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!

US Offered To Draft NZ 3-Strikes Law, Fund Copyright Initiative

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the we-were-just-in-the-neighborhood dept.

Government 204

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has just posted hundreds of cables from US personnel in New Zealand that reveal regular government lobbying on copyright, offers to draft New Zealand three-strikes-and-you're-out legislation, and a recommendation to spend over NZ$500,000 to fund a recording industry-backed IP enforcement initiative. The funding raises the question of whether New Zealand is aware that local enforcement initiatives, including raids and court cases, have been funded by the US government."

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

See ? (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990266)

I told before that, if you allow private interests take helm in one country, they spread their filth EVERYwhere. see there's the proof.

Re:See ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990302)

I told before that, if you allow private interests take helm in one country, they spread their filth EVERYwhere. see there's the proof.

No you didn't! If you HAD told me then I might have been able to do something about it but you didn't and I haven't.

Re:See ? (5, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990332)

The US Government is the best government (RIAA-)money can buy. Nothing new here...

Re:See ? (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990904)

The US Government is the best government (RIAA-)money can buy. Nothing new here...

Never forget that there are many tech/financial/multi-national companies that could buy the American record & movie industries outright with their spare cash.

Never stop asking "why can such a relatively small industry punch so far above its weight?"

Re:See ? (4, Interesting)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990972)

You can't really measure the size of the movie industry by just looking at the size of the big Hollywood studios. First of all, they hide all their profits, so who knows how much money they REALLY make. Secondly, even if you bought a studio, you wouldn't get the people who actually MAKE the movies, ie actors and directors. Finally, their industry pulls so much weight because of the influence they have over the minds of people all over the world. If the government pisses off Apple, nothing of consequence is lost. However, if a politician pisses off a major studio, the studio could start producing movies/tv shows which bash the hell out of said politician, and millions of people would see it. It's just like bashing a newspaper, except that the studios can call it fiction and avoid defamation suits.

The studios wield power because they control what the general population sees, and to a large extent, thinks. They also have done a fantastic job of Americanizing the world.

Re:See ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35992058)

First of all, they hide all their profits, so who knows how much money they REALLY make.

They hide their profits from the actors by shuffling money among their subsidiaries. They can't hide the parent company profits from the SEC, their auditors, or (if they are public companies) the public.

Re:See ? (5, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991744)

Most people seem to miss the reason why this will NEVER be allowed and nipped in the bud.

Entertainment is the best, most functional propaganda arm of both capitalist system, and "american way". Abroad it has successfully advertised US system as working and US itself as a desirable. At the same time at home keeps US population itself pacified when its right are being trampled.

Do not underestimate the power of projected crowd control that entertainment industry is generating. For that reason alone, both government and current powerful interests will make sure key companies in entertainment industry will always remain in hands of those who will use them for their interests.

Re:See ? (0)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992382)

The US system has advertised ITSELF, not just as "working" and "desirable", but as better than whatever shitty system you have in whatever country you happen to be typing that screed from. The rest of your comment is just too stupid and irrational to merit a response. Have a great day.

Re:See ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990912)

You stupid misguided moron!

Re:See ? (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991538)

What kind of government isn't run by private interests? Have you somehow constructed an AI to control us all?

Oh, wait, you meant "corporations" as private interests, right? Because you don't understand that corporations, like governments, are run by powerful people. You have this weird delusion that you can take the corruption out of the exercise of power simply by... I don't know what. You never explain that part. Care to fill it in?

Re:See ? (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991644)

Starr by replacing corruption prône humants at the helm by an AI sourds l'île an interesting proposition

Re:See ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992064)

socialist governments, are not by private interests, if you say it in 'americanese'. for the rest of the world that actually knows what terms are, and uses them properly, SOCIAL DEMOCRAT governments, are not run by private interests.

this is the reason why private interests, be it corporations or powerful people owning them or other things, are so hostile to social democrat parties and try to provoke hate and instill fear in people against them.

Re:See ? (-1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992392)

SOCIAL DEMOCRAT governments, are not run by private interests.

And here, boys & girls, is an example of someone who fails to understand that the *same people* would be "running" the government, whether it be a democratic republic or "social democrat".

It's just that the citizens of the "social democrat" government have even less influence upon, or even knowledge of, those who are running their lives than the citizens of the democratic republic. Meanwhile, the structure of a social democrat government gives the powerful people even more power, control, and anonymity while making it even harder to change the government.

