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.

“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/

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?

Copyright is designed to give authors the right to dictate the terms of distribution of a work, right?

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/daily/2011/0502.shtml

The RIANZ wants you to take their work for it…….Could it be that they’re being funded by a source they’re not willing to reveal?

Dear Clare,

> Thank you for your letter. I am responding to you as Labour’s spokesperson for communications and IT on behalf of the Labour caucus.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

> Firstly I should make it clear that Labour supported the Copyright Law because it had been significantly amended

The tactic being used here is obvious. If they demand something ridiculous, then you compromise, they end up with what they really wanted. This law should have been fought with the full strength of the Labour party, who claim to represent the PEOPLE of this country. This law is a blatant, disrespectful spit in the face of privacy and justice.

> While the remaining stages of the Copyright Bill were passed under urgency

Precisely. Yet another show of clear disrespect for “the system”, the Christchurch earthquake and New Zealanders in general. WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS BEHAVIOUR FROM OUR LEADERS. You, Clare Curran, representative to government for the electorate in which I live, have a duty to be our voice. We do not accept this. You must not accept this.

> and we referred back a better bill than the one that was introduced.

How on Earth is that an acceptable outcome?? Compromise? If somebody brings forward a bill that proposes murder be made legal, and you respond with a bill that says only if the murder happens in the victim’s home, HOW is that acceptable? This copyright bill is a blatant infringement on our rights and sets a wicked precedent that will be used in the future not only to allow other bills involving “guilt upon accusation” to pass through, but to ensure the complete eradication of privacy altogether. We, as New Zealanders, do not want this and we demand from you, our representative, that you do not allow it.

> Although it would have been better to pass the Bill through its remaining stages over several days instead of via an urgency motion we do not believe this was a constitutional outrage.

We, the people you represent, do.

> We did not get everything we wanted. And the Bill still retains flaws.

So why did Labour support it?

> But being in Opposition isn’t always about opposing.

We are not demanding you oppose everything. We are demanding you oppose this “copyright bill”, which is a blatant infringement on our human rights, and the way in which it was covertly rushed through the system.

> The onus is now on the creative industries to prove there is a case to terminate access and that the notice system is not working.

And how can this be done without breaking a victim’s right to privacy? What happens if a victim’s IP address is spoofed? If I sent a letter-bomb to the Beehive with a return address of my enemy, would it be right for my enemy to be held accountable? (No, I’m not actually going to send a letter-bomb!)

> Rather than oppose it outright, we preferred to compromise to ensure New Zealanders are not denied access to the internet.

I don’t understand. You say the disconnection clause was left in as a compromise. How does this “ensure New Zealanders are not denied access to the internet”? Because you chose to not “oppose it outright”, the clause is now law and the potential for New Zealanders to be denied internet access is very real. If you HAD opposed it outright, there would have been at least a fighting chance that the clause would NOT be law and the second half of your statement would be correct. Please explain.

> Labour acknowledges your concerns about Section 122MA of the Copyright Act: when an account holder receives an infringement notice, the burden is placed on them to prove that they did not in fact infringe a copyright. Some submitters raised concerns about this at select committee and we sought further talks with the government.
The government agreed to amend the clause and ensure that once a notice was received and where the Copyright Tribunal process was triggered that all the account holder had to do was to respond and challenge the notice.

Does this, coupled with our right to privacy, not make the entire bill a moot point? If all a victim must do is challenge an accusation, what is the point? If the accuser must then provide evidence which cannot be gained without breaking the victim’s right to privacy, what IS the point? All this does is swing the door wide open for abusers of privacy and set the aforementioned dangerous precedent.

Anybody who supports this bill clearly does not have a proper understanding of the technology. I assume they believe anybody in opposition is a pirate trying to maintain their free reign on other peoples copyrighted materials. We are not advocating piracy by challenging this bill. It is clear that something needs to be done about the ridiculous amount of IP theft that has become rife thanks to the exponential growth of the internet, but disrespecting people’s right to privacy and creating such a huge possibility for abuse is unequivocally NOT the right way to go about it.

As a side not, what is being done about the ISPs of New Zealand profiting from piracy? They charge for data usage through the networks by the megabyte/gigabyte, which clearly shows they make money proportional to the amount of piracy on their networks. Why are they not being held accountable? People have shown (or claimed) statistics that upwards of 40% of data transmitted across the internet is pirated music/movies etc. The ISPs are (covertly) making a killing!

Thank you for taking the time to consider the point of view of the New Zealand people. I look forward to your reply, and greatly anticipate hearing you speak at the “MayDay” protest in the Octagon at 12 noon this Sunday 1st May.

Regards,
Alex McMillan