TPP aims to kill filesharing

Written By: - Date published: 1:37 pm, October 10th, 2015 - 159 comments
Categories: capitalism, copyright, Globalisation, internet, telecommunications, trade - Tags: , , ,

Today Wikileaks has released what is believed to be the final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the TPP. It is out to kill file sharing:

Internet Providers Would Be Forced to Block Filesharing Sites Under TPP

Digital rights advocates’ worst fears were confirmed on Friday morning after the finalized intellectual property chapter of the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal was leaked by Wikileaks, just days after talks concluded in Atlanta.

Under the agreement, it appears that internet service providers could be forced to block websites hosting content that infringes copyright.
…
That means that if a US court were to, say, find that a popular filesharing website was distributing copyrighted Hollywood movies, ISPs in all TPP countries would be compelled to block access to that site. …

Here’s the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):

The Final Leaked TPP Text is All That We Feared

Today’s release by Wikileaks of what is believed to be the current and essentially final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn’t survive to the end of the negotiations.
…
Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.
…
The provisions in QQ.G.10 that prohibit the circumvention of DRM or the supply of devices for doing so are little changed from earlier drafts … The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed. Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.
…
On damages, the text (QQ.H.4) remains as bad as ever: rightsholders can submit “any legitimate measure of value” to a judicial authority for determination of damages, including the suggested retail price of infringing goods. Additionally, judges must have the power to order pre-established damages (at the rightsholder’s election), or additional damages, each of which may go beyond compensating the rightsholder for its actual loss, and thereby create a disproportionate chilling effect for users and innovators.
…
Top-Down Control of the Internet

ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.  The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”
…
There is nothing in here for users and innovators to support, and much for us to fear—the ratcheting up of the copyright term across the Pacific rim, the punitive sanctions for DRM circumvention, and the full frontal attack on hackers and journalists in the trade secrets provision, just to mention three. This latest leak has confirmed our greatest fears—and strengthened our resolve to kill this agreement for good once it reaches Congress.

But fear not citizens! If you ignore all the other costs of the TPP and optimistically estimate the benefits it could be worth an extra massive 1% to GDP. By 2030. Maybe.

159 comments on “TPP aims to kill filesharing ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    10 October 2015 at 1:54 pm

    I always enjoy watching the big media corporations alienating their tech savvvy consumers.

    • Nigel Gregory 1.1
      10 October 2015 at 2:47 pm

      Yes exactly, the young people I know laugh at this kind of thing…a bit of a joke to them.
      Nothing new here and it’s exactly to be expected.

      • Chooky 1.1.1
        10 October 2015 at 4:05 pm

        if it is enforced it wont be a laugh…it will be fascist thought control…and intrusion into peoples private lives via their computers

        …and who is behind it? ….because most ordinary Americans are not! ( nor are some notable American politicians)

        …is it the corporates that want this fascist control?…and if so which corporates?

        ….and who controls these corporates?

        …what is their agenda?

        microscope analysis required …how do we know this draconian law wont be used by these corporates to intrude and steal ideas and rightful copyright from the people?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1
          10 October 2015 at 4:17 pm

          Relax: in the unlikely event that it’s enforceable they still won’t be able to control your thoughts, although there’s always hope that you might manage it one day.

          • Chooky 1.1.1.1.1
            10 October 2015 at 4:44 pm

            lol…not/never reassured by you!!!!( you are the Mad Hatter or the March Hare)

            …actually one’s thoughts and creativity are largely determined by what uncensored free flowing information is available either to libraries/archives or online or by way of visual media or other people

            eg. is it true that Hollywood is largely control of making war games for example?….used by the military for training and brainwashing

            http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201773948/visions-of-war

            “In his latest book, ‘Light It Up: The Marine Eye for Battle in the War for Iraq ‘ historian John Pettegrew takes a look at the crucial role visual culture has played in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He examines the effects of ‘war porn’, and popular images of battle, in video games and on TV, as well as how military technologies of seeing have determined the killing power of the American war effort.”

            ….who has copyright on gaming technology?…what are the implications of TPP for NZ in this regard ?…would this stymie the nascent computer gaming industry in NZ?…will it stymie alternative viewpoints?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2015 at 4:50 pm

              You do understand that copyright involves paying someone to use their IP, eh. So if an NZ gaming company wants to use some code that someone else owns the copyright on, they would have to pay for it.

              Just like now.

              This doesn’t mean the TPP is a good thing: it means you have no clue about copyright issues.

              • Chooky …
                10 October 2015 at 5:09 pm

                ‘Hundreds of Tech Companies to Congress: TPP and Fast Track Harms Digital Innovation and Users’ Rights’

                https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/hundreds-tech-companies-congress-tpp-and-fast-track-harms-digital-innovation-and

                “In a joint letter to Congress released today, more than 250 technology companies and user rights organizations say that the extreme level of secrecy surrounding trade negotiations have led to provisions in agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that threaten digital innovation, free speech, and access to knowledge online, and the letter calls on Congress to come out against the Fast Track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), bill for legitimizing this secretive process. Its signatories include AVG Technologies, DreamHost, Namecheap, Mediafire, Imgur, Internet Archive, BoingBoing, Piwik, Private Internet Access, and many others.

                The letter specifically identifies the TPP’s threats based on leaked texts of the agreement—how it threatens fair use, could lead to more costly forms of online copyright enforcement, criminalize whistleblowing and investigative journalism, and create investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) courts that would further jeopardize user protections in domestic laws. The Fast Track bill, the companies write, would legitimize the exclusive process that has led to these and other provisions, as well as undermine lawmakers’ efforts towards striking the right balance between the interests of copyright holders and those of innovators and users….

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 October 2015 at 5:19 pm

                  That’s better: not thought control, then.

                  The case you mentioned: that of a (NZ-based) private company wanting to use another private company’s property, does not come under ‘fair use’ – they’d have to pay for it, or develop their own.

                  • Chooky …
                    10 October 2015 at 5:34 pm

                    ‘The Final Leaked TPP Text is All That We Feared’

                    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared

                    “Today’s release by Wikileaks of what is believed to be the current and essentially final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn’t survive to the end of the negotiations…

                    [Conclusion]
                    “…The TPP is the archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled, politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over the last eight years.

                    There is nothing in here for users and innovators to support, and much for us to fear—the ratcheting up of the copyright term across the Pacific rim, the punitive sanctions for DRM circumvention, and the full frontal attack on hackers and journalists in the trade secrets provision, just to mention three. This latest leak has confirmed our greatest fears—and strengthened our resolve to kill this agreement for good once it reaches Congress.

                • savenz …
                  11 October 2015 at 9:27 am

                  +1 Chooky

  2. millsy 2
    10 October 2015 at 3:24 pm

    Better download everything you can then.

  3. Chooky 3
    10 October 2015 at 3:54 pm

    where is the Labour Party on this !!!?

    …and the Greens?!!!!

    …and the Maori Party?!

    ….and NZF?…at least NZF has come out opposing the whole TPP

    • dukeofurl 3.1
      10 October 2015 at 4:23 pm

      Do you really have a hive drone mentality ?
      Waiting for instructions/pheromones from the further up the hierarchy ?
      Most parties are very responsive from feed back from members/sympathisers.

      • Chooky 3.1.1
        10 October 2015 at 4:48 pm

        derrrh!…well we are NOT hearing it if they are responsive…I expect some leadership here!….some jumping up and down ….not fence sitting

        …and talking of “hive drone mentality”….that is an excellent description of most MPS

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1
          10 October 2015 at 4:55 pm

          “We”.