Strat

Re:See ? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991648)

I wouldn't exactly call it proof. The actions are perfectly consistent with a country whose economy is significantly supported by exporting intellectual property. If that were the case, then this move would be in the best interests of the US population.

Re:See ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992070)

oh yes - you just rationalized and justified it - a government interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people, in another country, because private interests ask it.

Re:See ? (0)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992334)

oh yes - you just rationalized and justified it - a government interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people, in another country

How is one government offering to help another government "interfering with DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and the right of self determination of people"? It's an offer that the US government is making to the NZ government, which has the choice to accept or reject it. If the US offered financial aid to disaster-affected areas, would this counstrued similarly? Of course not. What makes them different? Of course, you would say:

because private interests ask it.

But, in my scenario, the government is not acting at the behest of private interests; it's working for the good of the public. Again, I claim that this scenario is consistent with what we've seen. Since, there is an alternative scenario which fits observations, you cannot possibly have proved, using these observations alone, that this scenario could not be true, and that your scenario is necessarily true.

3 strikes you're out? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990280)

How about 3 strikes until a new wireless mesh network spawns?

Re:3 strikes you're out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991290)

Co-operative fibre lines hold more appeal for me. I doubt wireless is up to the task.

Re:3 strikes you're out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991664)

Wireless mesh network? Yes please! Any pointers where to look?

Re:3 strikes you're out? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991672)

I'm sure if you periodically transmit the message "No law enforcement", nobody will police it.

Jesus (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990282)

If I'd heard anyone claim that the US is literally (offering to) writing other countries' IP laws, I'd tell them to remove their tinfoil hats. If these leaked memos are accurate, I guess I was being very naive thinking that.

Re:Jesus (2)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990342)

The intense government lobbying for tougher copyright laws is not new, just the specific revelations ("We'll even write your laws for you!")

Re:Jesus (1, Redundant)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990352)

And enforce them for you.

Re: Enforce them for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990626)

That is better known as an invasion.

Re: Enforce them for you (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990686)

You spelled 'liberation' wrong. :P

Re:Jesus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990522)

This is true for so much of the leaks. There's just a lot of people who will claim you have no evidence and dismiss you and everything you stand for as delusional. Now there's evidence and it's not so easily deniable. At least people in other countries get to see where US interference (by which I mean non-public exercises of power) in their policy and governance occurs so they can resist it.

Re:Jesus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990644)

Not just that, but people in the US get to see some of the stupid things our government spends our money on. In this case, not just stupid - but anti-people stuff. We already have ridiculous copyright laws in the US. We need to fix those laws / terms - not export them to other places. I'm not sure what the industry has sold the folks in government on - probably a combination of bribes and "if people steal our stuff, the economy will crash". With so many people apathetic about this, I don't know how we can stop it.

Re:Jesus (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990720)

If I'd heard anyone claim that the US is literally (offering to) writing other countries' IP laws, I'd tell them to remove their tinfoil hats.

It isn't "the US" per se, it's US government being used to enforce the mafiAA's agenda. This sort of corruption is rampant and it's every US taxpayer's burden. We desperately need to take back our government from the large, corporate interests which are systematically bleeding all the wealth from this country.

If these leaked memos are accurate, I guess I was being very naive thinking that.

Indeed.

Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990292)

NZ will wuss out on ANZUS and won't do much to change the situation but let's bullshit like this occur.

Come on. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990344)

If we're going to be imperialists, let's go all the way and at least get some land out of it so we can all benefit; not just the corporations!

Re:Come on. (4, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990482)

What makes you think america gets to be imperialists? You are just another land the corporations own.

Re:Come on. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990768)

It has never been the point of imperialism/colonialism for everyone to benefit from it.
In fact even land grabs have never been the point of it, that's just a means to an end: control over the economy.

I'm outraged! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990358)

I'm outraged!

The US government is not doing things they should be again. Last time I checked, the government is supposed to represent "the people" of the USA.

I can assure you, we, citizens of the USA, do not want to meddle into NZ lawmaking. Our government shouldn't be doing this. I'll write my senators.

Re:I'm outraged! (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990372)

Yes, but corporations are people, too. And, therefore, are also the people.

Re:I'm outraged! (3, Informative)

f16c (13581) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990466)

Corporations are NOT people.Corporations may be made up of people acting in concert but are a legal construct and should be treated that way with legal rights limitations. Corporate bullshit seems may be running the country only because the nobody pays attention to this stuff which is broadcast here but mostly ignored by TV (corporate sponsored) news outlets. Our ignorance is gonna kill us.

