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!

New Zealand DMCA Moves Forward

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the like-a-plague dept.

Politics 153

nzgeek writes "The DMCA-like amendments to the New Zealand Copyright Act passed their first hurdle in parliament today, with an overwhelming 113 to 6 vote to pass the Bill to the Commerce Select Committee for further discussion. The detail-oriented can read the full debate (or rather lack of debate), and one enterprising New Zealand legal blogger has an excellent series of posts on the Bill, its background, and its implications. New Zealanders interested in fighting this legislation have until the 16th of February 2007 to make submissions to the Select Committee, before the committee makes its recommendations and sends the Bill back for a second reading."

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

1st (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297098)

First post!

Re:1st (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297390)

Re:1st (0, Offtopic)

Spayden (592893) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297712)

These comments towards New Zealanders aren't exactly justified. Sure, we farm sheep, a lot of sheep in fact. If you are are an anti-New Zealander Australian, then maybe you should consider this: 1. The Australian government bans our apples - this is due to the Australian government fearing the high level of quality of our apples, and the fact that local Australian growers simply can not compete. 2. The Australian government has strict controls on our lamb exports in order to protect the dwindling local lamb market in Australia, Australian lamb isn't that good, and this fact has been recognised. 3. The All Blacks fucking kicked the shit out of the Wallabies all year. 4. We have sent 60+ fire fighters over to Australia to help our with your bush fires. So stop giving us a hard time, maybe you should realise that although we don't have the highest population, we are an extremely productive nation given our size, and that we also will not stand down very easily. Oh, and one last thing... I'm looking forward to the rugby world cup next year in France. It shall be a Wallaby thrashing good time :)

Re:1st (0, Offtopic)

lendude (620139) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297836)

Shut up - and enjoy our Ring Tailed Possums :)

Re:1st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298122)

Indeed - they make good socks. Toasty warm toes in winter!

Re:1st (0, Offtopic)

goldenak (1041578) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298290)

Thats the Brush Tailed Possum and yes I do enjoy shooting your 'ironically' protected species, which now have a population in NZ of over 70 million.

Don't click that link at work (0, Offtopic)

Anomolous Cowturd (190524) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297986)

Or anywhere else.

Re:1st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298310)

That's hot, though I'd rather hit the hole under her gaping anus.

Boooooooo! (-1, Offtopic)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297108)

Hiss~

*Throws cabbage*

Re:Boooooooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297674)

They want and need these DMCA like legislations to add additional ways to protect and distribute copyrighted material in this new age, the Digital age. Go on and on all you like about how P2P and other bootlegging activities actually 'increase' the value of music and artists and bands and such, it doesn't change the facts that:
1. copyright DOES exist
2. it exists for good reason (we couldn't have the GPL without it)
3. creators have the right to control the distribution of their works
4. and what we are doing IS illegal.

ANALOGY: If you and your lover made a couple personal videos of you having sex for your own personal amusement then somebody stole one of those videos and distributed it online would you be alright with that? How about if they argued that what they did was actually good because people then would want to pay you money for your other videos?

YES, I KNOW what they are trying to pass is usually excessive, suppresses some or all of our existing rights, AND YES I know they are all actually "evil, fascists dictators at heart", but can anyone here give me a way to keep all of our rights (fair use) while effectively stopping the problem of illegal distribution, bootlegging etc? NO? Well until then they will continue trying the only methods they have of trying to rightfully protect their copyrighted works. What else do you expect them to do?

Re:Boooooooo! (2, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297902)

4. and what we are doing IS illegal.

Speak for yourself. I like to legitimatly reverse engineer all kinds of stuff for hobby as for a living. The DMCA is the biggest source of stress in my life and i have 2 teen-age daughters.

Re:Boooooooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298172)

I meant the part where people make perfect copies of the copyrighted content and then distribute it online. I speak for everyone when I say THAT is illegal. My analogy should have made that clear.

Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297118)

I don't understand the need for DMCA-like legislation when there are hard encryptions available to negate the question. DMCA is like claiming you're cracking a bank safe when all you did is slide a latch or ignore the "No Trespassing" sign.

Aren't DMCA legislations just a means of guaranteeing that companies keep using insecure technologies?

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297138)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297152)

For me to poop on

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (0, Offtopic)

Lavene (1025400) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298192)

Hey AC of this: There is absolutly no reason to drive by (or use a bot) to post false news here. We usually do an excellent job in that field our selvs... :p

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297192)

The fact that your post was modded insightful only proves that people on slashdot are bias hypocrites.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298074)

Who ever moded this post as troll need to read this [slashdot.org] post directly after it. How can people on Slashdot cry foul over DRM breaking their open compatibility, and claim fair use when they break DRM to copy data anyway, and then turn around and say that instead of imposing legal restrictions on copyright content, providers need to do a better job of locking it down?

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297226)

o..k. Maybe you misunderstood the DMCA. It's a law that makes it illegal to crack any "protection mechanism", no matter how easy it is to do so. Most countries around the world that have DMCA-like laws put in some sensible exceptions of course. Fair use being the most obvious. And the work being "protected" has to actually be under copyright. As for whether or not this is "insecure".. I'm confused. A copyright "protection mechanism" has nothing to do with security. You don't use copyright protection mechanisms to keep secrets, you use them to electronically enforce copyright. Claiming that they are "insecure" makes as much sense as claiming that a parking inspector is "insecure".

I'm no fan of laws that say what I can and cannot do with my own computer, but if you're going to attack them, at least be coherent.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (4, Insightful)

bit01 (644603) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297402)

And the work being "protected" has to actually be under copyright.

Which is bizarre. DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.

A copyright "protection mechanism" has nothing to do with security.

Sorry, but that's double-think. Double-plus un-good.

It has everything to do with security. The vendor's security. Security is all about physically enforcing somebody's view of ownership in the face of other people's different view of ownership. Ownership, by definition, is simply the legal right to control something to the exclusion of others. Security in general has nothing to do with secrecy though secrecy is often used to achieve security.

