Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NZ MP Enjoys Copyright Infringement, Votes For 3 Strikes

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-law-for-the-lion-and-the-ass dept.

Media 220

An anonymous reader writes "As New Zealand politicians are looking to rush through a new copyright law, 92A, which imposes a 'three strikes' regime on people accused of file sharing, some New Zealanders were a bit amused to see Parliament Member Melissa Lee stand up to speak in favor of the bill just hours after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend. Does that count as her first strike?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825128)

yes it should.

Re:yes (3, Interesting)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825160)

Seconded. just goes to show that the government doesn't give a shit because they will never be personally persecuted for it, (or even have any idea on what copyright is).

Re:yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825278)

Does that count as her first strike?

That is a job for Anonymous! Anyone care to craft the picture containing the detail of the ripost?

Re:yes (4, Insightful)

GrpA (691294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825300)

I wonder if she even realizes her own hypocrisy? He video will most likely get slashdotted and she'll just see the numbers as support for her position.

As a long-time supporter for reduction of IP constraints, I get hurt more than most. Soon, my options to publish DRM free material may even be curtailed by such limited political attitudes and understanding.

GrpA

Re:yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825468)

Precisely. This echoes back to the previous YouTube story. I guarantee you this woman never even considered the possibility that it might be illegal. She probably thinks she's opposing mass-distribution infringement, the 'scary' type normal people haven't seen first-hand (no, most people have no idea WTF torrents are).

Re:yes (2, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825414)

As I understand it, copyright laws are only supposed to apply to the actual copying of data. Thus, if I copy a cassette tape, give it to you, and you play it, you aren't breaking the law unless you decide to copy the tape yourself.

File sharing is a bit of a different animal, legally speaking, since computers love to make copies. The content cartels have successfully argued that file sharing is illegal for both parties since uploaders are technically "copying" copyrighted data to send it over the Internet, and downloaders are "copying" that data to files on their computers.

Content corporations have even claimed that the transferring of information from a CD or hard drive into RAM is a prosecutable form of copying, in hopes of making the playing of pirated digital media a form of infringement. They've even famously tried to claim the ripping of legally purchased content to a computer or music player is infringement, but that's been rather successfully shot down. Naturally, that hasn't stopped them from trying to pull the same stunt for every new service that comes out—like Amazon's Cloud Player.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I'm not familiar with the laws in NZ but it's quite possible that Melissa Lee can't be charged with anything, if her friend simply gave her the collection on CD, and she hasn't ripped the songs to her computer or otherwise copied the data. She's throwing her friend under the bus, of course, but that's hardly new for politicians.

Not enough information. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825136)

The friend could be an amateur musician and given her a compilation of original works.

Re:Not enough information. (3, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825184)

From TFA:

Ok. Shower... Reading ... And then bed! listening to a compilation a friend did for me of K Pop. Fab. Thanks Jay.

So unless "Jay" is a Korean pop star, I'd say no.

Re:Not enough information. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825352)

Well, at least she showers. That's something already.

Re:Not enough information. (4, Funny)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826000)

Lady Macbeth washed her hands frequently. I am sure one can draw parallels.

Sensationalist Article (2)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825448)

The article only shows half the story.

Ms Lee said last night the compilation was made of songs that were legally downloaded and paid for. "I'm not a pirate. I have never downloaded anything illegally in my life." Earlier she had told the House she did not even know how file-sharing through peer-to-peer systems worked.

Source [nzherald.co.nz]

In New Zealand, format shifting is legal.

Re:Sensationalist Article (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825532)

Something still doesn't add up. Legally downloaded by who? If she legally downloaded the songs why would she have a friend make a compilation for her instead of doing it herself? I guess maybe if the music service has such a feature. I don't live in New Zealand, but I know eMusic doesn't do that, and I don't think iTunes does either. Could be something else I guess, but it still sounds like back peddling.