Re:I'm outraged! (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990624)

Corporations ARE people. They are deemed artificial persons with all the Constitutional protections and rights of 'real' people (and the added benefits of a corporation, to boot). The SCOTUS has upheld this in their previous decisions. Therefore, if a corporation is a person and you are a person, and this is a country of "we the people", then representing the interests of a Fortune 100 that happens to line the coffers of political campaigns and legislative actions becomes just as viable and just as much a duty of office as the interest of you and me.Well, more-so, I suppose -- since I'm certainly not donating any finances to their campaigns.

You and I may not agree with the concept of Corporate Personhood, but that doesn't change the reality of it.

Re:I'm outraged! (5, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990762)

Corporations ARE people. They are deemed artificial persons with all the Constitutional protections and rights of 'real' people (and the added benefits of a corporation, to boot). The SCOTUS has upheld this in their previous decisions.

Words on paper do not have the power to redefine reality. Corporations are *not* people. SCOTUS is corrupt and their rulings mean nothing IRL. The fact that so many people tolerate this kind of silly word juggling doesn't help, either.
***glare***

Mod to 6, if it were possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991778)

Parent should be modded to 6 if it were possible. We're way past "the emperor has no clothes" in this country. The only question now is, "so waddya gonna do about it?".

Protections and rights from WHAT BASIS? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990916)

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the government has the power to deem that corporations should have these protections and rights?

Re:I'm outraged! (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991318)

Corporations ARE people. They are deemed artificial persons with all the Constitutional protections and rights of 'real' people ... The SCOTUS has upheld this in their previous decisions.

Too bad corporations aren't burdened with any of the personal/social responsibilities of people. Sure, they can't literally vote, but their money serves as a good proxy. They can't easily be jailed or otherwise punished - in a manner that would directly affect those actually running the corporation. They aren't subject to the same tax rules, or in many cases, laws, as people. SCOTUS is wrong; corporations are not people. But, perhaps, that's just my thinking.

however they lack privacy rights (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991374)

corporations do not have a right to privacy like people do, so at least they arent 'totally people'

Re:however they lack privacy rights (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991442)

And lawyers don't have extended canine teeth for piercing the jugular, so at least they aren't "totally vampires".

Re:Some research is in order? (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992284)

According to sources I've read, the notion of corporate "personhood" only became viable when a court reporter took a judge's comment made during a case (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company), and elevated it to the status of a ruling by including it within the case's headnotes. No such ruling per se, ever took place. This "ruling" was clearly the result of a coincidental set of events that, under ordinary circumstances, may well have never happened.

What did you expect? (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990382)

The industry mafia will stop at absolutely nothing in its march to take over the Internet and have all of the world's laws turned in their favor. Given that this will lead to unprecedented tyranny over all of us, and that there is absolutely no legal recourse because laws have already been bought and paid for by them, it is absolutely clear that any person working for them and any office or agency tied to them is a legitimate military target. Lay down your useless keyboards and take arms NOW.

This is the second way America tries to invade (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990394)

The first way of course being sending in military and bombing the place.
The second way is of course this, spreading their greedy imperialism to all countries - or as the Borg would say ASSIMILATE

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990508)

It's amazing, really. Not only did they insist that the NZ government keep ACTA a secret [keionline.org] from its people (all attendee's people, actually)

But they stepped in to assist in re-drafting the bill [wikileaks.ch] to make it more palatable & passable, for NZ legislators

and instructed the government to implement a new security force [wikileaks.ch] to enforce it, even offering to assist in its initial funding. All that's missing is an offer to have American troops enforce the law for them.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991124)

New Zealanders should hold a day of rage and instigate a take down of all foreign originated copyright laws and the treacherous politicians who cooperated with foreign governments against New Zealanders' freedoms. New Zealanders must instigate laws preventing minority interest politicians from ever undertaking this kind of treachery again.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991182)

Or, y'know, just vote them out of office and repeal the law.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991504)

A Day of Rage is for use after efforts at political reform via conventional means have failed. Right now, copyright is an issue on which the vast majority just don't care.

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991190)

But from the US end its win win win :)
NZ is made safe as a consumer of US export quality media, the US gov can offer 'aid' to NZ. US security contractors know how to thank the US political system as NZ requests flow.
Nothing really new in a classic US trade deal. Whats in it for NZ legislators :)

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991606)

In any case, the only people this "wrongs" are those who want the right to plunder the creative output of the entertainment makers.

You'll have to forgive me for saying "whoopdee shit."