In this case the vendor thinks they should be able to legally enforce their view of ownership. This happens to be in conflict with most people's view of ownership which includes the right to share. Reasonable people can dis/agree with either point of view.

---

Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298064)

"DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions"
"In this case the vendor thinks they should be able to legally enforce their view of ownership. This happens to be in conflict with most people's view of ownership which includes the right to share. Reasonable people can dis/agree with either point of view."


People copying and mass distributing ALSO break the 'copyright bargain', what about the copyright owner's rights of limiting distribution to people who actually PAY for their works? You think its 'fair' to only think about the users rights, but the copyright owners have rights too you know.

"their view of ownership"? "people's view of ownership which includes the right to share"?
This isn't all a matter of opinions, there are definite legal limits to what both sides can do. Their view is that they created/own the damn works and therefore they have the right to limit distribution to people who actually PAY for it. We, the consumers, have the right to transfer between mediums, make BACKUP copies, and resell. "Sharing" doesn't mean copying and mass distributing it, which is what putting it on the internet means.

Until someone can find a method which can give BOTH sides ALL of their rights then the copyright holders are going to use the only means available to protect their rights. DRM

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298280)

People copying and mass distributing ALSO break the 'copyright bargain', what about the copyright owner's rights of limiting distribution to people who actually PAY for their works? You think its 'fair' to only think about the users rights, but the copyright owners have rights too you know.

You are terminally clueless. Of course copyright owners have rights too: those rights are protected by a thing called "copyright".

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (2, Funny)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297586)

This message is ROT-26 encoded. You're violating the DMCA by decoding and reading it without permission.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298066)

Didn't they teach you ANYTHING in slashdot 101?

Remember the basics:

1) Rot26 is NOT an encryption algo.
2) Rot26 is NOT a funny joke. Hell, it ain't even a joke.

Please think of the children.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297672)

It's a law that makes it illegal to crack any "protection mechanism", no matter how easy it is to do so.
So, for example, decrypting this message in a non-approved way would be illegal?
http://user.interface.org.nz.nyud.net:8080/~gringe r/pics/slashdot_mirror.svg [nyud.net]

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1)

mab (17941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297824)

Yes

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (3, Informative)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297862)

Most countries around the world that have DMCA-like laws put in some sensible exceptions of course.

No they don't.

Fair use being the most obvious.

Buahahahahaha!

And the work being "protected" has to actually be under copyright.

There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from putting DRM on public domain content. It's technically not criminal for you to strip the DRM off of public domain content, but it is still criminal for anyone to actually supply you with the means to do so.

There are no meaningful execptions to any of the DMCA laws, there is certainly no Fair Use exception, and it even effectively enforces DRM on non-copyright content.

if you're going to attack them

If you're going to defend them... Chuckle. Here's a link to the text of the USA DMCA anti-circumvention law [cornell.edu] .

Note that 1201(c)... the supposedly "Fair Use" provision... note that it merely states that Fair Use defenses to copyright infringement are not affected. Fair Use is a defense to charges of copyright infringment, and only to charges of copyright infringment. Circumvention and trafficking circumvention tools are not copyright infringment, they are simply criminal. Therefore there *is no* Fair Use defense for DMCA violations. So in effect what 1201(c) really says is that a non-existant defense is not affected. That's the sort of stupid legal games you get when we allow industry lawyers to literally write the text of our laws. The Fair Use provision literally does nothing, but it sure looks pretty doesn't it? It sure creates the appearance that the law is reasonable, the appearance that it reasonably addresses and defends the public's interests. And that is far from the only example of legal tricks slipped into copyright law. The notice-and-takedown section of the has another great public interest sounding clause that doesn't actually do anything... the clause that gives the appearance that takedown orders are filed under penalty of purjury... it is effectively meaningless. Another lovely stunt they pulled was in the NET act, they slipped an apparently insignifigant single little sentence that redefined the legal term "financial gain". This redefinition of terms radically altered the very landscape of copyright law. It redefined "financial gain" to encompas almost any case of copyright infringment (especially P2P), and it took almost all fairly insignifigant cases of non-commercial copyright infringment and though the back door slammed them all under the extremely sever FELONY LAWS that were intened and designed only to apply to serious cases of COMMERCIAL copyright infringment. Individial noncommercial infringment was suddenly thrown under the laws intended to target major criminal commercial enterprice priracy. Individual non-commecial infringment which *was* considered a minor and purely civil matter was suddenly subject to 3 and 5 year felony prison terms. This is the sort of legal trickery you get when we literally allow industry lawyers to write our laws for us, and our legislators simply and ignorantly vote through that prepared text. Oops.... I'm ranting.

Anyway, the point is that there is absolutely nothing reasonable or Fair about DMCA-style anti-circumvention law. And for purposes relevant here, the various international versions of the law are effectively the same as US law. The US "free trade" negotiators forcibly cram crazy terms into every single trade deal, and those terms pretty well prohibit any meaningful softening or exemptions to the DMCA. The law would become 100% worthless if they allowed any meaningful exception at all. DRM security is 100% dependent on circumvention means being COMPLETELY unavailable. If there is any meaningful excemption at all for anything, you would need some means of circumventing the DRM available. You would need someone to be able to supply you with the means of circumventing. And once someone can supply the means of circumventing for the allowed exemption, well then that means of circumvention is AVAILABLE. It would then be possible for people to obtain the circumvention tools or information, and they would be able to remove the DRM. If there is any meaningful exemption, if the means to circumvent DRM are available, then DRM simple does not work and the entire law becomes worthless.

-

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297930)

The US Political Right 0wns talk radio. The US political left 0wns comedy TV.

Only because the Right are blind, and not particularly funny.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298120)

Circumvention and trafficking circumvention tools are not copyright infringment, they are simply criminal.
Surely they are civil issues if anything, and nothing if simply opening or copying a DRMed file is not related to copyright issues, as you imply.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (2, Informative)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298574)

Surely they are civil issues if anything

No. As I said, the act of circumvention and the act of trafficking in circumvention are both criminal acts. Not some civil law suit.... it is criminal as in the FBI can come and arrest you and toss you in federal prison for up to a decade. (Five years on a first offence, a decade on a second offense.)

and nothing if simply opening or copying a DRMed file is not related to copyright issues, as you imply.