          How many of you are there in there? Speak for yourself I can hear them just fine.

          • Chooky 3.1.1.1.1
            10 October 2015 at 5:14 pm

            there are many chooks out here…anonymous like you

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2015 at 5:22 pm

              Do they all lack ears? And email addresses? I’ve had email from the Greens, for example, and seen Labour MPs quoted in the media, and seen lots of press-releases on Facebook.

              What do they need to do, phone you?

              Careful with the A-word: I’m pseudonymous 😉

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2
          10 October 2015 at 4:56 pm

          Yesterday it was all about how Labour MPs made slightly differing statements. Today they’re all drones.

          Don’t let reality intrude.

        • Sacha 3.1.1.3
          10 October 2015 at 6:21 pm

          “I expect some leadership here!….some jumping up and down ….not fence sitting”

          Without having the actual text, that would be politically stupid (unless you are Winston).

          • Chooky 3.1.1.3.1
            10 October 2015 at 7:07 pm

            well the fact that no one has the text is worth jumping up and down about !…and it has been f..king signed!

            ….but in fact there are lots of leaks from wikileak….and they absolutely are worth jumping up and down about !

            …so I rest my case… ( GO WINSTON!)

  4. Stuart Munro 4
    10 October 2015 at 4:58 pm

    I imagine everyone who downloads will now emulate Martin Ede and the paedo crowd & get identity hiding systems.

  5. Matthew Hooton 5
    10 October 2015 at 5:14 pm

    Why should people be able to “fileshare” content they don’t own. Isn’t “stealing” closer to a more accurate description? If I wrote a novel, or composed a song, or wrote a thesis on epistemology, why should you be able to obtain a copy and “fileshare” it? This is a very genuine question. I don’t understand the concern or the argument why filesharing is a good thing.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      10 October 2015 at 5:28 pm

      Some people call it a new distribution paradigm.

      Then there’s this:

      The group responsible for more piracy than anyone else, the same group who was responsible for nearly 80% of all pirated content in the world, also spend nearly three times as much money on digital content and services over six months. On every level, pirates seemed to spend more on digital content than regular consumers even though they don’t count for more than 15% of the total web population.

      I note the barely concealed glee at GoT’s “most downloaded” status, for example, and wonder how it’s being “leveraged”. I do hope the biggest complainants aren’t profiting from file-sharing in any way…

      • Chooky 5.1.1
        11 October 2015 at 9:37 am

        re ” I do hope the biggest complainants aren’t profiting from file-sharing in any way…”…of course they are…this is what it is all about

        ….Hollywood and USA control of ALL file sharing and the right to censorship and intrude into our computers and personal lives…to control what we in New Zealand see and know

        ….and if this oligarchy and its tentacle control is challenged/exposed ( Nicky Hager ) or you are seeing or seeking what the authorities don’t want you to …then the police will have a pretext to come after your personal computer and take your life’s work ( eg Nicky Hager) or heavy you and strip your assets…and throw you in jail ( Dotcom)

        Is this why the Hollywood ‘mafia’ have gone after Dotcom? (with terrorising helicopters and black dressed police op heavies to cower him and his wife and children)

        …Dotcom wasnt part of their club to control the world with digital and visual propaganda for their Empire

        this is fascism by stealth

        • Chooky 5.1.1.1
          11 October 2015 at 9:51 am

          not only do they want to control what we see and know….they also want to control what we CREATE

          …the TPP is taking away our innovation, our liberty and human rights to think, question and create without fear

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2015 at 10:04 am

            One of the things they rely on is witless rhetorical fantasies, promulgated by the likes of the Spartacists and you.

            • Chooky 5.1.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2015 at 10:19 am

              OAB…YOU are usually wrong …i feel sorry for your Mother ( smirk)

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                11 October 2015 at 10:25 am

                Aww! Poor wickle Chooky got angry wangry.

                I’m so wrong you can’t find a single credible supporting source for your breathless rhetoric, and then turn to insulting my family.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      10 October 2015 at 6:35 pm

      Isn’t “stealing” closer to a more accurate description?

      Nope as they still have it themselves.

      If I wrote a novel, or composed a song, or wrote a thesis on epistemology, why should you be able to obtain a copy and “fileshare” it?

      Why shouldn’t I be?

      This is a big question because what’s to come is massively different from what has gone before. The old bludger system of capitalism is going the way of the dodo.

      I don’t understand the concern or the argument why filesharing is a good thing.

      It distributes ideas boosting innovation. It backs up our cultures, artwork and ideas.

      • Matthew Hooton 5.2.1
        10 October 2015 at 7:35 pm

        Doesn’t it also mean people won’t be able to make a living from writing books, composing songs etc? I don’t see how that is a good thing. It a builder builds a house they get to own it in perpetuity. Why not the same rule for authors etc?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1
          10 October 2015 at 7:37 pm

          Why would it have that effect, given that pirates buy the most content?

          • Matthew Hooton 5.2.1.1.1
            10 October 2015 at 7:44 pm

            I guess because pirates are the reason the other 85% of the population pays so little to musicians, authors and other artists under the “new paradigm” of stealing stuff instead of buying it.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2015 at 7:48 pm

              Home taping is killing music, again???

              Fucker just won’t die.

              PS: chop chop for Nicky says your new-found concern for writers is a charade.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                10 October 2015 at 8:00 pm

                File sharing is a bit more than home taping.

                • millsy …
                  10 October 2015 at 8:20 pm

                  No it isnt. I bet as a young person you would burrow your mate’s Led Zepplin album and copy it onto audio tape?

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    10 October 2015 at 8:33 pm

                    Yes, but you could only do one at a time. This is faster.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      10 October 2015 at 9:10 pm

                      It’s not just faster. This is borrowing your mate’s entire record collection, making exact duplicates of them within the hour, and offering further duplicates to all your other mates and any members of the public who feel like having a copy. Don’t pretend that file sharing isn’t an issue for content creators, because it most definitely is.

                    • weka …
                      10 October 2015 at 9:15 pm

                      The current legal models for music, books etc also have issues for content creators.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      10 October 2015 at 9:22 pm

                      Further to the above: there’s a huge difference between copying something from your friend’s computer for your personal enjoyment because you and your friends share stuff, and putting that something on the web for public download. This ought to be obvious even to the thickest observer.

                    • Neil …
                      10 October 2015 at 9:53 pm

                      I remember as a kid hooking up multiple tape decks to the stereo & knocking out 6 copies at the same time…..lol

                  • infused …
                    10 October 2015 at 9:49 pm

                    Yes it is. You can share with thousands of people at the same time. Your VHS would be pretty fucked after the 50th copy.

            • Neil 5.2.1.1.1.2
              10 October 2015 at 8:22 pm

              Its the record & movie companies that make the most money out of songs & movies, the artists actually get bugger all compared to what the likes of Capitol records & Warner’s make.

              • Chooky …
                11 October 2015 at 9:55 am

                +100

              • JanMeyer …
                11 October 2015 at 2:56 pm

                Great, so stealing the output of those artists will mean they get even more will it?! Bloody hell, why do some “progressives” think theft of an artistic work is some sort of human right? Don’t they give a shit about artists? What if those artists are New Zealanders? I know it’s hard to convince our teenage kids of the rights and wrongs of this stuff but I presumed an audience of left leaning adults would be a bit easier!

                • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                  11 October 2015 at 4:54 pm

                  “Great, so stealing the output of those artists will mean they get even more will it?!”

                  I don’t know ask the companies stealing their output. Lobby them to give artists a fairer deal and to improve their contracts.