Re:This is the second way America tries to invade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991736)

Yes, because entertainment is always created "ex nihil". Everybody knows that.

Glad I am not a kiwi... (4, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990396)

Glad I am not a kiwi...
Oh wait, this kind of crap is probably going on here in Australia just as much as it is across the pond.

The real trick is to vote for people who DON'T support the ever increasing power of big content companies. And unlike the USA, here in Australia such people actually stand a chance of getting elected (and in fact a number of such people are currently in parliament, including the Australian Greens)

No idea whether such parties or politicians exist in New Zealand but if they do, vote for someone that isn't going to bow down before SONY or Warner or News Corp or Disney.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi... (2)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990436)

In NZ we currently have 7 parties in parliment. Unfortunately the party in power is the pro-business National Party and their supply party (to make a majority) ACT which is Big Businesses wet-dream party. They would sell their own grandmother.

Roll on the November election.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990568)

All this coming election will see is us ruled by a National-ACT alliance. Funny how we're ruled by them, not led. It was the same under Labour-Greens, as well.

But anyway, just watch. We'll get ourselves a New Zealand fire sale. "Everything must go!" They'll sell everything that's not nailed down. Medical insurance, health services, they've already started on prisons and they're pushing for education. Kiwibank's next.

Too bad if you've just bought a house like I have. If I hadn't, I'd be fucking off to another country and taking my student loan with me.

I hate these rich money grubbing pricks. They're doing everything to scupper the country, so their foreign investments pay better for them, and with the US dollar sinking like a stone, I can see our economy tanking.

Back in 1987, I remember seeing the government of the day pushing the idea that tertiary students were bludgers, wanting a free education so they could be highly paid and not have to pay for it. I expected that I'd see it again - and I was right. Look at them now, blaming a mixture of the recession and the Christchurch earthquake recovery on student loans. "Oh, if only those greedy ungrateful students would pay off their student loans, the recovery in Christchurch would cost NOTHING." Yeah, because that money wouldn't have been blown on limosines or houses for the fat cunts in power, or perhaps to pay for their tax cuts. Remember those? Yeah, the ones that cause us to borrow millions a week to pay for them, but it's our fault for not saving. Right, I can fucking save on my minimum wage, that went up less than the dole. My science degree's really helping me out there.

The one I always liked was Key's rhetoric on how we're all in this recession together, and how we have to weather it as a country. I'm sure he fucking noticed it, with his $55 million in the bank and his $400k/year salary. You realise why he donates that to charity? So he can write it off in taxes, and get the good publicity from it. Yeah, he definitely noticed it, in the amount of food he can buy, or how much he can run the heater at night, or even whether he can drive to work. Wait, you mean he gets a government funded limo? He doesn't even have to pay for parking? Fuck. I have to pay for parking and fuel, and it costs me a higher percent of my wage than it would cost that prick.

The one thing that impresses about National is how good their spin team is.

But the real question is, what way is the best way to vote? Labour are a fucking mess, led by a gormless twit. If the Greens get sole power, which they won't, we'll be rendered a third world agrarian economy overnight. If National stay in, we'll be a third world state, with low, low wages. The only way it could be worse is if ACT get in, and all they'll do is implement the same fire sale policies that National have planned. Brash and Key are best chums, you know. I wonder what they held over Hide to get him to drop leadership. Information that might be released to the public?

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi... (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990514)

It's going on in Canada as well.

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990748)

>And unlike the USA, here in Australia such people actually stand a chance of getting elected

So does this mean Australia will be sending troops to liberate nations such as the US and spreading democracy and freedom around the world?

Re:Glad I am not a kiwi... (1)

rjames13 (1178191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990878)

So does this mean Australia will be sending troops to liberate nations such as the US and spreading democracy and freedom around the world?

Why would we bother?

I'm from New Zealand (5, Informative)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990398)

We recently had a 3-strikes law rushed through parliment by the current government (which is a gross mis-use of power).

I'd like to share this video which demonstrates the level of understanding our MP's have

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJdPkrpFXBM [youtube.com]

Re:I'm from New Zealand (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990926)

New Zealand didn't make that Freedom on the Net report. Neither did France, another forerunner in 3-strikes.

Re:I'm from New Zealand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991274)

There have been signs in France that the government might reconsider the 3 strikes law in favor of a tax...

That means no more witch hunting BUT it means everyone has to pay the entertainment industry with that tax...