No. It is indeed criminal even if you do not commit copyright infringment. If a 12 year old girl copies a few seconds of a video for a junior high school multimedia project and brings it into school and all the students distribute copies of their projects to each other, that is non-infringing Fair Use. If she circumvents the encryption on a DVD in the process, she did not commit copyright infringment but she DID commit a criminal act and she can be arrested for it.

I gave a link to the text of the law itself in my last post. I will repeat the link: US Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201. [cornell.edu]

The problem is that you assumed that the DMCA was a reasonable sane law. It's not. If the DMCA were a reasonable sane law it would opperate exactly in the way you expected and wrote in your post.

-

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (2, Interesting)

MadJo (674225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17299174)

And the work being "protected" has to actually be under copyright.

Everything you bring out nowadays is automatically copyrighted. Everything.
It used to be so that you had to register your copyright at an agency that kept a record of it, but that became expensive to maintain. So now every work that's put out, be that digitally, or on paper, on tape, on disk or any other means, is copyrighted.

You don't use copyright protection mechanisms to keep secrets, you use them to electronically enforce copyright

DMCA is also not an electronic protection means, that's DRM. Now, if DRM gets in the way of my fair use right (it is allowed to make 1 copy of a music disk for personal use, just to name one of the fair use terms that is hindered by DRM), then that DRM should be illegal, and I should be allowed to 'crack' it.

Do you really think that DRM and the DMCA stop the illegal sharing of copyrighted files?
If anything, DMCA is one of the most abused/misused law in the US. Just look for all those DMCA take-down notices on parody songs, or other legal uses of copyrighted works.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1)

WK1 (987981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297320)

That's a good point. I never really thought of it that way. I did, after you mentioned it, and I thought of something you may not have.

Cracking X-Box (and Tivo, playing DVDs, etc). No matter how good Microsoft is at making their X-Box obscure and incompatible, it will always be possible to crack it. Hackers are very ingenuitive, and will find a way. With DMCA, it is illegal to crack it in such a way that you can use pirated, or archived media.

Also, I don't think the DMCA covers security in any way. Just fair-use lock-out type technologies.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1)

crashelite (882844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17299078)

how does that have to do with DMCA it is mainly for software then hardware... if you hack your Xbox it just violates your end user agreement. Making it so MS will not touch it, on the other hand if you reverse engeneer a version of office or windows. if it were not for DMCA that would just be violation of the end user agreement for the software, but because of the DMCA it violates the copyright and makes it illegal for reverse engineering of software. i havent read up in the DMCA in a long time but last time i checked that was how it went.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297440)

Companies would rather you weren't able to break their technical protections in the first place, the DMCA is a legal-smackdown on those that do. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "hard encryption" because DRM implies that the key already is in your posession, but that they're relaying on obscurity/tamper-proof hardware to prevent compromise.

The difficulty prevents more casual hackers, and DMCA prevents large commercial efforts, funding expensive equipment etc. and overall makes it more dangerous to create a huge cracking effort.

Also one of the important reasons is to stomp out end-user tools. already people expect to be able to transfer CDs to the iPod, not that many expect to transfer DVDs to their HTPC, video iPod, cell phone etc. but many enough. They can tell consumers "You weren't supposed to be able to do that with DVDs either" but they'll still get a "screw you" when trying to push HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

If you don't see what use they have of the DMCA, you must really be blind. I'm not saying that it's good uses, but if you had the RIAA/MPAAs goal of control, profits and pay per view/playing, pushing it makes good sense.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297582)

DRM technology is theoretically impossible to prevent the copying of non-interactive works.

For interactive works the question is more interesting, but the Starforce people try *damn hard* to prevent people from copying Windows video games, and that doesn't seem to slow RELOADED or DEViANCE down one bit.

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297626)

They want AND need these DMCA like legislations to add additional ways to protect and distribute copyrighted material in this new age, the Digital age. Go on and on all you like about how P2P and other bootlegging activities actually 'increase' the value of music and artists and bands and such, it doesn't change the facts that:
1. copyright DOES exist
2. it exists for good reason (we couldn't have the GPL without it)
3. creators have the right to control the distribution of their works
4. and what we are doing IS illegal.

ANALOGY TIME: If you and your lover made a couple personal videos of you having sex for your own personal amusement then somebody stole one of those videos and distributed it online would you be alright with that? How about if they argued that what they did was actually "GOOD" because people then would want to pay you money for your other videos?

YES, I KNOW what they are trying to pass is usually excessive, suppresses some or all of our existing rights, AND YES I know they are all actually "evil, fascists dictators at heart", but can anyone here give me a way to keep all of our rights (fair use) while effectively stopping the problem of illegal distribution, bootlegging etc? NO? Well until then they will continue trying the only methods they have of trying to rightfully protect their copyrighted works. What else do you expect them to do?

Re:Why does anyone need a DMCA? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298528)

1. copyright DOES exist

So did quite a lot of things which no longer exist...

2. it exists for good reason (we couldn't have the GPL without it)

The GPL would work perfectly fine with copyright radically different from the status quo. e.g. "Ten years (3,652 days) from first publication."

3. creators have the right to control the distribution of their works.

In many cases the copyright holder is not the actual creator. The reason for this position is ment to be the pragmatic "this will promote creation and distribution". So it would be a good first step to find out if it does...

You know what this means? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297182)

No unauthorized cloning of sheep!

KIWIS FUCK SHEEP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297186)

It's a fact that New Zealanders regularly fuck sheep! As an American animal rights activist, I find this appaling. You're either for bestiality or against it, and clearly New Zealanders have voted with their gonads. I urge Australia to denounce this disgusting sheep buggery and institute a trade embargo against these sadistic bastards.