                  Put copyright back to 14 years so that artists can take back control of their output if they don’t like what the record companies have done with it.

                  Tell the government they shouldn’t have allowed me to copy my vinyl and CD’s to my PC – I should be forced to buy the on-line file of stuff I already own so the record company (not the artist) could make more money.

                  And yep in many cases filesharing does result in more sales. You’ve already been given Lorde’s example. For a literary one try looking up “Go The Fuck To Sleep”.

                  I’d say the left cares far more about artists than the right does. One here suggested artists should get paid. The righties wants to perpetuate a model in which the artists is dispossessed of the rights to their work but bears all the costs of it’s development and marketing.

                  http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties1.htm

                  If we’re not songwriters, and not hugely successful commercially (as in platinum-plus), we [recording artists] don’t make a dime off our recordings.

                  Janis Ian

                  Your faux concern for the artists themselves is ever so cute.

                  • Halfcrown …
                    11 October 2015 at 5:08 pm

                    Nice one. Couldn’t have said it better.

                  • JanMeyer …
                    12 October 2015 at 4:15 pm

                    “File sharing” sounds so innocuous! Call it collective theft of artistic work and at least be honest about it. Yes, the music industry is changing (and needed to after mindlessly ignoring the internet for so long) but users of the internet do not have the moral right to steal another person’s creative work.

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      12 October 2015 at 11:53 pm

                      Nah the music industry isn’t changing.

                      They are simply trying to reinforce their position.

                      The day they give all artists a better deal in their contracts is the day that things change and they didn’t ignore the internet – they deliberately chose not to take part.

                      You also can’t call copying theft and then talk about being honest cause if you were being honest you’d have the integrity to agree that it’s not theft.

                      http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-overview.html

                      What is Theft?

                      The term theft is used widely to refer to crimes involving the taking of a person’s property without their permission. But theft has a very broad legal meaning which may encompass more than one category, and multiple degrees, of crimes. Theft is often defined as the unauthorized taking of property from another with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Within this definition lie two key elements:

                      1) a taking of someone else’s property; and

                      2) the requisite intent to deprive the victim of the property permanently.

                      The taking element in a theft typically requires seizing possession of property that belongs to another, and may also involve removing or attempting to remove the property. However, it is the element of intent where most of the complex legal challenges typically arise in theft-related cases.
                      – See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-overview.html#sthash.RhyRTJYN.dpuf

        • Sacha 5.2.1.2
          10 October 2015 at 7:41 pm

          IP is nuanced and tricky. Read lots.

          • Matthew Hooton 5.2.1.2.1
            10 October 2015 at 7:50 pm

            I don’t really have time to read lots about IP. I do understand that “content wants to be free” and why. But that is also self-defeating in anything other than the short run. Artists need to get paid – and like many other industries some of them will create more of chasing a dream of getting seriously rich. If the ability to make a living (let alone the dream of great wealth) is compromised then we will get less content and certainly lower quality content if it can only be a hobby.

            ps. I write the above as someone who is doing a philosophy degree for the sheer joy of reading and writing, so I understand money is not the sole motivator for artistic endeavour, but I still don’t see we will having thriving writing and music sectors if everything just gets duplicated massively without payment almost immediately after first publication. The anarchical nature of the IT is ironically a risk to human espressiveness, I worry.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.2.1.1
              10 October 2015 at 7:53 pm

              When Hooton says “artists” he means Fox. Just saying.

              The new content delivery methods may affect the delivery companies: the artists don’t need them so much these days.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                10 October 2015 at 7:59 pm

                No I don’t. And I can see artists now have excellent new opportunities to bypass them and market their output last directly to the consumer, which is a good thing. But how does that help them if when they make their first sale the buyer can “fileshare” with the rest of the world?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 October 2015 at 8:04 pm

                  Ask Lorde.

                  (Someone else please ask Lorde to tell Hooton – and his clients – to go get fucked.)

                  • Sacha …
                    10 October 2015 at 8:24 pm

                    Not seen a peep from Lorde or her associated companies about infringement. Have you?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 October 2015 at 9:52 pm

                      Quite the reverse: I’ve heard that she releases a lot of her material free, and is being touted as illustrating the future of music distribution (not to mention lip-stick marketing).

                    • infused …
                      11 October 2015 at 8:43 am

                      Where is this so called free music of Lordes? Last I saw, her label was pulling everything from youtube.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 October 2015 at 10:08 am

                      Infused demonstrating inability to use a search engine. What kind of moran doesn’t even see if their drivel passes a simple reality check?

            • Sacha 5.2.1.2.1.2
              10 October 2015 at 8:20 pm

              The viable business model is transforming fast. Please have a chat with Jordan Carter at least. Knows this stuff, and nice. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201773597/copyright-worries-in-tppa

              • Matthew Hooton …
                10 October 2015 at 8:25 pm

                Will do. I have worked for Jordan against the copper tax and have high regard for him. Will be interested to hear what Internet NZ says this week after final text is released. And I have to have confidence the market will ulimately solve the problem. There just has to be a way for the money to flow from the consumer to the artist, one way or another.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  10 October 2015 at 9:45 pm

                  And I have to have confidence the market will ulimately solve the problem.

                  The market will never solve anything because it is the construction of the laws of a country.

                  There just has to be a way for the money to flow from the consumer to the artist, one way or another.

                  I suspect that the people most worried are the publishers, you know, the bludgers who presently get rich off of other peoples work but won’t do so under he new paradigm.

            • Chooky 5.2.1.2.1.3
              11 October 2015 at 10:25 am

              “ps. I write the above as someone who is doing a philosophy degree for the sheer joy of reading and writing, so I understand money is not the sole motivator for artistic endeavour”

              Whoop Dee Doo!

            • Ron 5.2.1.2.1.4
              11 October 2015 at 2:16 pm

              This surely has to be a perfect example of an oxymoron.
              Hooton & Philosophy Degree
              But wait wasn’t there another would be political type that had such a degree.

              ps. I write the above as someone who is doing a philosophy degree

        • millsy 5.2.1.3
          10 October 2015 at 8:13 pm

          Composers still earn money from their music even with file sharing, for example public performances, use in movies and TV, etc and so on.

          If I, for example recorded ‘Strangers in the Night’ for public broadcast, I would still have to pay royalities, to whoever owned the rights to Bert Kaempfert’s works (possibly his estate)

          Or if I opened a cafe and decided to have Richard Clayderman’s CD’s going as background music, I would be required to pay him royalties (through APRA).

          And Andy Williams’ estate still rakes in the cash each year because every single Christmas themed movie has his ‘Its the Most Wonderful Time of the Year’ in it.

          • Matthew Hooton 5.2.1.3.1
            10 October 2015 at 8:36 pm

            Yep, I have noticed more big acts coming to NZ, which has not been good for my bank balance. I like this aspect of the changing industry but don’t envy the performers’ schedules.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 5.2.1.3.2
            11 October 2015 at 5:50 pm

            If I, for example recorded ‘Strangers in the Night’ for public broadcast, I would still have to pay royalities, to whoever owned the rights to Bert Kaempfert’s works (possibly his estate)

            Yeah but parts of Strangers In The Night sounds awfully like this:

            • Chooky 5.2.1.3.2.1
              11 October 2015 at 7:29 pm

              creativity breeds creativity….until the corporate fascists try to control it…make money out of it ….and put a stop to it

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.4
          10 October 2015 at 9:39 pm

          Doesn’t it also mean people won’t be able to make a living from writing books, composing songs etc?

          I was reading an article/blogpost the other day about someone concerned with authors being able to make a living from writing books. He wasn’t concerned with pirating/sharing but the fact that so many people were now writing books and self-publishing.

          I figure that what’s really needed is another way to get money from the readers to the author that bypasses the old publishing/retail method. I’m reasonably certain that file sharing would be that new method.

          It a builder builds a house they get to own it in perpetuity. Why not the same rule for authors etc?

          We’re not talking ownership. Nobody sharing the copyrighted works is claiming ownership.

          BTW, the present method is what’s causing a huge amount of poverty, over use of resources and destroying the environment. We need to be looking for a better method rather than one that’s millennia old and has never worked in all of recorded history.

    • Ovid 5.3
      11 October 2015 at 9:49 pm

      I downloaded The Maltese Falcon via a file-sharing site the other day. I’ve been going through a bit of a film noir phase. The movie first screened in New Zealand in 1943.

      Given that it was first made available to the public more than fifty years ago, the work is now in the public domain. So filesharing is a perfectly legitimate means of distributing classic movies. I’ve downloaded Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Goldfinger, West Side Story and several other pre-1965 movies in this fashion. Completely legally. Your copyright cannot and should not last forever. It’s a limited, time-fixed monopoly given to you by the state to encourage your creativity.

  6. Graeme 6
    10 October 2015 at 5:28 pm

    This whole thing reminds me of the antics of the equine industry and lobbyists when the motor car arrived on the scene in the 1900s.

    Down here the County Council of the time passed a bylaw that motor vehicles had to be escorted along Frankton Road by a person on foot carrying a flag. That fell to bits pretty quickly, and I think the entertainment industry’s current stand in the face of technological transformation will fall away as other players move past them.

  7. Chooky 7
    10 October 2015 at 6:02 pm

    On seizing family computers…(wasnt Nicky Hager’s computer seized?..for a fishing expedition…a personal intrusion and violation of human rights to privacy?….a precursor of TPP signed by jonkey nactional?)

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared

    …”One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family’s home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center….

    Trade Secrets

    The severity of the earlier language on trade secrets protection has not been abated in the final text. It continues to criminalize those who gain “unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system,” without any mandatory exception for cases where the information is accessed or disclosed in the public interest, such as by investigative journalists or whistleblowers.

    There is no evident explanation for the differential treatment given to trade secrets accessed or misappropriated by means of a computer system, as opposed to by other means; but it is no surprise to find the U.S. pushing such a technophobic provision, which mirrors equivalent provisions of U.S. law that have been used to persecute hackers for offenses that would otherwise have been considered much more minor…

    Top-Down Control of the Internet

    ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

    The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”…

    ( this is violation of human rights to privacy imo..fascism (by internet) ….anyone)

  8. infused 8
    10 October 2015 at 7:52 pm

    Uhh whats the issue again?

    • Matthew Hooton 8.1
      10 October 2015 at 8:05 pm

      You ask a good question. Apparently there should be a right to buy a book or song for a few dollars off its creator and then make it available for free to the whole world. I don’t see why this is a right, or should be. And no one seems able to tell me what I am misunderstanding about the issue.

      • millsy 8.1.1
        10 October 2015 at 8:19 pm

        And what would you do. Make people pay each time they listen to music?

        Would you close down the hospice shop in New Plymouth, which sells CD’s for $1 each?

        • Matthew Hooton 8.1.1.1
          10 October 2015 at 8:42 pm

          Dunno. But I wouldn’t close down the hospice shop. I suppose more live performances is where things will head, like you say above.

          • millsy 8.1.1.1.1
            10 October 2015 at 8:49 pm

            Highly likely we will also see a split between the functions of singer and songwriter, like we had 50 years ago — you had lyricists and composers like Newley, Barry, Bacharach, Bricusse, Coleman, Porter, etc who wrote the songs and the likes of Sinatra, Warwick, Martin, London would record them. You also had the arrangers who did the orchestral bits as well.

      • infused 8.1.2
        10 October 2015 at 9:43 pm

        People are stupid. When you buy a copy, the terms of service are generally that this is licensed to yourself.

        People hiding behind this ‘nothing was stolen’ bullshit are idiots.

        • millsy 8.1.2.1
          10 October 2015 at 10:01 pm

          SO you dont download music then. Are you one of these goodie goodies who dont torrent anything because it is ‘stealing’

          I download music, movies, and software, and I dont deny it. I do it to save money. The OS on every PC in my house is downloaded, and so is 90% of my music.

          You will have to send me to jail to stop me.

          • infused 8.1.2.1.1
            10 October 2015 at 10:07 pm

            I think everyone torrents something.

            That’s really besides the point that’s being argued here though isn’t it?

            With your logic, I don’t know why you aren’t going around stealing petrol, food and fiddling with your power meter.

            It will save you money after all.

            • millsy 8.1.2.1.1.1
              10 October 2015 at 10:10 pm

              Its copying. If I broke into your house and took your laptop you would be minus a laptop and i would have one. If I downloaded Les Baxter’s discography from a torrent site, his estate would still have a copy.

              • Psycho Milt …
                10 October 2015 at 10:23 pm

                If you make your living from selling your art works, and I make a copy of your artworks and distribute them for free, and suddenly fewer people are interested in buying your artworks because why the fuck should they when I’ll just give them a free copy, have you lost something? I know this is going to severely tax your intelligence, so take your time thinking about it before answering.

                • millsy …
                  10 October 2015 at 10:28 pm

                  SO if you were an artist you would charge people for looking at your paintings.

                • Sacha …
                  11 October 2015 at 11:10 am

                  “I make a copy of your artworks and distribute them for free, and suddenly fewer people are interested in buying your artworks”

                  Apparently the reverse is true for music – it becomes a marketing channel to other people who do pay. Not same for movies, the Sione’s Wedding experience suggests.

            • millsy 8.1.2.1.1.2
              10 October 2015 at 10:11 pm

              And you would be quite surprised how many people fiddle with their power meters.

              • infused …
                10 October 2015 at 10:47 pm

                I know, because I was one of them. Hence why I included it. But that isn’t happening much longer.

                • millsy …
                  10 October 2015 at 11:26 pm

                  Personally I wouldnt know where to start.

                  The meter readers are under strict instructions to report any evidence of tampering, and I immediately forward such reports to my managers, who report it to the retailers, who arrange for a technician to be sent out and instantly disconnect the supply.

                  Smart meters have an alarm enabled whereby any interference is reported to the retailers.

                  Anyone who tampers is liable for the full costs of fixing the power meter, and will probably find themselves on a blacklist.

                  You should consider yourself very lucky you didnt get caught.

                  • infused …
                    11 October 2015 at 8:40 am

                    Well I wasn’t stupid. It’s not hard to get past both methods without the checkers even knowing.

      • John Shears 8.1.3
        11 October 2015 at 12:11 pm

        @MH Credit where credit is due.
        Fancy me agreeing with you Matthew, but yes I do, 100% , Queen Elizabeth the 1st. all those many years ago saw the value of allowing people’s ideas , however they were expressed, to be available to the populace at large to use for a small fee (Royalty). Currently in NZ for the time of the author’s life and 50 years after.

        I spent the first 10 years of my working life dealing with copyrights
        on music in relation to recordings and agree that the composer, the artists, and the owner of the original mechanical device (record,CD etc) are entitled to a payment when others make use of their skills to make money. APRA is an example.

        Sadly there is currently a coterie of bludgers who seem to think that anything that they can get their hands on is theirs to do with what they wish. Imagine the squeals if someone stole their hard drive.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.3.1
          11 October 2015 at 12:42 pm

          Not to mention artists who give away the product.

          What would you say to a complainant who themselves profited from filesharing?

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 8.1.3.2
          11 October 2015 at 1:22 pm

          “Sadly there is currently a coterie of bludgers who seem to think that anything that they can get their hands on is theirs to do with what they wish.”

          I know but publishing and record companies are here to stay.

          History is full of authors and artists who have made nary a cent from their efforts.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 8.1.3.2.1
            11 October 2015 at 1:35 pm

            This isn’t mine but I found this earlier in the year by an anonymous contributor to a forum.

            “Many years ago before CDs came out there were a huge number of record companies. Most of them were small. The people who ran those companies spent time LOOKING for talent to promote. They did not get wealthy. They did what they did because they liked it.

            Then CDs came along, and all of the sudden every company was remastering and re-releasing every single thing that had been recorded for most of a century. Early CDs were very durable (not the crap they sell today). I remember watching in the stores when the guys behind the counter would throw a CD across the room and let it bounce off of a wall or two… they NEVER got a scratch. They sold for about the same as a CD does today (minus changes in cost of living).

            BUT – with all those small companies having so much recorded material from the past – and so VERY many fans wanting everything put onto CDs, suddenly every company out there was remastering everything and putting it on to CD.

            Over the course of only 5 to 6 years, more music was sold (TOTALED TOGETHER) than normally sold in 30 years. This is because people were replacing nearly everything they had ever bought, with new copies on CD. That means they sold a whole lot of remastered copies of EVERYTHING and a lot of record companies that normally had trouble breaking even were rolling in cash. This was not normal, and it was not going to continue. Those familiar with the industry knew this.

            *** ENTER THE BIG CORPORATIONS ***

            Now at that time that CDs came around there was a lot of buying and selling of companies in general. This included media companies. This put new people in charge of everything – people who did not understand the industry at all.

            There were less than a dozen really big labels out there; ones with huge profits. A lot of their older executives retired, and were replaced with people with MBA degrees and no understanding of the music industry. The new executives never looked for new talent. They were also impossible for musicians to contact directly. They stopped paying attention to “what people wanted” and just collected their checks.

            The new MBAs at the large music companies noticed the income of the small companies, and knowing NOTHING at all about the music music industry, they say them as massive profit centres. They had no idea that the massive income of the last few years was going to stop quite soon.

            So these executives went out and paid huge sums for the small labels. They now owned the small companies … owned their copyrights, and right after buying them they usually closed the old place down completely – losing the wisdom of people who had worked for decades and knew how the industry really DID work. People who spent a lot of time looking for new talent.

            Soon there was a feeding frenzy of companies buying up companies. When the dust settled there were very few companies, they were all massive, and none of them looked for new talent or would speak to musicians or their agents.

            – This is about when the Red Hot Chilli Peppers realised they would never get anywhere unless they did everything on their own. They had a name and a large following and not one company would talk to them. So they bought an old run down church to live and play and record in, and old bus to travel in, and booked their own tours (to keep the prices SANE so that “Ticker Master” (who had a near monopoly on good music venues) could not try and extort $80 a ticket from kids who barely had the ability to scrape up $20 … and RHCP played in a lot of odd venues (places without “Ticket Master” contracts.

            *** THE BOTTOM Fell OUT ***

            Then, as the owners (now retired and living well) of those small record companies had expected, saled dropped in a huge way. Everyone who wanted to but all new copies on CD of Elvis, Billie Holiday and Chubby Checker had done so. Incomes plunged back to their normal tiny trickle.

            The MBAs who now ran the show, and had not expected (what everyone else had expected) were angry. They lashed out at everyone. They still didn’t have anyone out there looking for talent, signing new popular acts, etc. and unlike the 1940s, 50s, 60s (etc) there was no human being inside of “Time Warner AOL Cthulhu” who ever spoke to any musician. They on longer had slush piles of tapes. What they had instead were very large pay checks, and several rings of people paid specifically to keep the musicians away from them; a big wall of bureaucracy that kept everyone with talent from having any chance to be heard by the only people left who had the ability to get them published.

            *** THEN THE INTERNET ***

            Then the internet came along as a popular thing. People started to share files of the music they liked. A whole lot of them WANTED to pay for them, but there was no way to do that because the new R.I.A.A. vehemently refused to sell anything in the new downloadable form. They killed NAPSTER with court fees (even though NAPSTER technically won the cases).

            The recording companies did not like the internet. They had no clue how rich they could get off of it by selling singles at $2 a piece (with no expensive art work, no cost in pressing CDs, etc). Also they were still very unhappy that the cash had stopped rolling in (from the time when everyone replaced their music) and wanted somebody to blame.

            – so they blamed the Internet… it was all that piracy (it had to be)

            Streaming music live to people became more common on web sites. However there also was no mechanism in place to deal with royalties associated with COMMERCIAL web sites, with people listening to music, sot that cash went to those who owned the copyrights and royalties to the musicians. Many streaming companies tried very hard to create a way to do this, but the RIAA resisted them and said NO; I do not mean they said NO to one certain way of paying them…ie “this is our RIAA method”. The RIAA said no completely.

            Meanwhile a huge number of independent musicians put their music straight up online, having never pressed to to a CD.

            To combat file sharing and streaming, the TIAA companies went utterly nuts. They said *NO* to every offer concerting royalties for file downloads and streaming…. while at the same time complaining that they get no money from Internet based music.

            They also did these things….

            1) they created and heavily funded an organization that was essentially a CARTEL crossed with a political lobby group. This was the RIAA (note that monopolies and cartels, price fixing, and industry wide standard contracts, are all technically illegal). They used it to lobby politicians, and grease politicians hands so they they could change the way copyrights worked. They also used to to work as a single large force – with the musicians on the other side of the line.

            The big companies continued to buy each other out. Time Warner eventually owned the vast majority of the worlds media content.

            The RIAA companies also came up with a new standard contract. In this contract business was done very differently than in any other form of business anywhere. Imagine that as the person who contracted out to write some software documentation, you were required to pay for EVERY expense associated with making the software…. IMAGINE THIS – McDonald’s does not make its employees pay for the cost of the advertising they CHOOSE to run on TV. Image the person on the grill had to pay for it.

            This is pretty close to what they did.

            This new RIAA contract system would leave a whole lot of musicians not only broke – but owning MILLIONS to the record companies which LEGALLY not allowed to record anything … not ever again.

            The new RIAA contract said that all the expenses associated with selling an album, came out of the musicians ROYALTIES (their tiny cut) instead of out of the gross profits form that album or the entire company (like any normal business). So the tiny royalty the band got (about 2 cents for the entire band off of each CD sold, to split with their agents) had to cover costs that the band had no say in. They did not hire anyone to advertise anything but they had to pay for it. This included recording costs, advertising expenses, meetings, etc (all of it) instead of coming out of the GROSS INCOME of the company. This is how they really did use that new method.

            – the cost of creating and pushing a new album, recording, mastering, etc… cost of studio musicians… (all that) came out of the musicians cut … AS WELL AS, the cost of the executives choosing to advertise the new album during half time at the superbowl. It often involved hitting the musicians royalties up for the costs associated with a meeting –

            BUT

            – that meeting just HAD to take place in the most expensive hotel and restaurant in Hawaii…. so they hired a private jet to take them to Hawaii, and booked and entire floor, and had dinner in 5 star restaurants – as a handful of people sat around a table (who all worked on the same floor of the same building normally) and occasionally mentioned something about the new album.

            So for a few weeks they would live for a few weeks in the most expensive hotel in Hawaii, eat at their most expensive restaurants … rent a yacht, lie on the beach, and while there they would occasionally discuss business (claiming it all as a business expenses – one that would come out of the musicians royalties). Even the clothing they wore while in the restaurant (after all you MUST dress right for such a high end place) came out of the musicians royalties; brand new $5000 to $10,000 suits that they wore as they sat around the table, drinking champaign that cost $3000 a bottle.. ad once in a great while talking about which color to print the new albums name in on the CD cover.

            A whole lot of artists were not that savvy about cash.
            Most musicians in that era felt very lucky to get noticed by a big label and signed.

            They had no clue that signing that RIAA contract left them OWING the record company millions… or that the contact also meant (as an exclusive 3 or 5 album deal) that if that company chose not to record their stuff EVER again, they (the musician) would NEVER get to record and sell their music EVER again…. not until the last of those 5 albums were done.

            Thus it has been ever since.”

            • Chooky 8.1.3.2.1.1
              11 October 2015 at 2:20 pm

              +100 big corporate ( Hollywood?) theft of artists’ works…imo not too different from how the mafiosa operates…and jonkey nact has signed the TPP !

              “A mafia is a type of organized crime syndicate whose primary activities are protection racketeering, the arbitration of disputes between criminals, and the organizing and oversight of illegal agreements and transactions.” Wikipedia

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 8.1.3.2.2
            11 October 2015 at 1:44 pm

            Presumably in your bludgers list is US radio stations. Performers in the US don’t get a cent for their songs played on the radio station as it’s a public broadcast.

            NB Songwriters do but the actual artist performing does not.

  9. Neil 9
    10 October 2015 at 8:33 pm

    I remember when “Copyright Protection” on CD’s & DVD’s was first introduced, everyone thought the world had ended, but it was only a matter of a few days & someone figured out how to break it & published a bit of software free to the internet that would not only break the copyright protection but also tell you what sort of protection had been used.
    I would say quite confidently say that even if file sharing sites are blocked it wont take long & a new method of file sharing will be discovered that will circumvent a ban on file sharing sites. The old saying of “There’s more than one way to skin a cat” will ring true with file sharing, there is a lot of innovative people out there that will be working on finding a way around banning file sharing websites as we speak.

    • Psycho Milt 9.1
      10 October 2015 at 9:19 pm

      That’s true, and best of luck to them. However, that’s different from the post’s implicit claim that creators of artistic works are wrong to try and prevent you from distributing their work without paying them.

      • Sanctuary 9.1.1
        11 October 2015 at 12:32 am

        Dude, it is pretty straight forward. Either you accept you can’t stop digital piracy, or accept the breaking of the internet largely in the interests of parasitic corporations. Your choice.

        As an aside, recently I attended a sold out concert from these guys –

        https://www.youtube.com/user/ScottBradleeLovesYa

        They have no major label distribution deal and they solely rely on the internet to sell out venues across the globe. They are doing just fine. So why do we need these corporations, again?

        The idea that musicians & entertainment corporations should be mega rich by recording rights alone is a fifty year anomaly that began with the 7″, three minute single in the 1950s and ended around 2000. They all need to deal with that new reality.

        • Psycho Milt 9.1.1.1
          11 October 2015 at 9:36 am

          I have two problems with that.

          First, it’s not just music, and not just big corporations. If you write a book and someone promptly makes it available for public download, you won’t get to make up the income shortfall by doing live readings from it. If you make a movie and it becomes available for free download the day it hits cinemas, you may find you’ve made a highly successful film that bankrupts you.

          Second, you’re proposing a false dichotomy. We can accept we can’t stop digital piracy but also take steps to discourage it, just like we can accept we can’t stop drivers breaking the speed limit but still take steps to discourage it. In this case, the issue is whether the steps taken are appropriate and reasonable – eg, making ISP’s accountable for downloading of pirated content by their customers is inappropriate and unreasonable, but international cooperation to catch and punish people who set up piracy sites isn’t.

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 9.1.2
        11 October 2015 at 3:22 am

        Nah they are wrong to try and keep extending copyright ad infinitum. There’s a point at which the public say fuck off anyway. They obviously can’t see that they are well beyond that point.

        Not only are they well beyond that point they now want the authority of the state to be used to legislate to increase and to enforce those rights which are essentially a private monopoly right.

        The state should have minimal involvement.

        • Psycho Milt 9.1.2.1
          11 October 2015 at 9:44 am

          I agree. Copyright should last the lifetime of the content creator and no longer. A person writes a book, not an estate or a corporation. The death-plus-50-years provision we already have is outrageous, without extending it even further. The other extensions to IP mentioned in the post are equally obnoxious and should be opposed.

          None of that alters the fact that a person has no inherent right to publicly distribute someone else’s work without paying them for it, and it’s reasonable for legislation to enforce that.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 9.1.2.1.1
            11 October 2015 at 10:04 am

            Well actually we do have the legal right to publicly copy and distribute others work.

            If I want to produce a copy of Black Beauty and sell it I’m perfectly entitled to do so, or The Iliad or Dorian Gray.

            If I want to release a CD of such songs as “It’s a long way to Tipperary” or “I Didn’t Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier” then I am able to do that.

            So the debate is not really about the right to copy and distribute as such.

            As I noted earlier I also already have the right to copy my vinyl and CD’s as well.

            So yeah there are some inherent rights to copy stuff.

            • Psycho Milt 9.1.2.1.1.1
              11 October 2015 at 11:11 am

              There’s a reason why Anna Sewell, Homer, Oscar Wilde and other dead people don’t need to be paid for their work. It’s because they’re dead. At issue is whether live people should be expected to work for free or not.

              Also, “file sharing” isn’t about us copying content we paid for, or even very much about sharing content we bought with our friends (which is a breach but not a serious enough breach for anyone other than big entertainment corporations who’ve bought political influence to bother with). It’s about setting up systems to profit from large-scale public distribution of work by living artists without paying them.

              • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                11 October 2015 at 12:14 pm

                So why then is Mark Twain still copyrighted?

                And by the way Twain described the publishing houses as pirates. Pirates who benefited from others work without paying them.

                And indeed by extending the copyright on Twain’s work (it was due to expire years ago) they have shown that to be the case.

                • Chooky …
                  11 October 2015 at 4:20 pm

                  +100…very good point…Mark Twain would have been anti TPP for sure !

                  • joe90 …
                    11 October 2015 at 4:36 pm

                    Nope, he thought copyright was the bees knees.

                    http://boingboing.net/2007/09/23/mark-twains-nutty-19.html

                    • Chooky …
                      11 October 2015 at 4:48 pm

                      is it copyright for the author ?…or copyright for the publisher?

                      ‘Mark Twain’s plans to compete with copyright “pirates” (in 1906)’

                      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/09/mark-twains-instructive-approach-to-copyright-in-1906/

                      …”Twain was no hero of copyright, having in his later years become a staunch advocate of extending copyright against the “pirates.” Twain so distrusted the publishers that he even said that such “pirates” were the true beneficiaries of the copyright law, since the law eventually delivered to them via the hand of the government all the world’s literary treasures, which they could print without paying the author or heirs….

                      ( I think today perhaps he would have happily used the internet to distribute his works himself …similar to musicians file sharing …and take the end profits and copyright away from the pockets of the corporates…)

                    • joe90 …
                      11 October 2015 at 5:10 pm

                      ”Twain was no hero of copyright, having in his later years become a staunch advocate of extending copyright against the “pirates.”

                      Yes, depriving creators and artists is piracy.

