- Date published:
5:25 pm, February 23rd, 2009 - 15 comments
Categories: activism - Tags: s92a
Looks like the introduction of s92a has been deferred… It is still a bit of a rumour (at least until I find the press release). Good! Hopefully this will concentrate the minds of the parties involved in the code of conduct.
Update: From 3 News
UPDATED: 5:10pmThe government has called for a delay in the implementation of Section 92A, the controversial Copyright Amendment Act due to come into force February 28.The law has been the subject of an internet blackout against the measures for ISP’s to cut off internet access following allegations of copyright breach.
Prime Minister John Key said today that its implementation date would be pushed back to March 27 to see if the sector can come up with a workable code of practice.‘We are hoping that by that time we will have come up with a voluntary code of practice,’ said Mr Key.If one could not be agreed then the section in question would be suspended, he said.
Update: InternetNZ press release
“New Zealanders can breathe a sigh of relief that their Internet access is no longer under threat due to unproven allegations of copyright infringement. Section 92A still needs to be fully repealed. It is disproportionate and unfit for purpose. But this deferral is a good start.
“The highly visible blackout campaign organised by the Creative Freedom Foundation and its supporters has served to bring the issue into mainstream debates, and we applaud the efforts they have taken,” Davidson says.
YAAAAY! CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES! OK, hopefully the ISPs will be able to either find a workable code of practice or the bill will be suspended (personally, I hope for the latter, because of Ideological imperatives).
I hope for the
latterformer. But someone is going to have to stump up some money. Perhaps National should drop their ridiculous “Fiber to the Home” and put some money into an ombudsman office with some expertise and investigative staff.
It’d be a far more productive for making the net more of an economic force in the NZ economy than what they are proposing.
[lprent: oops – fixed my comment error]
Good. Now dump this piece of shit fucked up legislation entirely! Tizard was frankly an embarrassment to us all and made a mockery of traditional Labour values of fairness and justice for all.
Judith Tizard’s a wonderful women….my only hope is when key reintroduces Knighthoods she gets one.
for what!?!?!?!?! Services to keeping her snout in the public trough while producing nothing of value and clinging on to the coat tales and reflected glory of the family name?
You can not be serious!!!!
Indeed, I would be so pleased to see Ms Tizzard with a knighthood, because she is literally a free rider. Helen has a big sword to do the job.Ruth and the other drunk Labour gals could sing a song at the ceremony.
Many of us have jumped all over Tizard with regard to this clause. I think perhaps we are giving credit to her where it is not deserved. Does anybody credit her with the intellect to actually understand what it would have meant?
[lprent: You as much as anyone else should be aware of the tech disjunction going through the ages at present. Judith is on the wrong side of it as are you and I. But we use the tech on a regular (and in my case obsessive) basis.
In any case there are very few politicians who are literate (in my lexicon) at any age. They are virtually all technophobes. It is a safe bet that there are very few that would have understood. It was bloody obvious over the past week that John Key, Simon Power and Chris Findlayson had no frigging idea why we were concerned. I don’t credit any of them with any sense apart from realising that there was an issue that they didn’t understand – but I’m pretty sure that all politicians were getting that message]
Has Kiwiblog been rethemed? Why is lprent writing a post on KB?
[lprent: Yeah I know. But that was literally put together while I was reading those press releases and others in real-time. So I whacked them into the post I had open. That is why the opinion was so shallow. Now I know how DPF does it – and why he gets that particular audience – look at the comments in here.
Now that the short-term campaign is over, we can get on to the debate about what actually needs to be put into place to support or replace s92a. ]
“I hope for the latter. But someone is going to have to stump up some money. Perhaps National should drop their ridiculous “Fiber to the Home’ and put some money into an ombudsman office with some expertise and investigative staff.”
How about they just get rid of the crazy law and don’t spend anymore taxpayers money than is absolutely necessary to do so? I mean, shame on National for voting for it in the first place, and top marks to the Greens to be the only ones consistently against it, but still – I’m enjoying that you think this law is a good reason to spend more money.
Speaking of fiber to the home, do you remember when Helen promised that NZ would be a knowledge economy? I bet you do.
Dean and most of the other commentors on this thread:
If you don’t know what you’re talking about – then why bother to comment? Let me explain from a more balanced perspective than I use when I’m arguing a point.
The s92a clause is sensible in principle. It is the implementation that is crap. If there was a decision framework that I and others in the net could trust to deal with the issue of copyright properly, then it wouldn’t be an issue.
The problem is that there isn’t. A lot of us will move our hosting offshore, as will a *lot* of companies. We all act effectively as ISP’s because we allow access by other people (like employees or you lot).
This will inflame the already heavy imbalance in our content deficit. We import far more data than we export which is a heavy influence on our ‘invisibles’. The 40GB that I shift each month winds up coming down the Southern Cross pipes rather than on our internal cheaper ones. Our slowly rising hosting industry will die a painful and horrible death
That leaves the poor sods who don’t know better. Which means that this will wind up with some poor buggers getting their net turned off because of complaints.