I do like that an elected official who has portion of the fate of her nation in her hands (albeit a small one) isn't bright enough to know how file sharing works....

Re:Sensationalist Article (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825554)

Format shifting is legal, but about the only ways the mixtape would be legal is if 'Jay' made a compilation with her existing library (hardly worth thanking someone for unless it syncs up perfectly with a movie or something), or if Jay purchased the music for Lee's listening pleasure and kept no copies.

I would think that Lee not understanding the subtle nuances of copyright law that are never enforced is more likely.

Re:Sensationalist Article (2)

Pesticidal (1148911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825620)

Earlier she had told the House she did not even know how file-sharing through peer-to-peer systems worked.

So she votes to make something illegal that she doesn't even understand? I guess that's what happens when laws are rushed through under urgency. One can only assume that this was one of the terms with Warner to keeping The Hobbit in NZ.

National Party token Asian (5, Informative)

youngone (975102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825144)

Melissa Lee is just the National Party's token Asian, and after a by election shambles has probably risen about as far in the party as she is ever going to. She is not very smart, and every time she opens her mouth in public she proves it again. She is however quite nice looking, and probably brings a bunch of Asian votes.

Re:National Party token Asian (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825180)

So in other words she's just like Sarah Palin bringing in the mouthbreather votes in the US. Too bad.

Re:National Party token Asian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825540)

I haven't heard Melissa speak, but I'm going to guess that she doesn't make your skin crawl when she talks the way Palin did. Palin made you want to run away screaming, her visage seemingly transformed by the words she uttered.

Re:National Party token Asian (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825244)

Dude, are you blind?

Re:National Party token Asian (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825426)

"She is however quite nice looking"

Say what? Is this a case of white-guy-seeing-ugly-asian-chicks-as-pretty disease?

Re:National Party token Asian (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825460)

Nice looking? You mean you got taken by that Manga style cartoon sketch she posted as background on her twitter page? She doesn't looks even remotely like that in any of the other pics she has posted.

Re:National Party token Asian (4, Funny)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825616)

For some reason I find this billboard of her amusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MtAlbert_2009_Billboards2.jpg [wikipedia.org]

Re:National Party token Asian (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825878)

Poor albert... Or lucky albert. Depends on the perspective...

Re:National Party token Asian (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825760)

Melissa Lee is just the National Party's token Asian, and after a by election shambles has probably risen about as far in the party as she is ever going to. She is not very smart, and every time she opens her mouth in public she proves it again. She is however quite nice looking, and probably brings a bunch of Asian votes.

You also just described most of the National party and a good fraction of the opposition. John Key is not stupid like most of them although most of his intelligence is devoted to corralling a bunch of idiots to prevent a dangerously stupid but useful government from falling on it's face too hard.

The depth and magnitude of the asshattery that incumbent political party manifests beggars belief. It's been a government by photo oppurtunity riding a trojan horse crisis all the way to the next election.

Re:National Party token Asian (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825994)

Um, Melisaa Lee [melissalee.co.nz] != Melissa Lee [wikipedia.org] .

It's passed (4, Interesting)

shermo (1284310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825154)

This was voted upon under urgency and passed 111 to 11. The only chance of it not becoming law is if the Governor-General blocks it, but I don't think that ever happens.

Re:It's passed (5, Funny)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825204)

The Governor-General, for those non-colonials, exercises the supreme executive power of the Commonwealth. This still involves rum rationing, beating back the filthy natives and occasionally blocking legislation that interferes with their profligate lifestyles.

In Australia, all of their functions could theoretically be fulfilled by a giant rubber stamp that hates change and is uncomfortable around dark people.

Re:It's passed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825524)

This is also true in Canada.

Re:It's passed (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825560)

In Australia, all of their functions could theoretically be fulfilled by a giant rubber stamp that hates change and is uncomfortable around dark people.

And NZ's Governor-General has sacked the country's Prime Minister how many times?