                    • Chooky …
                      11 October 2015 at 5:50 pm

                      then Mark Twain regarded the publishers as pirates and depriving the author of copyright

                      ….today he would probably allow some of his work out on the internet for free or almost free ( file sharing…ebooks at a minimum price )…. and hope the public would like it so much that they would buy books/films from him directly …or go to his paid readings/film events …or be inspired to read his paid newspaper columns

                      …he as author would retain copyright…. not the secondary publishers/printers/distributors/corporates

                      …nor would the legally business conniving corporates be able to buy up and own copyright to his creative works in perpetuity ….thieving off the original artists

                    • joe90 …
                      11 October 2015 at 6:05 pm

                      thieving off the original artists

                      Sort of like the file sharing buy one – get lots free shenanigans.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  11 October 2015 at 9:25 pm

                  You might usefully consider the question of whether a particular fact is relevant to the argument you’re trying to make. Mark Twain’s work still being copyright is relevant to the question of whether living authors have a right to be paid for their work how, exactly? Twain calling publishers vultures is relevant to the question of whether living authors have a right to be paid for their work how, exactly? Our government caving in to obnoxious US demands to extend the copyright term beyond its already-ridiculous length is relevant to the question of whether living authors have a right to be paid for their work how, exactly?

                  • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                    11 October 2015 at 9:35 pm

                    ” It’s because they’re dead.”

                    Nope it’s not because they are dead as the Mark Twain example was showing.

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      11 October 2015 at 9:37 pm

                      The Mark Twain example also showed (again) that it’s not always the authors who make the money so in many respects the notion of alive or dead isn’t necessarily relevant.

                      sorry edit not working.

  10. Rosemary McDonald 10
    10 October 2015 at 10:48 pm

    Share this….

  11. Descendant Of Sssmith 11
    11 October 2015 at 3:15 am

    I’ve bought more CD’s, DVD’s, and vinyl since file sharing came along than I ever did previously.

    I’m both more selective and more eclectic as I’m no longer restricted to what publishers choose to promote.

    I can try before I buy and therefore am more likely to spend the dollars because I’m not taking a punt that I might like it.

    It’s also legal in this country to format shift music so I can with a bit of effort copy my vinyl (or CD) to my computer or I can download it because someone else has already gone to that effort thereby saving me time.

    https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law

    If it is legal for me to have a copy (which it is) I’m not quite sure why we should be hung up on how I get that copy. Anyone who has copied their vinyl to a lossless file knows how awkward this is to do.

    Interestingly when the legislation was passed the question was asked about why video wasn’t included and the response was that not enough consumers were doing it yet. I’m pretty sure that response was out of touch when it was made and is even more so now.

    Many, many of us now back or TV series and movies to our PC’s. Again we can exert quite a lot of effort or simply download them.

    There’s absolutely no reason I should have to buy multiple copies of the same item to watch across different mechanisms in my own house.

    Lets not forget too the total hypocrisy of companies like Apple who made millions from MP3 devices designed specifically to copy your music too while at the same time it was illegal to do so eg pre-legaslitive change.

    Mathew you should also know that the history of copyright has never been about the artist or the composer etc. It’s always been about the publisher.

    You should also know that copyright law was intended to protect the right of the public to have access to things for free by limiting the rights of publishers to control access. The notion that it should convey an ever increasing right to a publisher to control ownership is a modern authoritarian construct which puts money and power and control ahead of the public.

    I propose that copyright law revert to it’s original intentions.

    1787: U.S. Constitution

    According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, “the Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
    1790: Copyright Act of 1790

    The First Congress implemented the copyright provision of the U.S. Constitution in 1790. The Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies, was modeled on the Statute of Anne (1710). It granted American authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years and to renew for another fourteen. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of “science and the useful arts” through wide public access to works in the “public domain.”

    It seems their were much wiser heads in the 1700’s than there are now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

    And that answers your posturing M Hooten about why you should be able to fileshare and download.

    I can’t ever imagine however that I would want to copy/download anything you have created. Never ever given that the remotest consideration.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 11.1
      11 October 2015 at 3:41 am

      And while it’s half-time in the rugby.

      Additional pragmatic reasons for filesharing is that I want to watch and be part of the conversations that all my international friends that I converse with on a daily basis are having – not be restricted by what local providers choose to release not release.

      With the advent of TV series on DVD I’ve learned to detest advertising for often doubling the length of a episode and to break up the continuity.

      Ads have gone from making a cup of tea to getting in the way.

    • Chooky 11.2
      11 October 2015 at 10:04 am

      +100

    • Sacha 11.3
      11 October 2015 at 11:15 am

      “Mathew you should also know that the history of copyright has never been about the artist or the composer etc. It’s always been about the publisher.

      You should also know that copyright law was intended to protect the right of the public to have access to things for free by limiting the rights of publishers to control access. ”

      Really important point. Thank you.

      It was not artists around the TPP table; it was big production and distribution interests like movie studios and record companies.

  12. gsays 12
    11 October 2015 at 6:14 am

    Great conversation.

    A couple of things;
    The anti file sharing lobby seem to be hung up on $.

    A lot of musicians/artists are happy with filesharing as it increases the listenership, increasing attendance at concerts. Which is where the real money is (for the artist).

    Sharing is the way forward for this planet.

    At a big day out when mettalica played (post napster), messages could be txted to the big screen.
    Some wag asked Lars if he would sign some copied cds.

    • Chooky 12.1
      11 October 2015 at 10:06 am

      +100 “A lot of musicians/artists are happy with filesharing as it increases the listenership, increasing attendance at concerts. Which is where the real money is (for the artist).”

      exposure is what it is all about…the young understand this…also savvy authors…it is a compliment to have your work down loaded ….whether paid for or by file sharing…those who file share can probably not afford to pay…but if they like it enough will do so in the future…word of mouth is a large part of advertising

  13. b waghorn 13
    11 October 2015 at 8:46 am

    It amuses me the selective morality of people on display here ,the same people that rage against dodgy politicians and corporates think its fine to pinch a product online.
    I’ve seen people give instructions on this site on how to get free access to movies and rugby tests now they probably think they are robben hood but thieving is thieving .

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.1
      11 October 2015 at 9:06 am

      Then you totally miss the point don’t you.

      Your paradigm of private ownership to make money and to have control and power over others as pre-empting community ownership for the benefit of all can’t see the consistency in what people are saying and likely you never bothered to read the links on the history of copyright.

      Your equation of copying to theft is also incorrect.

      The government recently legalised copying of music – were they wrong to do that? When I, now legally copy my vinyl to my PC, is that immoral or theft?

      When the pubs were allowed to open for longer hours to watch All Black tests because it was in the community interest was the government incorrect to do that? When in the past All Black tests were made to be free to air because of the community interest was that wrong?

      • Psycho Milt 13.1.1
        11 October 2015 at 10:00 am

        Just out of interest, do you treat your own work as community-owned for the benefit of all and no-one needs to pay you for it, or is it just artists who get to work for free?

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.1.1.1
          11 October 2015 at 10:05 am

          yep I do actually. Nothing I produce is copyrighted.

          • Psycho Milt 13.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2015 at 10:59 am

            Weasel-words. Do you get paid for your work or not?

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.1.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2015 at 12:00 pm

              I took work to mean in your comment works of art, etc which I do produce and don’t copyright. Anyone is free to use the stuff I produce for free and even make money from it.

              In relation to my manual / intellectual labour I do much for free (including for people to make a profit from) and some for pay.

              I fully support more of my paid employment going in taxation for the common good. You’ll see from my history that I’ve clearly said in the past I didn’t support tax cuts and I do support universality of community support.