Re:KIWIS FUCK SHEEP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297222)

Hmmm yes but Australia actually has more sheep... plus they have kangaroos

Re:KIWIS FUCK SHEEP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297242)

Less sheep fucking though. Typical kiwi, assumes that because country X has more sheep than country Y then it stands to reason that more sheep fucking is going on in country X than country Y.

Re:KIWIS FUCK SHEEP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297646)

You fucking yanks just fuck over the rest of the world.. Go invade Iran or something..

Re:KIWIS FUCK SHEEP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298116)

Yes, such an invasion is phase one of Iran's DCMA roll out. It you can't force them into it through the WTO, as with New Zealand, then just bomb the fuckers.

Re:KIWIS FUCK SHEEP (0, Offtopic)

rdoger6424 (879843) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298494)

But they actually have WMDs! They have to get rid of them before we can invade.

Re:KIWIS FUCK SHEEP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297412)

Kiwis have more sheep per capita. While Australia has about 100 million sheep, it has a human population of approximately 20 million, or five sheep for each person. New Zealand has about 40 million sheep, yet its population is just over 4 million, which makes ten sheep for each person, or twice as many.

Re:KIWIS FUCK SHEEP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297614)

If you want to be a total dick about it, most of the sheep are in the South Island which has a much smaller population than the North

Isn't it ironic somehow? (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297200)

Here lately we're starting to hear the beginnings of experiments into actually USING P2P techniques to distribute content and experiments in dropping DRM, and yet the DMCA is continuing its march across the WTO.

I wonder how long it will be before the media people realize that it will always be a minority of people who will actually bother to copy and crack and skip commercials and never buy. This leaves the majority going along in their mainstream way taking things as they are packaged and delivered.

I'm hopeful that the experiments in dropping DRM will be as successful as the software industry was when it gave up on their copy protection schemes that involved odd and flawed formats on floppies and CDs. (Is anyone here old enough to remember the floppies with the errors in specific locations and all that?) Now they haven't given up entirely, but they have definitely become more friendly about it as they matured. I'm hopeful that the content people mature more in their new digital frontiers and realize it's all pretty much the same thing as before and that people will continue buying regardless of other options being present.

Will have a look at emailing some politicians (2, Insightful)

ThomasHoward (925022) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297210)

Or writing a letter, or suchlike. But even if the law gets passed, it wont make any difference to me, will still keep playing DVDs in Xine, will still tell others how to play DVDs on Linux, and I doubt any enforcement will happen. But I thought the government was smarter than this, I guess not. If anything, the opposite should he happening, the government should really be actively seeking to eliminate DRM.

Re:Will have a look at emailing some politicians (2, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298078)

But I thought the government was smarter than this, I guess not.

They've stopped representing the public, and started governing the public instead - it's a trend of Labour I've noticed for a while now, especially since getting their second term. Still, it's damn annoying that something that affects every New Zealander is happening so quietly. The mainstream media (unsurprisingly) hasn't said a word about this one.

I'll get my pen and paper out in the morning...

Democracy in Action? (5, Insightful)

chris_sawtell (10326) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297248)

That's right. Introduce an important bill just as the country is closing down for the rituals surrounding the Christmas holiday and set the date for submissions just a few days after most people surface after the haze has cleared.

If this is what is called Consultative Democracy, then frankly I've just become rather envious of the Fijians. Now we know why the leadership of the NZ Government was saying such condemnatory things about the actions of Cdr. Bainimarama.

We are very isolated from the Real World(tm) here in Little Ol' NZ, so don't get to hear very much about what's happening out there. Do the governments of other countries which purport to be ruled "by the people for the people" get up to these tricks?

Re:Democracy in Action? (2, Interesting)

WK1 (987981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297346)

Don't know much about anywhere else, but dirty political tricks here in the USA are standard. Some might even say required.

It's true what Col Mitchel said on Dakara, "I guess politics really do suck everywhere."

In UK, yes, politicians always against people (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297426)

You're no exception in NZ at all.

It's certainly like you describe here in the UK as well, and I hear it's the same in US.

What seems to have happened is that politicians worldwide have now lost any intention of representing the interest of "The People" honestly, and always work against them in any way they can. The political system is only as good as its practitioners, and hence nowadays it's rotten to the core.

I don't know if it was ever any better than this. Back in the days of the Founding Fathers in the US it must have been better, you can see the pro-The People intention clearly expressed in their Constitution. But of course that's being subverted now by the current administration.

Just treat politicians with utter contempt for the pure scum they are, universally. I don't know of any that are an exception to this, in the current day and age.

Re:In UK, yes, politicians always against people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297526)

We're with you in Germany.

I'd say there might be not-entirely-scum politicians out there, in countries that afford small parties (i.e. that don't have winner-takes-all elections), like we do, but it DOES NOT MATTER, because the two big parties (yeah, the same ones, judging by their program) rule the country anyway.

I just wonder why in any country the vast majority of the population ends up voting either for half-socialist bastards (I mean half, cuz there are also the progressives out there), or for reactionary conservative pigs. Most people are neither progressive, green, nor pro-liberty.

Re:In UK, yes, politicians always against people (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298180)

I just wonder why in any country the vast majority of the population ends up voting either for half-socialist bastards....

I've been wondering about this for a very long time too and it's probably the same reason they voted for Hitler. They only care about themselfs and there imidiate interests and don't give a shit about anyone else. Here in the UK you can see those kind of people out every weekend getting pissed up and starting fights (There usually the ones wearing shirts). I've found them to be the vast majority and totally ignorant to the world around them.

Re:In UK, yes, politicians always against people (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298418)

the vast majority

Here in the UK your lucky if the vast majority of people bother to vote at all.

Winner-takes-all, seed of scum politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298432)

>> it DOES NOT MATTER, because the two big parties rule the country anyway

Yes, that's exactly the case, and it's like this almost everywhere.

Winner-takes-all is almost universal today because it ensures that the majority parties stay in power almost all the time. It's an institutionalized distortion that parties absolutely love, because it provides a rotating meal ticket for life.

That mechanism is the seed of this worldwide corruption of politics that we're seeing, because it turns the goal from "represent the people" to "represent the party", and everyone else is marginalised.

And that's a good definition of "scum politician" as any: a politician who represents his party instead of representing the people who voted for him. You can't be both, because they are in direct conflict with each other.

Hence, "scum" is right on the mark, in > 99% of cases.

Only the first reading (5, Informative)

JamesNK (967097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297264)

Although the bill passed with an overwhelming margin, that doesn't mean a lot of the MPs will support it next time it comes up for vote. In New Zealand MPs often support a bill in its first reading because they feel it requires more thought and debate.

For example recently a bill to raise the New Zealand drinking age to 20 was passed in its first reading by a large margin before being voted down in the second - MPs back off from drinking age hike [nzherald.co.nz]

Re:Only the first reading (3, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297574)

Indeed. I just wrote a long email detailing my concerns (primarily the issue of treating copyright as a property right, that copyright should be about providing incentive for content creators and any laws should be made with this fact firmly in mind, the protection of fair use rights - to allow individuals full access to do as they wish with works for personal use, and about the steady creep of ever longer copyright terms) to the MPs who provided personal addresses (as opposed to their official parliamentry addesses). I think as long as you sound reasonable, serious, and actually raise deeper issues for them to think about, many MPs will actually pay some attention to this. The reality is that most people, politicians included, simply haven't really thought about copyright issues all that seriously. Giving them some reasons to dwell on, and think a little more deeply, about the full implications can, I strongly suspect, make a difference.

In case you're interested in writing as well, here is the list of email addresses [parliament.nz] . I strongly suggest that anyone who can write an intelligent thoughtful email to help get MPs seriously thinking about these issues should do so.

Re:Only the first reading (3, Interesting)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297608)

...that copyright should be about providing incentive for content creators and any laws should be made with this fact firmly in mind

You do realize that the history and economic reality of copyright don't really support that assertion, right? Take a look at http://www.questioncopyright.org/faq [questioncopyright.org] for some actual background on the topic.

Noooooooo! (0, Offtopic)

builderbob_nz (728755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297314)

*goes and sobs in the corner*

New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (-1, Offtopic)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297358)

New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. It gets a lot of attention on Slashdot because people speak English there. There are 121 countries [census.gov] that have more people than New Zealand.

Re:New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (1)

iSeal (854481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297370)

New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. It gets a lot of attention on Slashdot because people speak English there. There are 121 countries that have more people than New Zealand.
In other words, you're saying that if Slashdotters banded together, and we made an effort to mail the proper NZ representatives, we could make a difference? And that there's a cat stuck on the roof of the Parliament?!

Non-Kiwis of the world unite!

Re:New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297396)

New Zealand is a country of 4 million people.

4 million sheep rapists... what a travesty. For shame, you Kiwi perverts!

Re:New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297484)

Say what you really mean. New Zealand is nothing more than Australia's Canada.

Re:New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (4, Interesting)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297588)

It gets attention because it's a western country with an above average interest in technology. I lived for seven months in New Zealand and six months in France, I'm a Yank myself. I found New Zealand on pare with France and England and the US as far as access and interest in technology. A lot of those 121 countries lack the access to technology that New Zealand, Europe and the US have. Not surprising there's a lot of references to New Zealand. I'm sure english speaking doesn't hurt as well. Even in Europe english speakers aren't as common as you'd think. When I was in Spain I found when they realized It didn't speak Spainish well they'd try French or Italian but few spoke english. English may be considered the current world language but a large number of people still speak little or no english. People forget but at one time French was considered the world language. One day I'm sure it'll be something else. When Slashdot is mostly Chinese they'll still be wondering why there are so many New Zealand references.

Proportion and sense of balance is needed. (-1, Offtopic)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297600)

Right now, my parent post is moderated 50% off topic and 50% insightful.

I love New Zealand. I have lived there. However, Slashdot never gives a sense of proportion when it covers English-speaking countries. Slashdot also seems to assume that the 210 (approximately) countries that don't speak English are less important.

A funny thing. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297964)

Nobody such as yourself ever complains when Zonk/ScuttleMonkey/kdawson spam Slashdot every weekend with any Australia-related story they can dredge up. There are only around 20 million people there, yet if any nation can be said to be over-represented on Slashdot, it's Australia.

So how about it -- why do you complain when a very rare story about New Zealand is posted, but stay oh-so-silent when we see yet another of the very many Australian stories?

Go tie your kangaroo down, sport. Tie it down good.

I agree that Australia is over-represented. (0, Offtopic)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298204)

I agree that Australia is over-represented, or discussed out of proportion.

Re:New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (0, Offtopic)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298068)

New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. It gets a lot of attention on Slashdot because people speak English there.

Even so, this news is obviously of interest to you, since you're bothering to post a comment. This news is certainly of interest to me, since I live in NZ. The population may be small, but there's no shortage of NZers reading Slashdot. In any case, population-size and newsworthiness don't always go hand-in-hand: if they did, nearly 20% of /. articles would be about things going on in China.

Re:New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (2, Informative)

nickrout (686054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298272)

Don't forget this bill also legitimises the age old practice of placing your cd's onto your mp3 player, which is currently illegal here.

Re:New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298306)

... which is a good thing. On the other hand, it looks to me as though it could perhaps make it a criminal offence to own a region-free DVD player. Maybe not (I'm not enough of a lawyer to be able to read beyond the introduction to the bill), but region-coding doesn't seem morally different from "technological preventions measures" to me.

Re:New Zealand is a country of 4 million people. (1)

goldenak (1041578) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298368)

I think thats why a lot of the cheaper DVD players came with a 'secret' pin code to unlock the region free. These players were imported into NZ defaulted as zone four to keep everything legal.

Slashdot Trivia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297366)

Q: What is the difference between Elisha Cuthbert and Vladinator?