Re:It's passed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825270)

This was voted upon under urgency and passed 111 to 11. The only chance of it not becoming law is if the Governor-General blocks it, but I don't think that ever happens.

I guess you know which party to vote for (or not to vote for) in the next elections, don't you? Now all you have to do is to convince as many of your fellow country(wo)men as you can to do the same.

Re:It's passed (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825346)

111 to 11 sounds to me like ~all~ the parties had some people voting for it ;) Unless it was a vote along party lines and the 111 represents the major parties, and the 11 are independants/minor parties. Either way, voting for the 11 next time around ain't likely to change much.

Re:It's passed (1)

Pesticidal (1148911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825572)

The pirate party [pirateparty.org.nz] may have just become a lot more popular. And it's election year too!

Re:It's passed (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825642)

Seems a lot of things all around the world are getting voted for "urgently" nowadays. It's the new political trick. Don't even bother reading it, just vote for it quickly so you can pretend it never happened.

I'd like to see her prove her innocence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825158)

Owned bitch.

Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (0)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825162)

... after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend. Does that count as her first strike?"

Doubtful given the article also includes:
"Now, to be fair, in her speech, she does say she gets that sharing a DVD or a CD can be sensible."

If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (5, Insightful)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825188)

If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.

No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.

What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.

The difference here is that you don't need to be found guilty of murder, I can just accuse you of it. Three accusations and you're off to jail.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825226)

If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.

No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.

To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal, and if it were a violation it is quite different than setting up a server to share music on a large scale. An important element of a crime is intent. When intent is combined with the severity of the offense you often have the difference between an infraction (small fine), misdemeanor and felony.

What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people.

Um, no.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1, Insightful)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825260)

To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,

because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (3, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825364)

To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,

because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).

Keep reading. Somewhere after the above, and probably in small print, you will most likely find something like: except as allowed by law in your jurisdiction. Loaning a CD/DVD to a friend probably falls under fair use and is probably not considered "distribution" in a legal sense. MPAA bluffs and unenforceable terms do not make things illegal.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (2)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825456)

Loaning a disc to a friend isn't infringement unless you use a private copy while it is in their possession, since a single copy is changing hands.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825848)

But when I "loan" a song over the internet from someone I don't know I always assume they delete the original.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825730)

To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,

because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).

Keep reading. Somewhere after the above, and probably in small print, you will most likely find something like: except as allowed by law in your jurisdiction. Loaning a CD/DVD to a friend probably falls under fair use and is probably not considered "distribution" in a legal sense. MPAA bluffs and unenforceable terms do not make things illegal.

New Zealand has no 'Fair use' exceptions. She has taken home a cd, and listened to it, without any authorisation from the copyright holder. I wouldn't be surprised if a complaint is made. Not unlike the cafes in New Zealand threatened with prosecution for having their radios too loud, thereby sharing the music being played with their customers.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825390)

The US has the first sale doctrine, although I'm not sure what the situation in NZ is.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825428)

They can write whatever they like, but that doesn't make it illegal. Nor do big scary letters give the MPAA power to waive your rights.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825440)

You are wrong. (But correct in spirit)

You are free to loan a CD/DVD to a friend, but that friend requires a license to copy the data from that CD into the temporary memory space on the CD/DVD player in order to use it. If that friend did not license the CD/DVD from the copyright owner, they just violated the copyright of the copyright owner by 'playing' it. You did not violate any copyright since you only gave them a worthless piece of plastic that has the Intellectual Property inscribed into it, and that action is protected by the first sale doctrine.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825874)

Distribution does not mean handing a legally purchased copy to someone else.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825418)

To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal

But that is not what happened here. You are making an argument based on a false premise.

