Time to lie down.

  32. It’s kind of like the ‘anti-smacking law’, which wasn’t anti-smacking at all. This might easily fizzle in practice when no one has the resources to enforce it.

  33. Tim Ellis 33

    Matthew said:

    Simon, if Labour introduces legislation, and National passes said legislation, who would you blame for it?

    But that’s not what happened is it Matthew? The legislation was already passed, and is due to come into force. From what I can see Claire Curran’s Bill didn’t actually properly deal with the issue. It seems to have been a smokescreen to distract from the fact that Labour passed this legislation just a few months ago. Even the Greens appear to point out that Curran’s Bill was a sop and a side issue.

    If I were the National Government, I would be very wary about accepting a Member’s Bill from a new, backbench opposition MP from the Party that passed this law just a few months earlier. It’s clear National is now responsible for what happens and it looks like they will have to come up with proper amendments, but that should be done under official advice and be robust enough to avoid the very problem that everybody’s up in arms about.

    If it takes ten days to achieve that and if Parliament has to put an amendment bill into urgency to delay the effect of the legislation I don’t have a problem with that as long as it achieves what it is supposed to do.

  34. Matthew Pilott 34

    Tim, I know that, ’twas a hypothetical. If it was to eventuate, then I believe rational humanity would, in all fairness, blame National. So it was a wee test to see where Simon fits in.

    It also sounds like National have actively amended the bill post-select committee, to make it worse than it was before. Perhaps they should be less wary of others if they’re making such a hash of things.

    I’m not sure what The Greens’ problem was, and you haven’t critiqued Curran’s proposed amendment, but preventing the offending legislation from taking effect, and allowing time for it to be modified makes sense to me…that’s just from reading the release above, though.

  35. toad 35

    No pic of Frog and Whaleoil marching side by side! That would have been a first that should have been recorded for posterity.

    Anyway, lets keep the pressure on all political partes – this is seriously bad law (regardless of who instigated and who supported it) so why can’t they get over the games an agree to amend it.

  36. Lew 36

    Graeme,

    Not confirmed. You can read the proposed bill above. It would not have stopped the provision coming into force.

    It would have stopped the provision coming into force as written, i.e, without constraint by industry stakeholders, which buys time. But you’re right – it’s not an outright repeal of the provision, which is the ultimate goal.

    The confirmation I intended was of the claim that Curran had tried to introduce the bill; not on the quality of that bill.

    L

  37. Rex Widerstrom 37

    Ryan Kennedy suggests:

    This might easily fizzle in practice when no one has the resources to enforce it.

    Wot, like the RIAA didn’t leap on basically harmless mp3 downloading kids?

    *weeps a silent tear for Metallica’s depleted gazillions*

  38. Ari 38

    Find me another pollie that can do that!!

    Winston Peters? 😉 Isn’t it lovely how centrist cults of personality and populist morons can bring together the nuttiest of wingnuts and the pinkest of pinkos? 😀

  39. vto 39

    man I laughed when I saw those photos

  40. Plenty of room for you to write on my blog Rex 🙂 I like the cut of your gib.

  41. Joseph 41

    Rex,

    I always get the feeling I should download Metallica’s discography, just as a small personal protest. I’d rather keep my bandwidth for more important things though. 😉

  42. Don 42

    Labour takes the copyright issue very seriously and is listening and wanting to be constructive:

    Clare Curren, whilst that is great news I think it would be more helpful if Labour also acknowledged that when in power they were not listening or taking at all seriously the views of people who had concerns about this Act. Indeed we were vilified and insulted.

    Your proposed amendment does not go far enough. S92 in its entirety needs revisiting. The idea that the law can be made good through the simple expediency of a Ministerial approved CoP is a red herring that once again switches the onus onto ISPs to produce something that complies with bad law.

    All the above being said, many thanks for your interest in this topic and also for using your PQs to raise the issue to a higher level.

  43. Tane 43

    Don, you might want to repost that comment over at Clare’s guest post here:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/clare-curran-on-s92a/

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts