Tomorrow the deadline for submissions on the Parallel Importing of films. Since 2003 cinemas have been in a blessed position by having their competitors severely limited. These competitors (DVD importers) can’t sell legal movies to New Zealanders — artists or otherwise. With the introduction of legal options it’s always been shown that piracy rates plummet, so why are they limiting legitimate and legal movies? Even the government’s own report says that the justification for the ban is “weak”.
The government are now proposing to extend the ban for another 3 years, but back in 2003 speaking in Parliament about the ban, John Key (then an opposition MP) said: “Under this system, choice will diminish. Prices will go up and product availability to the consumers of New Zealand will go down. [...] [The public] want to enjoy a movie that is current and not wait to see it in nine months’ time, when it has gone from being fashionable to unfashionable. They are not interested in watching a movie that has already been bagged by movie critics on radio stations and television.” (source: Consumer NZ)
This is an excellent opportunity to speak to government on copyright, and it may be the only time we get to speak this year, so get your submissions in!
Official instructions here and be sure to ask us (twitter, email) if you have any problems.
Need ideas for your submission? See our previous submission on the bill here (PDF).
Creative New Zealand have offered a public discussion paper seeking submissions about how they support and develop New Zealand music and musicians. CFF are compiling a submission to CNZ in response to this discussion paper, and we would love to hear your ideas as we develop our submission. If you would like to have your say on how music is funded by CNZ, please email your ideas to email@example.com (or reply to the relevant CFF Tweet or Facebook post).
Submissions to CNZ close on 17 May 2013, so please send us your ideas by Fri 10 May 2013.
You might not know it but New Zealand has a ban on commercial parallel importing of DVDs that were bought legally overseas. Australia doesn’t have a ban, and neither does the U.S. When the government previously reviewed the ban in 2008 their own studies showed that the argument for retaining the ban was “weak” but despite that it was maintained. Recently MBIE called for submissions [PDF] again on parallel importing and we responded [PDF].
The restriction limits our access to legitimate copies of works that our peers in the rest of the world are already discussing, dissecting, and deriving new ideas from. It leaves us behind the curve, but without an offsetting benefit to the New Zealand creative sector.
New Zealand artists can import movies for non-commercial use (e.g. from Amazon), albeit at an additional cost that a commercial importer could avoid through economies of scale. This effectively prices many films out of reach, or it puts additional costs on New Zealanders who will send their money offshore (with a corresponding loss of tax revenue to the New Zealand government, which supports New Zealand artists through entities such as the New Zealand Film Commission).
If the public cannot, for example, legally obtain current material in a timely manner, then they may become skeptical of copyright law as a whole – if there are no suitable legal options then people will be more likely to use illicit channels. Maintaining a ban on commercial parallel importing decreases the supply of legal alternatives which affects all artists, not just individuals seeking to create market segmentation by controlling distribution.
Read our full submission here [150KB, PDF].
Historically publishers tried to restrict the resale price of second-hand books by putting a notice specifying a minimum price in the cover of the book. Absurd, right? Well the US Supreme court agreed that people could ignore that, sell their books for any price, and that principle was called the First-sale Doctrine. Recently a Thai student bought cheaper books overseas and imported them for sale but the publisher tried to use copyright to prevent the second-hand books from being sold and there’s been an ongoing court case to establish whether First-sale Doctrine applies to overseas purchases too. Today the court ruled that it does apply. As ArsTechnica report,
The importation of copyrighted goods made abroad has been an increasingly contentious issue in recent years. Easy access to Internet resale markets like eBay and Amazon have made it possible for a new breed of entrepreneurs to buy low and sell high in a wide array of areas. The Supreme Court handed these resellers a major victory today, issuing a decision [PDF] that makes it clear that the “first sale” doctrine protects resellers, even when they move goods across national boundaries.
Of course if “intellectual property” was more like real property there would have never been a lengthy court case because it’s understood that, for example, people buying a bar of chocolate can do anything they want with it. Buyers are not encumbered after their purchase. The idea of restricting what happens to a legally purchased item is just another example of how “intellectual property” is not property as we know it and rather that copyright should be thought more of as a monopoly right. That right expires in due course, and it has important limitations like Fair Dealing/Fair Use* and the First-sale Doctrine.
Over a decade ago, BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen revolutionised the way we download videos and other files in a time-efficient manner. Now he is one of the lead developers of a new protocol called BitTorrent Live. This protocol has only just been launched, and it is set to revolutionise how artists can stream video online in real-time – offering significant innovations in resilience and significant reductions in the costs involved.
My name is Dr. Dan James (aka Dan Untitled), and I am the newest trustee for Creative Freedom Foundation. By way of introduction to my new role at CFF, I would like to highlight some of the ways that BitTorrent Live is relevant to my own creative work (providing background to some of my projects), to explain why BitTorrent Live is exciting news for New Zealand artists, and to overview some of the potential implications that need to be addressed in copyright law as this technology develops.
Could this be you? We’re looking for Kiwi artists who have made work (any media) that is relevant to issues of public domain (remaking old works), copyright and fair use (eg sampling). Works are to be screened at an upcoming event in Auckland in early Dec, and there is room for short live performances too.
There is a budget for artist fees for contributors. If you would like your work to be considered, please get in touch with curator Dr. Dan James ASAP: danuntitled at gmail dot com. Note that this project is a very fast turnaround – the deadline for expressions of interest is 5pm Fri 16 Nov.
ACTA was supposedly brought in to protect artists but it would have done more harm than good. Thankfully it’s been killed in a vote in the EU with 478 against and only 39 for.
Strasbourg, July 4th 2012 – The European Parliament rejected ACTA by a huge majority, killing it for good. This is a major victory for the multitude of connected citizens and organizations who worked hard for years, but also a great hope on a global scale for a better democracy. On the ruins of ACTA we must now build a positive copyright reform, taking into account our rights instead of attacking them. The ACTA victory must resonate as a wake up call for lawmakers: Fundamental freedoms as well as the free and open Internet must prevail over private interests.
Read more at laquadrature.net.
Gareth Hughes, Greens Party
While much of the world considers how to take rights away from the public and remix artists alike the Dutch have other plans,
Much to the displeasure of the wider EU, the Dutch want to liberalize their copyright laws to explicitly allow remixes and mashups. The irony is that their inspiration is not political movements like Sweden’s Pirate Party, but America’s laws about fair use.
In the U.S., fair use protects the use of copyrighted material for commentary, criticism and the like. But automated tools for detecting copyrighted material (on e.g. YouTube) and the overly-broad Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows anyone to request that an infringing work be taken down, put the burden of proving that a work constitutes fair use on the content creator. This has a chilling effect on the kind of work everyday people release on the web.
Here in New Zealand the Green’s Gareth Hughes is supporting a change to allow parody and satire remixes. If New Zealand is going to have an trade agreement with the U.S. that includes copyright changes (TPPA) then wouldn’t it be fair to get the same rights as U.S. citizens?
Peter Griffin talks to artists and technologists about the ongoing digital changes,
“The TPPA is secret; we don’t really know what is in it. It’s making sure we aren’t selling ourselves short just so we can get some milk powder into the United States.” With three-strikes laws passing around the world and the shadow of SOPA and PIPA online piracy legislation looming large in the US
“Copyright was founded on the premise of giving artists rights to make money, to have a temporary monopoly where they can control their work and to try to monetise it so they can make more work,” she acknowledges. “But the second half of copyright is about enabling public rights. As long as that pressure is coming from copyright holders to expand rights in their direction, we are going to need to keep up the pressure to maintain the public rights.”
Read more at The Listener.
SOPA Protestors. Photo: Demand Progress
FightForTheFuture report that as we approach Monday’s crucial Senate vote there are now 35 Senators publicly opposing PIPA. Last week there were only 5. And it just takes just 41 to stop it. Congratulations everyone on spreading the message!
Here’s a summary of the biggest ever day of online protest.