This was a user-generated compilation, meaning it was NOT the original CDs. And who would make up a compilation CD for another person and then just loan it to them? Nobody. There would be no expectation of returning the disc. This is quite clearly a violation of copyright.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825910)

Her friend didn't loan just any legal CD/DVD, (s)he loaned a CD/DVD with music copied explicitly for the use of somebody else.
Owning a copyrighted CD/DVD means I can make copies for my own use, not for the use by others.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (4, Informative)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825240)

Loaning a CD or DVD to a friend is not a violation of copyright. Copyright is the monopoly right to make copies which is reserved to the copyright owner. A copyright owner doesn't have any inherent entitlement to control what happens to the copies that are sold, apart from activities that would infringe on the owner's copyrights (eg public performances & unlicensed copying). Re-sales and loans do not infringe provided that no copies are made.

That's why the software industry came up with the insidious concept of "licensing" rather than selling the copies of software that they distribute. That's why EULAs are, unfortunately, enforceable in many jursidictions - because the EULA states that something that looks like an outright purchase is actually just a one-sided bullshit licence contract.

EULAs don't apply to books, CDs, or DVDs.... yet. That's one more reason why streaming services represent a corrosion of consumer rights - they replace irrevocable sales of a physical object with revocable licence agreements for services that carry a huge number of additional obligations and restrictions on the licensee.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825242)

If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.

No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.

Don;t be silly - if I lend someone a DVD, no illegal copy has been made. How is it copyright infringement? Next you'll claim that if I lend you a book or a newspaper, it's copyright infringement.

Again, copyright infringement involves violation of the limitations on the right to make a copy. No copy of the DVD made, no copyright infringement.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (2)

zephvark (1812804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825308)

...are we being intentionally obtuse or just trolling? It's true that lending someone the original copyrighted CD you purchased is not an infringement of copyright. Making someone a new CD, however, is exactly that. Copy... right, get it? The author has control over copies of his and/or her work.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826004)

Not obtuse and not a troll, just good at reading comprehension given the original comment says "loans to a friend".

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825342)

You being silly, the copy of the DVD is in your head! Now erase it before you loan it to other's!

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825480)

You have been found guilty of making a copy in your brain, please report to your local RIAA office for your court ordered lobotomy!

Not really too far off making a copy in cache.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825700)

Loaning a otherwise legal copy via CD or DVD is illegal distribution. Not that it's likely to be enforced, but strictly speaking the law is quite clear. Selling it would not be ... you've permanently given up the right to use the music (by listening) or video (by viewing) so you can make a transfer of the media and the rights that go along with the media. If you merely loan the media, you are indicating you are not giving up the rights to enjoy what it contains later, yet you allow a third party without those rights to enjoy the same.

It's no different than a doctor playing a CD to the visitors in the clinic, that is also illegal distribution. Owning the CD does't get the Doc off the hook, and yes, rights organizations like the RIAA have gone on campaigns and sued doctors for this very thing.

In the real world, these things are simply overlooked. But to say it's not a copyright violation is not correct; it is.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825846)

How does this apply to streaming though?
If i host the DVD and allow people to access it one at a time is that still legal?

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (5, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825298)

The difference here is that you don't need to be found guilty of murder, I can just accuse you of it. Three accusations and you're off to jail.

That was true of the bill that was originally tabled, and rejected. But in this hastily resurrected form, the accusations do have to be reviewed by a "Copyright Tribunal", allowing the accused to mount a defence against the presumption of guilt. And if the tribunal decides that terminating your internet access is a fitting punishment, they then have to put it before a court.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (2)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825380)

So, by challenging the assumed guilt you must abandon the lower penalty of a few months offline and substitute a huge financial penalty when it goes to court. Notice I said "when" it goes to court, because even if the "Copyright Tribunal" rules in your favour the copyright behemoths will simply appeal to the courts anyway. Not much of a protection.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (2)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825598)

So, by challenging the assumed guilt you must abandon the lower penalty of a few months offline and substitute a huge financial penalty when it goes to court.

Not at all. You seem to be confusing two different things here. A few months offline is one of the penalties that will be available to the tribunal if the government minister in charge decides to activate that part of the bill at a future date (initially, fines will be the only penalty available). If the tribunal does decide to use suspension of internet access as a penalty at some point in future (assuming the government activates that part of the bill), they will be required to take your case to court. Separately, because the Copyright Tribunal has been added to the process in this version of the bill, there is an opportunity to defend against the three accusations before a penalty (whether it be a fine or loss of internet access) is imposed.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

GWRedDragon (1340961) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825940)

But is the burden of proof still on the accused in the "tribunal"? If so it still doesn't matter; almost nobody will be able to successfully defend themselves there without going to real court, which will cost them a ton.

Presumption of innocence is one of the most important protections of the accused, and it doesn't really help to say "But you can appeal under a different standard!".

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825618)

What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.

A closer analogy would be that murdering one person is same as murdering thousands. A single murder, while still bad, is acceptable in the grand scheme of things. But thousands of people murdering thousands of people wouldn't be tolerated in any decent society.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (2)

DeusExInfernus (2041722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825772)

But thousands of people murdering thousands of people wouldn't be tolerated in any decent society.

Soooo, never heard of a little thing called war, now have we?

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826040)

Who the FUCK modded this Insightful?

If I buy a CD, and I loan this CD to someone else, that's copyright infringement?

I don't think so.

Get a clue, mods.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825374)

The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape. If P2P is effected by this law, then the actions are on roughly the same scale since mathematically, the average of p2p would be 1 copy uploaded and 1 copy downloaded. Given that it's a compilation, it's probably infringing multiple rightsholders, and if the law is written just right, it might mean that it's enough to strike her and her friend out already.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825430)

The act mentioned in her twitter presumably isn't loaning a CD, but rather sharing some form of a copied mixtape.

Consider another scenario. Someone buys the songs from Apple iTunes and their license allows them to burn a CD to create a custom mix. This burned mix CD would be legal. As I said originally, its not certain there is a copyright violation in this case. Maybe there was but more info seems necessary.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825496)

You can make a personal mixtape of a CD, but loaning that CD to others is not legal unless you delete all of your original files. A better out would be if it was a mixtape of CC licensed K-Pop.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (2)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825508)

So did "jay" delete his mp3s when he lent her the CD?

Otherwise I'm seeing two copies, in two hands. Not one dude with a backup.
If he made 50 backups and lent them to his friends - is that allowed?

Not that I agree with the state of copyright or anything, but lending one 'backup' or format shift is just as wrong as lending the same to many people, no? Copies were created. There are multiple people in possession of copies concurrently, with only one licence paid.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825602)

So did "jay" delete his mp3s when he lent her the CD? Otherwise I'm seeing two copies, in two hands. Not one dude with a backup. If he made 50 backups and lent them to his friends - is that allowed? Not that I agree with the state of copyright or anything, but lending one 'backup' or format shift is just as wrong as lending the same to many people, no? Copies were created. There are multiple people in possession of copies concurrently, with only one licence paid.

I don't think it is that cut and dry.

http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php [eff.org]
3. How Do You Know If It's Fair Use?
There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. The factors to be considered include:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.
b. The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.
c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work.
d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.

One mix for your own use that you lend seems farther from commercial type activity than 50 backups lent out. Is lending to discover a new artists an educational act?
Loan and return seems to suggest its not a substitute for a legit CD.

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825646)

Fair use is a US thing. Most other countries have 'fair dealing'

Re:Um, she says borrowing a CD/DVD is ok ... (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825888)

It is legal to own. That ownership is not transferrable. It is not legal to sell, rent, loan or broadcast unless the local law explicitly grants some rights along those lines (only Germany IIRC).

Read the EULA.

Right (5, Interesting)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825174)

New Zealand simply needs a national day of action, where three people place copyright infringement claims against every member of parliament who voted for the three strikes laws. Just to see what happens.

In fact it's probably worth putting in three infringement claims against everyone just to see how long it takes to shut NZ's internet down.

Re:Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825232)

you don't need to claim on everybody, cant you just claim on every ISP that owns a real connection (no need to claim on those that just resell)

or are cant you make a claim on a company?

Re:Right (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825484)

Cronyism will likely ensure that they will be practically immune from punishment.

Re:Right (0)

DeusExInfernus (2041722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825800)

The Deus needs to mod this up, because it is awesome. The Deus is a noob and knows not how to perform this magnificent act. The Deus is sad.

Re:Right (-1, Troll)

19061969 (939279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825902)

Dude, go and get laid. You need it.

Re:Right (-1, Offtopic)

DeusExInfernus (2041722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825914)

Dude, grow up. We need it. Either that or go blow your brains out, and do humanity a favour.

Ah who cares... (2)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825198)

Indeed, big media has gotten new media wrong for decades, if not centuries. However, for the first time in history we have the technology to support new media WITHOUT big media. It doesn't take a giant publisher to create a best selling book anymore and put it on e-readers, apps, itunes, or other distribution systems. Nor does it take big developers to distribute boxes of games or other products.

What we will eventually see is the decline (but not abolishment) of big media in favor of independent distributors. The point is that they can do anything they want for copyright laws but the internet and its users are much too savvy and agile . They can't stop the momentum and they'll keep throwing money at the problem thinking it will stop the hemorrhagic. How often do we see on /. articles about how piracy is the result of poor products not poor regulations. Ah who cares...

Re:Ah who cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825332)

Agreed. Big Media has gone from a helpful body for content to the main cause of restriction - limiting content rather than enabling it.

Not to plug, but I blogged about this yesterday: http://zombieomg.blogspot.com/2011/04/sharing-through-recent-ages.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Ah who cares... (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825516)

It seems to me that "independent distributors" will end up having all the same problems with piracy that big companies do. The only thing that will give is the amount of money going into creating them in the first place. If 90% of the public pirates, then the investment put into creating books, music, software, etc will also be forced to decline, which generally means poorer quality and more bugs. I see things unraveling and the public being unhappy with the result. I hope you like fan fiction and YouTube videos.

Re:Ah who cares... (3, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825556)

If 90% of the public pirates, then the investment put into creating books, music, software, etc will also be forced to decline, which generally means poorer quality and more bugs.

Why do you think that? The people doing the actual work at not generally receiving even 10% of the proceeds that their effort generates so why do you think cutting out the middle men will result in lesser quality goods even IF there was a 90% piracy rate?

Re:Ah who cares... (1)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825628)

I don't think they will have the same problem because they will have the freedom to experiment with their own products. For example, we've seen a shift toward 99 cent books and apps, away from the traditional models of valuing products by X (e.g. author, topic, length, etc). With more variation the best models will prevail, and by best I mean most successful and profitable. Clearly the models employed now are not working because people are turning to piracy.

Re:Ah who cares... (1)

DeusExInfernus (2041722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825836)

If 90% of buyers pirate, it's better for the little guy.

90% * (~2%) * (~50 [monies]) versus 90% * 100% * (~5-10 [monies])

Trust in the math.

It's the same thing as patenting 'on the Internet' (5, Insightful)

imidan (559239) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825218)

I think it's the same kind of problem that prevents most people from getting up in arms about DRM. They just don't make the connection between the physical world and the digital world. For most of us on Slashdot, we see music (or text, or video, or whatever) as just another data stream. We see data as being the same stuff regardless of the delivery medium. Other people see a fundamental difference between, say, an MP3 file and a CD.

When they have a CD, they have a solid thing in front of them that they can point at and say, 'there's my music'. With music on a computer that they got over the Internet, it's a lot harder to point at a thing. It's scary, because it's one thing to talk about copying a CD and ending up with a big pile of pirated CDs, and it's quite another to talk about copying an MP3, and suddenly there's potentially an infinite number of pirate copies with no obvious physical consequences. There are physical and monetary barriers to making a bazillion copies of a CD, but no boundaries at all to copying an MP3.

Of course, to us, it doesn't make any difference. We know that the data are the same regardless of media. And it's obvious to us that people like Lee should realize that getting a pirate compilation from her friend is the same thing that a lot of us do on the Internet with music files. But it's absolutely not obvious to her (at least, I assume, from the obvious dissonance between her actions and her words).

I'm not even trying to take a position pro- or anti- in this case; I'm more interested in Lee having a consistent opinion of music sharing than in what that opinion actually is.

Re:It's the same thing as patenting 'on the Intern (2)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825570)

And it's obvious to us that people like Lee should realize that getting a pirate compilation from her friend is the same thing that a lot of us do on the Internet with music files. But it's absolutely not obvious to her (at least, I assume, from the obvious dissonance between her actions and her words).

That's basically true. Although, things are a whole lot better for businesses if people are getting limited compilations of music, rather than going out and just pirating it off the internet. Why do I say that? It's because the transaction is very limited when someone gives you music - you're not getting the music you're after, you're getting maybe one or two songs from a musician (which potentially gives you an incentive to buy more), you're getting introduced to new music you didn't pick for yourself (which might cause you to go buy more), and the exchange is limited between a few friends which requires some time. (Copying each other's hard-drives full of music is a different issue, of course.) When you go and get it off the internet, then none of that applies because the minute you want more of that artist, you can just go and pirate the rest of their stuff. That's why I don't really look at music compilations passed between friends or handed out at weddings as being in the same league as full-scale piracy. I know people who, because of their access to piracy, think that paying for anything digital is a ridiculous waste of money. The scale of the piracy matters, just as taking a pen from someone's desk and not returning it isn't a huge deal, but we'd all agree that going to the supply closet and cleaning out entire boxes of pens is a different issue -- even though the only difference is the scale of the theft.

Re:It's the same thing as patenting 'on the Intern (1)

imidan (559239) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825670)

I absolutely agree with you. I'd expect that the RIAA does not. It's clear to me that some limited amount of music sharing is good for sales; introducing people to new music is likely to make people want more of it (if they like it). Hey, that's what the radio is for, right? But the industry has got this crazy black and white view of copyright violation. I mean, they were complaining about people ripping CDs to put them on their iPods, like they were losing sales from that activity. They're getting ready to make a big stink about this cloud service that Amazon is pitching.

I'm not one who believes that we should all just give up on charging for information. But I think we need to form a basic understanding that the rules have changed, and that we need to adapt our IP laws not just to accommodate the present, but to be flexible for the future. The industry is trying so hard to drag us back to the past, where physical media was the way to control distribution, but that time has passed. I don't know why media companies don't even seem to try to see what's going on around them.

P.S. - I used to work at a particular office job. I would go to work, and I would have a pen that I got from the supply cupboard. Sometimes, I would forget to take the pen out of my pocket before I went home. Maybe, on the way home, I would stop and buy groceries, and I would write a check using that pen. She maintained that that was stealing. My opinion was that the ink that I used to do that was more than made up for by the work email that I would respond to when I got home. We were never able to see eye-to-eye on that topic.

Baseball is a fine basis for criminal law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825230)

I have no illusion that laws are anything other than arbitrary momentum of rulers and nothing shows that quite like laws that use baseball batting rules to decide how long a person will be kept in a cage or how much property will be taken from him. Never mind rational and calculated determination of these rules, backed by social theory and universally applicable and logically consistent ethical definitions... just find a nice number the plebs can relate to and feel good about quoting when condemning someone for producing something related to an idea that someone else wrote down in a government record book.

Not quite one strike (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825234)

Wouldn't the NZ equiv of the RIAA count it as at least one strike per track?

Re:Not quite one strike (1)

TavisJohn (961472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825358)

No, that would be 1 strike per byte of data shared.

Re:Not quite one strike (1)

aiht (1017790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825674)

No, that would be 1 stryke per byte of data shared.

1 strike per bit. According to the definition I just made up, 1 stryke is equal to 8 strikes.

But See... (5, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825348)

This is exactly the sort of thing we need to put a stop to! People enjoying music! If you're playing music in your car, driving down the street and someone else hears it, that's a public performance, and that's copyright infringement! If you make a song your ring tone and you didn't pay for it in ring tone format, that's a copyright infringement! If you hum a tune, that's copyright infringement! If you think about the jingle of that sub shop while you're buying a sub there, that's copyright infringement! Every single even remotely music-related thing you do on a daily basis should either generate revenue for the music industry or be considered copyright infringement! Now we've paid for the very best politicians money can buy to make this happen, so you people should mind your own business and go back to fucking sheep. And by the way, that tune that's playing when your're fucking sheep? Copyright infringement.

Re:But See... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825396)

at first i misread that as "go back to fucking sleep" and was all "don't mind if i do!" but then upon closer inspection realised what you were proposing was actually a whole different thing entirely

Re:But See... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825404)

Actually, we've moved on from sheep.
We're fucking cows these days.
Enjoy your milk.

Re:But See... (3, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825852)

This is exactly the sort of thing we need to put a stop to! People enjoying music!

The big music labels already do that quite well enough on their own

Laughably inept, Supported by morons (1)

Gnu Zealand (1139875) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825392)

That's not the silliest parliamentary crap:

Here's a YouTube [youtube.com] mashup of the speech given in parliament by one of the committee members who considered this amendment to the bill, saying that file-sharing is illegal.

Any file-sharing, as she reads it. The mashup is of National list MP Katrina Shanks ("I think I'm fairly savvy about computers...my son's got an iPad") and Miss North Carolina ("I think American education should help the eye-rack and the Asian countries").

Laughable.

Hat Tip: Public Address: Russell Brown's Hard News [publicaddress.net]

I put those two bits of information together and.. (2)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825506)

When I put

Parliament Member Melissa Lee stand up to speak in favor of the bill

with

hours after tweeting how she was enjoying a compilation of music put together for her by a friend

I get "Just doing what she is told to do without knowing or even asking why."

I.e., a good little corporate soldier.

Re:I put those two bits of information together an (1)

DeusExInfernus (2041722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825858)

You were not surprised, I hope...

Strikes for her and her friend. (2)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825604)

If the compilation of songs has three or more songs on it. It is ALL THREE STRIKES..
For her and her friend...

Changes (3, Interesting)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825626)

Instead of war on poverty
They have a war on copyright so police can bother me.
And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do
Cos if the prices were fair I'd be giving it back to you.

You gotta operate the easy way,
(RIAA) - "I made a G today",
But you made it in a sleazy way -
Selling tracks to the kids, "I gotta get paid"
Well hey - It's just the way it...

-----
Increase the peace.

Re:Changes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825906)

I swear, dude, you deserve to go to hell for what you just wrote.

Caught red handed: Bittorrent reveals all. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825802)

I regularily see peers parliament IP address leeching my torrents, along with a number of other government departments. Running a blog that logs IP addresses and has had parliamentary staff post comments, I know what offices some of these IP addresses are most likely to correspond with. Implying the MPs and or staff are or have been torrenting... at work. Oh yeah, bittorrent offers exactly zero anonymity, someone should tell them. I am slightly tempted to be forwarding the logs to the relevant copyright holders.

No special software required, your average torrent client shows you the IP addresses of peers. Encourage others to do the same!

Double standards for everyone (except the pirates) (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825960)

I've noticed this logical disconnect many times before. I was talking to someone about file sharing. She was of the opinion that the artist was entitled to money for copies so file sharing should be prevented. Which is fair enough.

A couple of weeks later the same person asked me to make copies of a couple of DVDs she'd borrowed. I tried pointing out the logical disconnect here but she didn't get it and seemed to think I had a moral issues with making a copy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?