Comments for Creative Freedom Foundation

Comment on How TPP affects NZ artists and what the US wants our police to do next by The $8 billion iPod | Stats Chat

The $8 billion iPod | Stats Chat — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:34:02 +0000

[...] While this talk may seem amusing, the figures he quotes are used to justify all sorts of real world implications for you and I. The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act came into power last year, the US Embassy attempted to write Section 92A for New Zealand, and now new trade agreements are being negotiated. [...]

Comment on Greens Launch Parody & Satire Bill by Dutch pave the way for protection of mashups and remixes | Creative Freedom Foundation

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:38:34 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

Comment on NZ’s Parody and Satire Review 2008 (OIA) by emma

emma — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:33:49 +0000

Good solid satire website at http://www.getfact.co.nz
have a read and have a laugh. support it by following them on facebook even.
Cheers all.
Em.

Comment on ‘Ireland’s SOPA’ to pass without parliamentary vote by squirrelboy

squirrelboy — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:23:31 +0000

We need to look a little closer to home. New Zealand may find itself enacting SOPA and PIPA type legislation without parliamentary vote as a condition for signing up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Even if it were put to a vote, I’m sure there are politicians who would happily sign away our rights if it mean selling a few more tonnes of butter to the US. The way the ‘Skynet’ law was passed is a perfect example of how clueless some of these people are.

We need to make people aware of this issue, especially while SOPA and PIPA are fresh in people’s minds.

The key difference is that the text of SOPA and PIPA were public. People could easily see how bad they were. Much like ACTA, the text of the TPP is being negotiated behind closed doors. We were lucky that draft texts of ACTA were leaked and that public outcry caused them to scale IP provisions back. We will no be so lucky with the TPP.

I’m sitting watching masked politicians in Poland, protesting ACTA and wish our Government would be that connected with the issue. Instead they just rolled over and quietly made NZ a fully signed member last October.

Comment on So…Where Are All The Infringement Notices? by Friend of Jack Sparrow

Friend of Jack Sparrow — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:40:31 +0000

I read a comment on Facebook that made sense to me. It was something about how the copyright holder had 7 days to lay a complaint (from the time of infringement occurring? I’m not sure on that bit), and then you add however long it takes for the ISP to process it. Given that infringement can’t be complained against retroactively (hence all the downloaders panicked and stopped downloading on Sept 01) the first complaints likely wouldn’t start surfacing until the end of the month… does that seem plausible?

Comment on Copyright Bill has Second Reading in Parliament by Doug Edgcumbe

Doug Edgcumbe — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 06:54:37 +0000

What will happen if there is a massive over load of illegal activity and there is not enough court time for half the country?

Comment on CFF Newsletter May 2011: Copyright Submissions Deadline And Other Stuff by Matthew Holloway

Matthew Holloway — Tue, 24 May 2011 21:00:58 +0000

Sorry, fixed!

Comment on CFF Newsletter May 2011: Copyright Submissions Deadline And Other Stuff by squirrel

squirrel — Tue, 24 May 2011 13:53:42 +0000

The link to the CFF’s Response PDF is broken… it returns a 404 error for me.

Comment on Increased enforcement without legal alternatives is ‘all stick, no carrot’ — what you can do about it by Matthew Holloway

Matthew Holloway — Sat, 14 May 2011 02:45:32 +0000

Copyright is a balance of public and private rights. There are many rights that the public have to work for the purposes of journalism, etc. Copyright holders have no particular right to subsidized litigation costs, and the public have no right to buy copyrighted works (in patents there’s an unused legal provision for compulsory licensing but nothing similar exists in copyright as far as I know).

“if they don’t have a presence in New Zealand, at what level should their works be protected?”

Yes, this is the question. To what extent should we spend tax payer money on subsidising their litigation costs. The impetus for this law has been ‘lost sales’ and the new technologies of the internet which inherently involves understanding the forces in play in order to help New Zealand artsits, businesses, and the public… a blind ideologically application of copyright enforcement isn’t enough (all stick, no carrot). For subsidised litigation I’m saying that the fines should be scaled, in part, based on whether there is a legal alternative online in order to encourage legal alternatives/

Comment on Increased enforcement without legal alternatives is ‘all stick, no carrot’ — what you can do about it by Samuel

Samuel — Fri, 13 May 2011 07:30:37 +0000

I really wonder if the fact that because it isn’t available in New Zealand, that this implies you have the right to pirate the media.

I know that a lot of people do this, and maybe this is reasonable justification.

However if the right-holders decide not to release the media in New Zealand, isn’t that their choice?

If the media isn’t released in New Zealand, does this have implications for copyright? For example, why should New Zealand law protect non-New Zealand businesses? Well there are some obvious reasons, but if they don’t have a presence in New Zealand, at what level should their works be protected?