              I’ve had a SKY subscription since SKY started and I also pay for a streaming service. I probably own far more TV series and Movies on DVD, etc than you.

              You’ll find it difficult to suggest that I don’t believe people should get paid for their (art) work if they wish.

              You’ll find it easier to suggest that I think that copyright periods have got out of hand and that both distribution models (which allow a specific monopoly) and laws have got out of hand and bear little relationship to a modern world and ever increasingly ignore the common good.

      • b waghorn 13.1.2
        11 October 2015 at 10:12 am

        “” When I, now legally copy my vinyl to my PC, is that immoral or theft?””
        If its legal of course its not theft. But if you went on to profit from you’re copy of some one else’s work then it is ,unless you got permission.
        As for the pubs they pay a higher cost for there sky content so they can show it to many so you’re proving my point, if they were caught streaming it for free they should get nailed for it.
        If you don’t like the system change the system but you or anyone else doesn’t get to make up the rules to suit there on version of right and wrong.

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.1.2.1
          11 October 2015 at 12:05 pm

          So legality now equals morality?

          The point about the pubs was the changing of the licensing laws because of the public good – not because they pay their Sky subscription.

          “But if you went on to profit from you’re copy of some one else’s work then it is”

          So sharing for no-profit is OK then.

          • b waghorn 13.1.2.1.1
            11 October 2015 at 5:57 pm

            Im happy with both the rugby decision s but its not relevant to the theft of content argument because they would of made sure the owners of the TV rights were happy.
            If I steal you’re computer and give it to my mate are OK with that.?
            ( hypothetically of course)

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.1.2.1.1.1
              11 October 2015 at 6:05 pm

              If you copy stuff I’ve developed off my hard drive and give it to your mate I’d be fine with that.

              Note the difference between copying something and physically taking the hard drive.

              Are you happy that the companies take the songs you made and you as the artist can’t ever publish them again as you no longer own them?

              And you still don’t get the point about public good as a reason for limiting copyright.

              • b waghorn …
                11 October 2015 at 8:00 pm

                I get that point and will admit I’m off the original subject of the post but when it comes to streaming there are more than a few commenters’ here who have a selective morality .
                Now you personally are fine with people sharing you’re work and that’s cool but it is you’re choice and that’s how it should be .
                As for companies ripping off artists ,its not new , and that’s where artist need to learn to protect there stuff.
                What public good comes from allowing stolen movies to be distributed through my new cloud storage site”wagsworld” even if its a 50 year old movie or the latest release?

                • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                  11 October 2015 at 8:57 pm

                  Well unless you understand the concept of public good (or the commons) then it may be difficult to consider that aspect.

                  This may help:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

                  Public good by restricting copyright ensures that music and are and literature is available to all – not just to those with money or who has means.

                  It ensures freedom of thought by enabling the free copying of items that the ruling elite / religious might look to stop via non-publishing.

                  It ensures that historical literature might remain in existence and not be lost via the demise of a publishing house.

                  It enables artists to modernise and innovate and allows things that pass into wide-spread commonality eg happy birthday song to be part of the societal commons.

                  It enables poor countries to establish their own music and print industries by not having to pay for old items. (The US publishing houses routinely ignored European copyright while they built their empires)

                  It enables things such as old video games to be preserved for posterity and research – the MAME project is a great example of this.

                  There’s loads of benefits.

                  What if we had a copy-right law that was actually competitive rather than monopolistic?

                  So an author or a performer always retain the right to publish or release their works for their entire life regardless of what other individuals or companies they gave rights to copy to.

                  That they could sell that right multiple times to different publishers for different periods and for different markets.. As many times as they wished for what ever amount they wished?

                  What if there was a guaranteed minimum value to the author / artist – say 10%.

                  Wouldn’t that sort of model put more money in artists pockets and leave the artist much more in control of their own work?

  14. linda 14
    11 October 2015 at 8:56 am

    to share or not to share natz don’t fuckin share
    well good luck in trying to stop it tppa or no tappa every law passed since napster has driven file sharing to more and more DE centralized models of distribution you cant beat technology the pirates have an unlimited r and d budget

    • Chooky 14.1
      11 October 2015 at 2:59 pm

      linda +100 …”natz don’t fuckin share”…and they have signed us NZers up to the TPP….which is a corporate agreement protecting USA corporate interests

      ‘Welcome to McFascism: Over 300 million disenfranchised US voters since 1988’

      https://www.rt.com/op-edge/263269-us-politics-fascism-elections/

      “Corporate McFascists destroying the America Dream

      The US Capitol is presently under siege by an army of corporate lobbyists, armed to the teeth with unlimited funds to lure legislators away from their primary obligation, which is representing American citizens, not corporate interests…

    • infused 14.2
      11 October 2015 at 9:12 pm

      Not really. Just talking out your ass.

      Steam has made games so cheap its not worth pirating.
      Same with music streaming services.
      Netflix etc.

      • Gangnam Style 14.2.1
        11 October 2015 at 9:41 pm

        “Netflix etc.” & Spotify etc… are just proving that new companies with smarter distribution services are defeating the pirates not stupid self defeating laws. More copywrite restrictions are just going to increase the price for the consumer.

        Off topic, but Netflix is really cool, amazing customer support, cheap as $10 a month!@ Classic & new tv, movies & docos. No boring sport!

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 14.2.1.1
          11 October 2015 at 9:43 pm

          Oh cool they’ve got rugby and cricket then then but no soccer or golf or motor racing?

      • linda 14.2.2
        12 October 2015 at 6:13 am

        if thats the case infused why does popcorn time offer a larger selection than netflix at zero cost please explain

      • linda 14.2.3
        12 October 2015 at 6:24 am

        then they dont need drm then do they ?

  15. Observer (Tokoroa) 15
    11 October 2015 at 5:00 pm

    To: Matthew Hooton

    If as a philosophy student you are reading the works of say, Plato and Aristotle and not paying them in perpetuity (which you said above is the proper thing to do Ref: your posting here on 10th October 7.35pm ) then are you not a first class hypocrite?

    Going by your paying the author in perpetuity nonsense, you are thieving from our esteemed ancestors Matthew. You silly boy.

    The key thing is this: There is absolutely no compulsion for any author, painter or composer or designer or anyone else to put their work on the Internet.

    Just as there is no compulsion for you to look like a turkey when you are talking about nonsensical “copyright in perpetuity”.

    The next big development in our lifestyle should be the the payment of fees by Corporations to viewers and listeners who are bombarded by Advertisements. I think $USD 10.00 per second of Advert would be a good beginning. It should be paid to all viewers whether they are alive, asleep or dead. (In perpetuity of course Matthew.)

    • Chooky 15.1
      11 October 2015 at 6:12 pm

      +100…well said

    • Psycho Milt 15.2
      11 October 2015 at 9:19 pm

      His comment was specifically about the ability of authors to make a living from their work. Dead authors don’t need to make a living, for fairly obvious reasons. Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp?

  16. Observer (Tokoroa) 16
    11 October 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Thanks Chooky

    I appreciate your comments on here too.

    We are such mugs to think we have to pay big corporations too many monthly $dolls for a connection and then

    Have to pay for content on top. Crazy.

  17. Observer (Tokoroa) 17
    12 October 2015 at 8:13 am

    To: Psycho Milt

    Is good of you to try and protect your woolly mate.

    You seem to be unaware that Americans keep copyright for dead men.

    But there is absolutely no need whatever for anyone to put their writings or designs on the Internet. That’s the main point.

    No need for you to do it. Nor me. Nobody is compelled to put anything on the Internet.

    okay?