Re:I'm from New Zealand (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991704)

But it won't be *just* a tax. Many countries already have a similar tax on blank media (First it was tapes, now it's portable music players and blank CDs). That includes the US, Canada, and several European countries. But does that mean they'll let you download? No. The plan will be to make sure you pay the 'assumed piracy' tax, and then set the enforcer-bots, DMCA notices and ISP complaints on you anyway.

Re:I'm from New Zealand (2)

daktari (1983452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991034)

That video is rather annoying to watch. What does Miss South Carolina have to do with this? It also doesn't seem fair to take snippets of speeches and mix 'em up like that. Why not link to the original speeches? They're much scarier!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfGYfg37aUA [youtube.com]

Democracy (5, Interesting)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990448)

This might be interpreted as a serious attempt to undermine New Zealand's democratic processes by a foreign power. While I think people should be expected to pay for what they use, my feelings are that it is a broken business model that encourages most people to download and that this incessant criminisation of mostly young internet users can only lead to alienation and profound long-term problems. The creative minds that produce the output should be perhaps given more room to develop novel ways to distribute output rather than leaving everything to a bunch of accountants and lawyers who are just nasty.

Re:Democracy (3, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990656)

While I think people should be expected to pay for what they use

I don't. I don't expect you to pay for the most important thing in your life -- air. I don't expect you to pay for the rain that waters your grass (although I expect people who dirty them to pay for cleanup). I don't expect you to pay for sunshine. I don't expect you to pay for Linux or BSD. I don't expect you to pay for the free music from the radio, nor do I think you're obligated to listen to the commercials. And you have the (still legal in most places) right to be able to record that radio. I don't expect you to pay for over the air TV (yes, I know Brits pay). I don't expect you to pay to read a library book, or a newspaper McDonald's sets out for customers to read.

I have dozens of books that I'd would never have bought had I not previously read the author's other books for free at the library.

I don't expect you to pay for 90% of the music that's recorded; indies who WANT you to share their music. The indies have the correct business model -- give the music away and sell CDs, tickets, T-shirts, etc.

A book publisher recently discovered that piracy sells books! It takes a few weeks for a newly published book to hit the internet, so he commissioned a study to find out how much the piracy was hurting sales. He was amazed when the results came back -- rather than the expected drop in sales, there was a sales spike.

Who was it that said "letting you light your candle from my flame costs me nothing and doubles the light"?

IMO file sharing should be legal; it should be illegal for me to sell you a pirate copy, but not to give you one.

Our money-obsessed, money-worshiping society is sick.

Re:Democracy (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990702)

Actually, in some places, you *are* expected to pay for that rain. It's not even that uncommon for states to sell exclusive rainwater collection rights to a water company, granting them and them alone the right to rainfall within a specified catchment area. If you live in one, then it is indeed an offense for you to collect your own rain and water your garden with it. You're expected to pay for it from the tap, like a good consumer should.

Re:Democracy (3)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990876)

What, seriously? Good god...I presume this is somewhere in America right? No other sane country would ever do anything like that, I hope...

Re:Democracy (2)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991002)

That's rather harsh. Besides, if I were to guess, I would say it would be somewhere with high population density and difficult access to fresh water, where rain collection is/was a big source of potable water. Like, say, Venice.

Re:Democracy (4, Informative)

SteveTheNewbie (1171139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991086)

Bolivia is one such incident [wikipedia.org] . It was put in place by the world bank who demanded as part of a loan to get them back on their feet they privatise the water system and used to charge people up to 1/4 of their income on water. It was illegal to collect rainwater.

Not the first time the world bank has royally screwed up a country [wikipedia.org] . Just ask Jamaica [assatashakur.org] how that's working out for them..

Sorry for the wikipedia links, I'm sure people can find other examples, consider these starters.

Re:Democracy (4, Informative)

baKanale (830108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991222)

The state of Colorado [wikipedia.org] (along with some other western states) forbids collection of rainwater without a permit. While this seems insane to those of us from areas with frequent rain, this is largely due to the general scarcity of water in these areas and the system of allocating water rights [wikipedia.org] due to this fact. Water is such a contentious issue that the state of Wyoming took Colorado to the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org] over Colorado's plans to divert the Laramie River, which they claimed was a violation of their water rights, and Arizona and California [wikipedia.org] have gone to court nine times over the last 80-odd years to determine Arizona's cut of the water from the Colorado River.

Re:Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991238)

No, actually. As batshit insane as our corporations are, it would be political suicide to do that to American farmers.

Re:Democracy (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991940)

Actually a San Francisco company owns the water rights to a parched town in Bolivia. Including rain water collection rights. This is no joke. The people had to fight their own police force to change the situation (which they eventually did). The US does good things (the government is a very generous aid donor), but also very bad things (the corporations) overseas. It talks about "Free Trade" when it wants to, but then uses all sorts of subsidies for its own farmers. Disclaimer - I'm from New Zealand - I like the US but it is promoting a pretty borked system.

Re:Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991208)

Paying for rain? thats sick... Can't someone open their eyes and see this consumerism/capitalism stuff has gone too far?

The witchhunts against file sharing (free filesharing, not for profit) has gone way too far too, some people actually have died over it in prison... (read the article on torrentfreak article about police arresting people as a favor to big wigs in the industry)

The entertainment industry (i used to work in it) has lost ANY and ALL sympathy I had for it, I used to buy alot of CDs and movies, as well as produce some of my own, but their greediness and backstabbing tricks know no limits and trust me when I say, they can rot for all I care and I am glad I am out of that bag of crabs.

I understand not liking people who profit from piracy, but people who do it for free just for the hell of it, what is the big deal really ?

Re:Democracy (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991722)

This seems to be a pattern in the piracy community. They come for the free movies and music, but then get politically involved.

Re:Democracy (2)

OneMadMuppet (1329291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991070)

Well, here's the ugly truth. People DO pay for Linux and BSD. Most contributions are from paid programmers working for companies. Those companies (like Redhat, IBM, Novell, Oracle) make money by selling support. You might think they're different things - they're not. The music from the radio is NOT free. Someone has to pay for it in one way or another. If you don't pay to listen, you get adverts. Yes, indies make money other ways, but how should radio stations make their money? You DO pay to read library books. It comes out of tax money. You DO pay to read the newspaper in McDonalds too - it comes out of the money you paid for the food. The truth of the world is that you get NOTHING for nothing. Just because you don't understand or see how things are paid for doesn't mean that they're not.

Re:Democracy (1)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991686)

Our money-obsessed, money-worshiping society is sick.

Just wondering - what do you think would make a good alternative? That next time I want to fill up my car with gas that I take a sheep into the station? The people who create goods should expect to feed their families, this isn't the result of a "money-obsessed, money-worshiping society". Many many people improve our lives by donating their time for free, for sure. But at the end of the day, everyone needs to eat and if people see others enjoying their hard work and at the same time are unable to sustain themselves then we'll start to see those who have dedicated their lives to something become disenfranchised and move on. Then we all lose.

A book publisher recently discovered that piracy sells books! It takes a few weeks for a newly published book to hit the internet, so he commissioned a study to find out how much the piracy was hurting sales. He was amazed when the results came back -- rather than the expected drop in sales, there was a sales spike.

Reference? Anyhow, the danger is that "free" is becoming normalised to such an extent that a lot of people expect that all future books, films, music, etc., will also be freely available. And that is unsustainable. I respect your view, but I cannot agree with it.

Re:Democracy (1)

Livius (318358) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992222)

I think it was the 'worshipping' part that was the objection.

Re:Democracy (2)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992270)

I don't. I don't expect you to pay for the most important thing in your life -- air. I don't expect you to pay for the rain that waters your grass (although I expect people who dirty them to pay for cleanup). I don't expect you to pay for sunshine. I don't expect you to pay for Linux or BSD. I don't expect you to pay for the free music from the radio, nor do I think you're obligated to listen to the commercials. And you have the (still legal in most places) right to be able to record that radio. I don't expect you to pay for over the air TV (yes, I know Brits pay). I don't expect you to pay to read a library book, or a newspaper McDonald's sets out for customers to read.

While being deliberately obtuse can be fun, it's a lot more productive to refine the GP's statement to something that can't be attacked so trivially. Perhaps something along the lines of:

I think people should be expected to pay for things that they use that other people work to provide for them, and for which they expect payment in return.

It doesn't roll off the tongue so easily, but it at least covers all of your examples. It also is a lot more difficult to argue against.

IMO file sharing should be legal

Why? Because a book publisher discovered that a single book had a sales spike after giving it away on the internet? Generalising it over all artists in all forms of art, entertainment, and science seems a bit of a leap. It seems that artists are similarly sceptical. Exactly how many successful artists have actually found that their business has been helped by providing their works for free? How many formerly unsuccessful artists have actually created success on the back of this business model? Compared to the number that haven't, the numbers are insignificant. You might as well convince me that a handful of people have survived lightning strikes, so I should carry a lightning rod and stand barefoot on a metal grate in a thunderstorm.

However, I get the impression that this "evidence" is not the reason why you believe sharing should be legal. After all, if you base your criteria primarily on money, then how can you claim to be superior to the rest money-obsessed, money-worshiping society? So, arguing money is not going to make a dent in your belief that sharing should be legal. Rather, it would take some convincing that allowing sharing is no more ideal for you and other consumers than our current system. It would take some convincing that unrestricted sharing, far from being analogous to sharing candles, is actually something more akin to depleting a resource, despite its superficial appearance. I suppose I would also have to account for why indie artists manage to keep in business accounting for sharing, and why some publishers have noticed spikes in their sales when they release it free on the internet.

Essentially, the meat of my argument is (and has been for a very long time) that copyright is voluntary, and so removing simply removes choice and flexibility, not only for the artists, but for us as well. Every artist who wants to release their works for free (and who hasn't needed financial assistance from Big Media in order to record and distribute), has the opportunity to do so. And why wouldn't they? If what you say is true, and the artists benefit financially from such business models, then whether the artists prioritises getting fans or getting money, it's a win-win situation. Why isn't everyone releasing in this way?

The answer is that what you say is not true: artists are, by and large, worse off financially using these business models. This means that any benefits we obtain from forcing these business models on artists comes at their expense. Of course, nobody is forcing them to create or distribute, and you cannot be surprised if some decide to pack up and leave. Perhaps Brittany Spears and her ilk might have the popularity and finances to run it out, but any full-time artist with less than stellar popularity will have significant troubles. Hell, the struggling artist is a cliche for a reason: plenty of full-time artists are struggling right now with the current system. What happens to them if we give them a substantial paycut?

I say, there's nothing wrong with the way we have it now. This is an ideal situation, and what's more, it is attainable. You are perfectly free to support whichever business models suit you better, so long as the artist can afford to release by it. If you want to watch bands play at the local pub, and download any of their free recordings, go right ahead. They don't mind and you don't mind. However, when you start attempting to cram your preferences down other people's thoats, especially my own, then I becomes a little less supportive. You have no right to a copy of a copyrighted work. That is particularly true when you have no evidence of that work possibly existing without copyright.

Stop trying to destroy my culture. Have the decency to allow artists to make their own mind about how they can best survive. Have the decency to let other people make their own mind about which business model produces better works. If we want your help deciding this for us, we will ask you.

it should be illegal for me to sell you a pirate copy, but not to give you one.

It's also interesting that you believe that paying for pirated copies is bad, but sharing copies is good. Why is paying for pirated copies bad? It's certainly not because it's financially any worse for the artist. If a person downloads a copy for free, then he is much less likely to buy a legitimate copy. If a person pays for a copy, it's the same deal. Either way, it is financial value stolen from the copyright.

Still not convinced? It's clear that you see some kind of a problem with allowing commercial piracy. But, you have to wonder, exactly how could commercial piracy be any worse than noncommercial piracy? Who would knowingly pay for a pirated copy of anything, when free copies are almost ubiquitous? Therefore, I submit to you that commercial piracy is no worse than noncommercial piracy, and allowing noncommercial piracy without commercial piracy is pointless.

Re:Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990790)

This might be interpreted as a serious attempt to undermine New Zealand's democratic processes by a foreign power.

Yeah, and I guess all that funding to protect New Zealand from Japanese invasion was about undermining your democratic processes too. Hypocrits.

Re:Democracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990940)

For any New Zealand politician who may read this: Our representatives who are suggesting these laws and making you offers are LIARS. They will not honor their agreements. They will happily screw you and yours. Don't sell your souls.

Terminology perhaps.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990484)

I saw what looks to be a document...or a memo.
I didn't see any cables...

First the Middle East, now the Kiwis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990494)

First people in the Middle East took to the streets, now New Zealand will follow after these latest developments? Or will it just die out with a sizzle like the Canadian #copyrightgate cables? Canada will never stand up to their neighbours, but NZ might.

Re:First the Middle East, now the Kiwis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990622)

I'm from New Zealand. I've lived my whole life here, and I can tell you that we are a nation of fucking idiots. Think of it in terms of republicans vs democrats - if the parties tell their voters something, they'll believe it without question. Well, our government tells us stuff, and people just believe it. Doesn't matter how fucking stupid it is. Currently, the recession that's plaguing the world wouldn't have been a problem, nor the earthquake that destroyed Christchurch, if the students paid back their loans. Or perhaps, if we spent more. And saved more. At the same time.

Wow! (5, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990534)

There are citizens suffering here in the states from unemployment and inept government that hasn't been able to turn the country around. The ineptness is both democrat and republican alike. The government is under a budget crunch and we are spending money in New Zealand over something so stupid as copyright law when research to show that major media companies were losing money over piracy. This whole thing makes me sick. Perhaps, the U.S. is now going to meet the same fate as Rome. Be ready for the dark ages.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990664)

You are getting pretty close to it already.
Just consider the laws that Microsoft are sponsoring in an increasing number of states.
You know the laws that will stop GM, Ford, John Deere, Caterpillar, Boeing, Apple, Macdonalds, Mattel, Wallmart and just about everyone else selling anything at all. Why? Because all it takes is ONE person in ONE of the thousands of companies in their supply chain in any part of the world to use just ONE bit of 'pirated' Microsoft Software.
If these laws get enforced then IMHO the USA will become a 4th World Nation overnight. Unemployment will (apart from MS itself) hit 40%+.
Enjoy the future. It won't be long in coming.

Re:Wow! (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990712)

Of course it won't be enforced. Microsoft is too sensible for that. They'll just use it to harass small companies who can't afford a decade-long legal battle.

Re:Wow! (2)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35990892)

The concept here is also to bolster US law - by successfully lobbying in other countries to pass such stuff, they can then turn back to the US officials saying, "see all the other countries are doing it!" and then persuade them to to the same at home. Similar to MS stacking the cards for ISO certification.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991734)

Yup they call it "harmonization [wipo.int] ", which is newspeak for make-our-laws-like-other-laws, which industry only does when said law is in their favor.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990954)

It's coming and none of you can see it, makes you sort of peasants rather unable to fart without the correct identification.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991758)

We barbarians need that bridge over to Alaska in order to avoid the shots from a certain hunting rifle for fun and profit. I heard there are much better chances for successful barbarizing coming from the South. The land connection helps there. There also needs to be a sufficient number of angry and betrayed Goths to cause some serious fire damage for Washington area and hasten the fall of the empire for the dark ages to come.

Re:Wow! (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992276)

Um, the US is offering to foot the bill.

Also, be careful using that logic. You could use it to argue that school education is a frivolous luxury at this time.

This has been going on for decades (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35990546)

I'm a New Zealander and the lobbying from the US isn't a recent issue, in fact it has been regularly reported in the mainstream press for as long as I can remember and not only for copyright reasons. I think the worst part is that the US diplomats have at times threatened us with economically damaging measures for not playing ball (NZ does export a lot to the US and being a small country makes us vulnerable to change). I feel that we've actually done an OK job of pushing back in the past, but the US is both patient and happy to keep trying until it finds an administration that gives it favour, as has happened here.

To be honest I think that Australia is worse off from this sort of lobbying though. They haven't had an anti-nuclear past and this has led them to 'enjoy' a closer relationship with the US than we have(!)

Yeah, so.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991204)

Uhm. Didn't new zealand actually pass this in the end? Shouldn't there now be a massive shitstorm and repeal of the law in NZ?

Re:Yeah, so.... (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991596)

Nah, actually the NZ government should just use NZ taxpayer dollars to pay the US government back. That way everyone wins (except people who erroneously think they have some God-given right to take whatever they want for free).

In this thread: (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991218)

A bunch of anarchist twits drone on about their stupid fantasy world and how the big bad Entirety of Civilization is stacked against them.

Money the US Doen't have (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991302)

When the US is running a 1.6 Trillion dollar budget deficit, why are we wasting half a million in borrowed money to manipulate kiwi politics?

Re:Money the US Doen't have (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35992328)

To increase tax revenue, moron.

Seriously? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35991364)

The population of New Zealand is 4.5 million - half that of New York City.
Isn't the media industries worry over this much ado over, seriously, nothing?

No wonder our country is going bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991394)

If the RIAA wants to worm their way into other countries then let them lobby those foreign governments directly. But I guess that's bad for business because THEY would have to pay for it themselves. How come none of this stuff is ever on the budget chopping block first instead of things like social security and medicare?

Tired of it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35991540)

My country is failing. The dollar is collapsing, and jobs are still disappearing. And what are you jackasses doing with my heard earned tax dollars? Making other countries just as broken as this one already is. So much for escaping since you baboons will just go screw my future government up. Fix your own country first, or just let it rot away. In any case, quit jacking with other ones to just level the playkng field.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?