Eventually someone with money and time will get annoyed by a frivolous or malicious complaint and sue the ISP. They will win and the cost of net access will go up dramatically to cover the costs of all of the other cases that will proceed on the basis of that decision and the costs of implementing the decision. The ISP will also start to sue every one making frivolous or malicious complaints to reduce the frequency of their occurrence. Legal precedence is a wonderfully enabling thing.
That is the downside.. Now on the upside..
Just think it through in economic terms. NZ exports two things – farming and brains. The farming has a limited ability to expand because it is land-limited. Brains are an export industry in all sorts of areas from things like marketing of wine to selling software and services.
One of those is in creative content of things like music and video and any manner of other content. As it currently stands, it really isn’t worth producing in NZ or anywhere else if the stuff immediately gets pirated and popped on the net in pure digital form. So what – tough shit? Not really – it costs us big time.
The problem is that this stuff is in effect marketing of NZ that has a multiplier effect that is far greater than you’d expect. Think Lord of the Rings effects on tourism. But I’d say that the effects of the dunedin sound on grunge was probably just as effective long term. Not to mention surf doco’s.
It also helps in a lot of other hidden ways as well. You can almost do a direct track of the rise of the local recording music industry with the rise of awareness of kiwi as being a culture in its own right. I lived through a big chunk of that, and it was the music that largely got rid of the damn awful cultural cringe towards europe.
Lack of a copyright means that even more of our best and brightest creative people go offshore and stay there. My partner, a lot of my friends and acquaintances, people like Peter Jackson, etc etc. They will move to somewhere that actually tries to protect their work, or, they give up trying to create and move to something less productive for the country – like working for the majority of NZ businesses who don’t export.
The nature of the net makes this particular use of the copyright tool being a transitional measure. But it should allow time for the local industry to adapt while a new business model is found here and overseas. But I refuse to allow saving one industry to stop the development of my industry in software and communications.
The key to the whole thing is to set up something that is perceived to be fair about the issue of copyright. That isn’t the ISP’s whose average employee wouldn’t know what a valid copyright looks like. It sure as hell isn’t people like RIANZ, who managed to crap in their own nest in the credibility stakes a long time ago by association with other similar bodies doing the King Canute impressions.
Anyway. Please don’t think of this as a clearcut issue because it isn’t. If you want I can spend a few hours tearing each of your ‘arguments’ to pieces in a frenzy of satire. But it’d be more productive for the months extra grace to figure out what is likely to work from the net populations viewpoint.
Dean: Knowledge economy – yes it is rapidly heading that way. I work in the export software sector, and there has been at least a 10-fold increase in the numbers of companies since 2k. The levels of income has massively increased per company.
It is the same in almost every other ‘knowledge’ sector. What did you expect – a keyism that says we (the royal we) will state that something will happen and expect that it does (without work and time)…
Your problem is that you have no perspective with which to judge these things. Either that or you lack the patience to observe. Please try to grow some of whichever you lack…
Thank you National for [deleting] this country. What a wonderful change it is to finally have a government which is [deleted] ramming through legislation despite the public outcry.
[lprent: Advertisements are not allowed – read the policy. This was a blatant paean – it is not opinion. Just to emphasise the point I have deleted sections of your comment to ‘enhance’ your advertisement. You are also banned for a month for trolling]
Iprent, in regards to that huge post which I won’t even try and mimic in size, what the hell?
Copyright laws as they are, are far overreaching. The artists life, plus 50 years? From the original 20 years from release? Where the hell did that come from?
Copyright law is an abridgment of everyone’s freedoms for a single person or entity to profit. This bill seemed to have passed through with only the RIANZs interests in mind. Where is the fairness in that?
Futhermore, being a younger person more familiar with technology, but not growing up with the cultural cringe (though I do wince a little bit every time I see a haka by some skinny white guys in London “representing” New Zealand) you don’t understand how easy it is to bypass this technologically. Simply by using private trackers, and IP filters, and encrypting your torrents so your ISP can’t detect what’s in them, to just using FTPs that provide this stuff free of charge in the interests of freedom.
The length is from a dose of insomnia…
I’d agree about the lifetime of the copyright’s.
However if you look at the comment – I didn’t even bother to look at that. I was only concerned about newish material. Essentially what I was arguing is that without some incentive to make a profit from there work, there is no particular reason for people to build a body of work and hone their skills. My concern about that is that it will also enhance our ‘invisible’ data deficit on the Southern Cross cables.
Now you have to consider that I do quite a lot of ‘free’ work as well. Both in expert coding and mediocre writing. The expert part of that could never had been achieved if you couldn’t make a profit from it, and therefore I couldn’t make an income from it.
S92A is fine legally. What it is missing is the code of conduct that the law requires to make it work. Without it, then the clause should be scrapped.
Essentially parliament said we’ll leave the understanding of the technologies up to the people who know about it. That is wise because basically politicians, judges and lawyers are by my terms of reference all extreme technophobes who have had a real problem moving into the 21st century.
What the government has done if given a month extra to hit that agreement. That is excellent.