A: One is an unbelievably hot Hollywood actress, and the other is a fat, child-molesting alcoholic

new zealnd (-1, Offtopic)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297404)

NZ is what australia would be if the country was run by women. over protective and petty. they sport some of the most rediculous laws in existence AND they enforce them. my guess, is they will pass this law.

Re:new zealnd (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297496)

I would still rather be a Kiwi than an Americ*cough*cough*Australian.

Re:new zealnd (0, Offtopic)

Mercedes308 (832423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297502)

Would you like to give us some examples?

Re:new zealnd (-1, Offtopic)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297840)

where to begin.... try googling for new zealands age of consent laws and their "public decency" laws and you will begin to get the picture, NZ airlines won't let single men sit beside children etc. as another example, NZ police aren't allowed to carry guns. now do you understand my comment that's like australia run by women.

Re:new zealnd (0, Offtopic)

Mercedes308 (832423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298098)

Honestly, mate, you sound like a bit of a hand wringer yourself.

The cops do have guns, in their cars. They choose rightly not to bandy them around in public. The British incidentally do the same.

In regards to age of consent. Do you find it objectionable to not be allowed to have sex with someone younger than 16? Or 18 if you are a legal guardian?

The airline one is indeed a stupid law.

I'm not trying to be a kiwi apologist, but your points are completely bogus and misleading. I split my time evenly between Aussie and NZ and I normally find NZ to be a lot more liberal in general. All countries have their seemingly idiotic laws, New Zealand just doesn't strike me as being exceptional in regards to this.

Re:new zealnd (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17297826)

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/06/05 4240&from=rss [slashdot.org] Australia's own DMCA.
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer1 13_text.html [murdoch.edu.au] People suing and winning against a publisher in another country, over what was said about him, as it was viewed in Australia it was valid.
and how about http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/copyright-ruling-pu ts-linking-on-notice/2006/12/19/1166290520771.html [smh.com.au] and today we get no linking to copyright material.

Don't get me wrong, Australia is doing very well, but it is backward compared to new New Zealand when it come to the internet.

The smart move (2, Interesting)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297480)

The best thing for everyone at this point would be for the investors in the entertainment industry to invest in oil futures and leave entertainment to Youtube. People get their free entertainment and the investors can still make money since oil stocks are likely to climb for the forseeable future. Okay the entertainment will mostly be Weird Al wantabes and uncle Simon getting hit in the nuts by a baseball but hey it'll be free and everyone will be happy.

Re:The smart move (2, Interesting)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297572)

There's no reason to expect that entertainment quality would degrade overall if the entertainment industry gave up and copyright law was abolished entirely. We'd lose out on Britney Spears songs, but with Britney's marketing dept out of the way others could produce similar product for the ad revenues from product placement in music videos. I don't think you really fear pop music getting more commercialized.

Basically the only thing that wouldn't have a funding model is really high budget movies and video games. Perhaps that would give people an incentive to resort to such low-budget techniques as having a decent plot.

The iTunes store in NZ. (4, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297516)

Recently apple opened up their iTunes store in NZ. On that very day the NZ govt passed a law making it legal for people to copy their music from one format to another. Before that it was illegal in NZ to rip your CDs to MP3 or any other format.

Here is the odd thing. If it's now your right to be able to format shift the music you bought wouldn't any technology that prevents you from doing that be illegal?

Re:The iTunes store in NZ. (2, Insightful)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297942)

Here is the odd thing. If it's now your right to be able to format shift the music you bought wouldn't any technology that prevents you from doing that be illegal?

They way it works is that you don't actually get a "right" to format shift.... they merely made it "not copyright infringment" to format shift.

And then they make it criminal to to do the decryption needed to be able to format shift. Note that they do not make it copyright infringment to decrypt, they make it just plain crimina.

So it is not copyright infringment for you to format shift, but it is criminal to do the decryption you need to do to fromat shift. And it is criminal for anyone to give you the instructions on how to decrypt. So even if they do have some exemption somewhere saying it's not criminal to decyrpt for certain purposes, it's *still* criminal for anyone to actually give you the tool or instructions to be able to decypt it.

So even when format shifting is not infringment, and even when decrypting is not criminal, it's still impossible because anyone supplying you the means/ability to do it is criminal.

-

Re:The iTunes store in NZ. (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298268)

Really? Could you please link to the act that made this legal?

thanks

Re:The iTunes store in NZ. (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298428)

If it's now your right to be able to format shift the music you bought wouldn't any technology that prevents you from doing that be illegal?

There is a difference between something being "a right" and something being "not wrong".

IANAL, but AFAICT most legal systems work on the basis that you can do anything you like as long as it's not on the big list of things which are "wrong" - but that does not prevent someone else putting barriers to stop you doing something, as long as those barriers aren't specifically on the list of things which are "wrong".

Generally speaking, laws making sure people have "a right" are fairly basic things left to constitutions, and cover simple things like "everyone has a right to a fair trial", or "everyone has a right to live peacefully, without fear of undue persecution by their neighbours or their government".

Where things start to get complicated is where one law contradicts another without specifically saying "This law replaces the older law", or where the language used is open to interpretation.

Re:The iTunes store in NZ. (1)

logic-gate (682098) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298450)

Yes, I live in NZ and I don't recall hearing anything about this law. I think you are thinking about the law that this article refers to, which hasn't yet passed - it's still in the select committee stage.

I'm so pleased I voted... (0)

vaughanf (748513) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297566)

Now I can freely complain about the people who elected these fools. And the fools themselves, of course.

All I can really say is that if there's a way for the government to make money from this bill, it'll be home and hosed. Our government seems to be so heavily focused on revenue lately it's driving me insane.

The police for example. If you call 111 (our emergency number) when, for example, somebody has broken into your house, you'll be told that there aren't any officers available, but somebody will be there to see you as soon as possible. Nevermind the fact that your life may be in danger. If this happens, all you need to do to find a police officer is find a speeding car. They'll be around writing out tickets. Guaranteed. In a few days time, you'll hear from an officer about the break in at your house.

Not surprisingly, the number of violent crimes has increased dramatically lately.

As for this bill, I can just see it going through. I can also see it being abused as far as possible. Our judicial system, it seems, is utterly clueless when it comes to technology, yet as soft as hot butter on people who have actually damaged lives with violent crimes (rape, murder/attempted murder, assault, armed robbery, etc...). Combine a bill like this with a judiciary system like ours and you will more than likely get a disaster. I can just see somebody getting fined heavily for using Linux if this bill is approved.

Hopefully, we have enough people who'll stand up to legislation like this. God knows we need some sense from the government.

Re:I'm so pleased I voted... (1, Offtopic)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297706)

The police for example. If you call 111 (our emergency number) when, for example, somebody has broken into your house, you'll be told that there aren't any officers available, but somebody will be there to see you as soon as possible. Nevermind the fact that your life may be in danger.

The proper response in this situation is say "fine then, I'll shoot him myself" and then hang up.

You'll have cops swarming all over the place quick smart.

Re:I'm so pleased I voted... (1, Offtopic)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298208)

The proper response in this situation is say "fine then, I'll shoot him myself" and then hang up.
Which may be fine in yor country but in the UK you can be jailed (and people have been) for using undue force in their own homes for attacking burglers.

Re:I'm so pleased I voted... (1, Offtopic)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297848)

If you call 111 (our emergency number) when, for example, somebody has broken into your house, you'll be told that there aren't any officers available, but somebody will be there to see you as soon as possible.


Please don't mod this trolling right winger up.

The NZ Police Force are actually very good. Like any organisation of size they do have the occasional hiccup, but 99.9% of the time they do an outstanding job, often above and beyond thier call of duty. I would gladly take the NZ Police Force over any other country's in a heart beat, and more often than not that's about how long it takes for the NZ Police to attend a call out.

The same goes for our other emergency, search and rescue, and indeed general health services.

As for the DMCA-like bill, as has already been mentioned, this is only going to select committee, our elected representatives felt that it is important enough to warrant some investigation, debate and public comment before they make up thier minds.

Re:I'm so pleased I voted... (0, Offtopic)

vaughanf (748513) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298104)

Please...

It sounds as if you've not had to deal with the police recently. At least not where I live. While I've spoken to many excellent officers, I've seen a number of instances where the response of the police has made me furious that my tax dollars have to pay for the system we have in place.

My brother had a car smashed in front of his house. The police couldn't have cared less. The next day my brother was held at knifepoint. Turns out it was the same lot that smashed the car up. Excellent police work there. Really serving their purpose of protecting the public.

Driving home from a late night at work one night, a drunken idiot threw a bottle through my car window. They took off when they got a look at me (I'm assuming they thought I was somebody else). I went to the police to complain about it and the officer on duty at the station, after looking up from his magazine, told me that they were far too busy to do anything about it, that it was a petty complaint, and if I wanted to sort it out, go find the guys who did it and sort them out myself. Again, excellent police work.

Let's not go into the cases like the young girl up north who had a taxi sent instead of a police officer. That was plainly avoidable and it all happened because, surprise surprise, the police were too busy. And then there's the rape trials that had to be held recently (and, acquitted or not, I feel they were bloody disgraceful). And the pornography issues within the police force. You seem to be ignoring all of these issues.

But, I'm not going to claim that the entire police force are corrupt. I have dealt with perhaps three officers that have really irritated me and led me to file formal complaints. I have, in fact, dealt with some officers who were very professional and I would assume that they represent the majority. Perhaps you don't realise, but the basis of my complaints centre around what the police seem to be doing most of the time, or, more succintly, what they were ORDERED to be doing. Perhaps you've not noticed that there're more and more violent crimes reported in newspapers every day? Perhaps you've heard about the youth gangs building up in South Auckland because the police haven't the resources to keep them in check. There's only one place to look if you want to know why. The orders the police receive must be followed, since they've taken an oath to the Queen. And I wonder where those come from... If you do speak to a police officer on duty, you'll likely find they're very stressed as well. Do you get the feeling that any of this is pointing somewhere?


So before you go calling me a "trolling right winger", please check that you're not speaking entirely on opinion or hearsay. The problems facing the New Zealand Police are well documented in the media here.

There is some good as well as bad (4, Informative)

kiwi_mcd (655047) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297684)

From my blog:

My notes I posted to mailing list reproduced on this:

Here is the major announcement from the government:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?Docum entID=28024 [beehive.govt.nz]

and the actual proposed legislation is here:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5A88D15B-C4A 1-42C2-AE75-9200DD87F738/48250/DBHOH_BILL_7735_401 93.pdf [parliament.nz]

Some quick highlights as I read the act: (Note I am not a lawyer)
- Reverse engineering IS allowed under some circumstances - basically for interoperability
- format shifting is allowed but only initially for 2 years, this can be extended though (or not)
- time shifting is allowed provided you don't keep it and it's not available on demand
- ISPs are basically not liable (provided they follow take down notices)
- allowed to alter commercial software if the vendor doesn't fix problems in reasonable time
- anti-TPM (DRM via another name) is prohibited for sale or for producing (seems to cover open source). Fines of $150K or 5 years jail. Doesn't seem to prohibit if you have a copy but you can't write it yourself, sell it or tell others about it. Does make it an offence if you use it to copy copyrighted material. But you are allowed to use anti-TPM for "interoperability of software" so conceivably you could use software to play Itunes or DVDs on Linux. But this only applies if
you have asked vendor for a copy you can use and they don't supply in a reasonable time.

Overall this seems to be much better than DMCA of the USA but not perfect. It is probably better than people could have hoped for.

Ian

Re:There is some good as well as bad (1)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17297896)


And where in there is fair use protected?

Where exactly are the provisions allowing me to make backups of the media I *paid* *for*?

DRM is a method of breaking the social contract whereby society agrees to police the rights of 'rights holders' in return for the eventual access to the created entity. Why should be put protections in place for that DRM?

It is of course already exactly as illegal to break copyright as it has always been, why are we looking at introducing another level of protection for only one side of the equation?

Re:There is some good as well as bad (1)

Hydroksyde (910948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298088)

And where in there is fair use protected?

New Zealand doesn't have a broad "fair use" doctrine, just specific exceptions to standard copyright law (currently including backing up computer software, and time shifitng TV shows). I'm not saying this is a good thing (beats having an indefinite "pay for a license or pay for a lawyer to argue fair use" thing though), but it's not surprising that this law has no broad fair use provisions.

Re:There is some good as well as bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17298514)

his will conflict with other NZ laws:-
Right of first sale doctrine
Compulsory warranty period for consumer goods - so MS saying they don't support it is not quite legal.
Deliberate misreprensations. How can the software be 'copyright' if the DRM component is copyrighted - or patented by somebody else - or part of a standard ?
Breach of privacy laws: Transmitting or collecting information 'behind your back' is unlawful.
Failure to lodge said copyright material with a library. If bits are retained on a server - it is a partial work.
Computer Misuse act: Some software secretly breaks the integrity of the system has a whole.

Rights have responsibilities. If they must pass DRM, lets have fines of $20 million per day, and mandatory support fines, with instant fines against the vendor - the Sony rootkit comes to mind.

Oh and security and academic researchers not chucked in the clink for bonafide study or fair comment.

And anti-DRM legal where the vendor did not, or is unable to supply fixes - so people who blab how to un-install Norton are not punished.

While here, lets revist the Monopoly or trade restraint act.

Re:There is some good as well as bad (1)

slothman32 (629113) | more than 7 years ago | (#17299080)

time shifting is allowed provided you don't keep it and it's not available on demand
I regularly tape, er DVR, stuff hear that is ODable. For premium, for example.
Half the stuff I tape is for time-shifting reasons.
I wonder what the media company would say about it.
Considering they advertised time-shifting as a reason to rent the DVR I doubt they would like it.
Whether they "invested" in our DMCA I don't know but I can guess they wouldn't sell/rent many DVRs, read none, if that applied.

Hypocrisy (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298126)

The New Zealand government has bugger all interest in property rights. As far as I can tell, the current morality is something along these lines. If you steal a car, then you are a criminal and the car is not your property or the property of any you sell it to. If the government steals a car, then it is their car and they can damn well do what they want with it.

The government does not give a damn about property rights. They are just doing a deal with someone in return for something else. In this case, I would imagine they have been offered a slice of someones pie and/or are being pressured by Maori to protect their culture. I can't see there being a huge problem with p2p uploading in a country with a largely 128kbs upload rate.

Personally, I wish they would shaft the music industry in New Zealand and the rest of the world. I like a good sing-along, and think the music should be made because we want to, not for money.

Is it really a bad thing? (2, Interesting)

femto (459605) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298128)

The more I think about it, I'm coming around to the idea that the DMCA (and its ilk) might not be the end of the world.

Think about it... What would your reaction be if you were in business and your chief competitor cut their own legs off at the knee caps? Would you view it as a bad thing?

Now recast that as RIAA and friends vs. Creative Commons and friends. Surely the DMCA will only serve to drive people towards the Commons?

So in the absence of the abolition of copyright, perhaps copyright+DMCA is a better position for the producers of Free content than copyright-DMCA? Think of the DMCA as the equivalent of the GPL's "liberty or death" clause, applied to the RIAA's content. The DMCA ensures that non-free content will die, leaving Free content to take its place.

Re:Is it really a bad thing? (2, Insightful)

crosbie (446285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298436)

That's right. Anal retentive publishers using the DMCA restrict themselves and their art into obscurity, whilst libertarian artists emancipate their fans, proliferate their art, and reap the audience adulation.

If you don't want the public to have your art, don't publish it.

The notion that the artist has a human right to prevent their published art being copied is a myth - it is, and always has been, an artifical monopoly created out of incumbent commercial interest.

If artists wish compensation, there's nothing stopping them making a deal with their audience directly: Art for money, money for art. This does not require copyright, patents or the DMCA.

Well lets do something about it. (0, Offtopic)

kzadot (249737) | more than 7 years ago | (#17298254)

Hi,
I am a kiwi, who has been living overseas for 6 and a half years, and I used to vote libertarian. Anyway, I am coming back soon, because I find Europe to be too socialist for my tastes, and will be looking into starting a new political movement based on Freedom. It will be partially based on the Libertarianz, and partially based on the "Pirate Parties".

The issues I have with the Libertarianz are:
I dislike the fact they specifically include "intellectual property" as deserving of the same sort of protection as physical property, fair enough, but this is specifically listed in their constitution as an non negotiable policy of theirs, whereas I see the extent that "intellectual property" is to be protected as an issue to be dealt with normally as legislation dealt with in Parliamentm (and personally dont see the point in intellectual property laws at all, although I wont enforce my personal beliefs upon the party I would be interested in helping to create).

I find their over the top America-worshipping symbolism (statue of liberty etc) distasteful and frankly bizarre as a I dont actually percieve the current America to be particularly more free than the current NZ. Its a huge turn off to most especially young Kiwis who recognize the USA as being rather far from an ideal role model for NZ.

Their press releases, website, policies etc are worded in an over the top inflammatory way which reduces their credibility.

They intend to totally reform the NZ political system by introducing a constitution, which is too ambitious for a nation like NZ, whereas I would prefer to work within the current MMP framework, either as part of the opposition, or a coalition partner, at least initially. Lets face it, the Labour Party and Helen Clark havent done that terrible a job, NZ in general is better suited towards slow gradual improvements rather then anything too radical and revolutionary, and many people are in fact happy with the current level of socialist meddling in private lives. However I believe just as many people are interested in opposing such meddling, and thus would like to see a party in Parliament address those peoples needs.

They base their politics rigidly on the philosophy of objectivism which I dont believe is especially productive. Most political issues are after all fairly subjective, and the truely objective issues are mostly self evident and fairly common sense and represented by values that are upheld by most parties anyway.

Anyone who wants to be a part of this please get in touch.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?