Stop SOPA Ireland

Wired UK report that “Ireland is soon to have a law similar to SOPA passed that would give music and movie companies the power to force Irish ISPs to block access to sites suspected of having copyright infringing material on them.” (emphasis ours)

“Irish citizens won’t have a chance to lobby their democratic representatives because there won’t be a vote on the law [...] in the Irish Parliament. Instead the law is being enacted by ministerial order because it is being prepared in the form of a Statutory Instrument.”

Sign at the petition against it at StopSOPAIreland.com.

Paolo Coelho

As a highly talented and internationally successful writer we won’t even attempt to explain his case better than him:

“I have nothing against people earning money from their books; that’s how I make my living. But look at what’s happening now. [SOPA] may disrupt [the] internet. This is a REAL DANGER, not only for Americans, but for all of us, as the law – if approved – will affect the whole planet. And how do I feel about this? As an author, I should be defending ‘intellectual property’, but I’m not. Pirates of the world, unite and pirate everything I’ve ever written!…

Some people will say: You’re rich enough to allow your books to be distributed for free. That’s true. I am rich. But was it the desire to make money that drove me to write? No. My family and my teachers all said that there was no future in writing. I started writing and I continue to write because it gives me pleasure and gives meaning to my existence. If money were the motive, I could have stopped writing ages ago and saved myself having to put up with invariably negative reviews…

When you’ve eaten an orange, you have to go back to the shop to buy another. In that case, it makes sense to pay on the spot. With an object of art, you’re not buying paper, ink, paintbrush, canvas or musical notes, but the idea born out of a combination of those products.

‘Pirating’ can act as an introduction to an artist’s work. If you like his or her idea, then you will want to have it in your house; a good idea doesn’t need protection. The rest is either greed or ignorance.”

SOPA Protestors. Photo: Demand Progress

Here’s a summary of the biggest ever day of online protest.

Australia got this in 2006, and the US has had it for aaages, so its about time NZ caught up and gave its artists the same protections.

Hughes will be holding an online Q&A session from 6-7pm tonight (9 November 2011). Check it out here.

The impetus for the review was noted as: “developments in digital content distribution and the need to ensure clarity to copyright users, rights-holders and internet service providers as to what constitutes copyright infringing material…the Copyright Act 1994 is currently silent on the issue of parody and satire.”

The inquiry was begun under former Labour MP and Associate Minister of Commerce Hon Judith Tizard but under the new National government passed from Minister of Economic Development Hon Gerry Brownlee to Minister of Commerce Hon Simon Power who halted the review.

Australia implemented an exception to copyright for the purpose of parody or satire as part of it’s 2006 Copyright Amendment Bill and many other international countries have similar kinds of copyright exceptions including the US, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. The UK and Canada are currently considering similar exceptions as part of their broader copyright reforms.

Considering NZ has just implemented a law providing Copyright holders with a system for enforcing their rights online, now would be a great time to balance this by protecting artists making transformative works ie remix, mashup, satire, parody, pastiche, and caricature. These creative methods have been around for centuries – wouldn’t it be great if NZ recognised them and protected them in it’s law?

The law comes into effect on the 1st of September 2011 and the fees will be reviewed by cabinet on 1st March 2012.

We’ll update this story as analysis comes out…

Chris Keall at the NBR says,

An MED paper on the regulations, however, revealed Mr Power wanted a $20 fee which the minister judged more than adequate for ISPs to recover administrative costs. Cabinet obviously disagreed.

Rights holders may also be disappointed that they have to provide internet service providers with a laundry list of information about an alleged offerender. The MED’s regulations paper calls for 13 items of information about the alleged offender, and the time, date and other details of their alleged offending.

The MED paper sees a “$0.060m” shortfall, or what most humans would call $60,000, during the new law’s first year of implementation.

It projects the $200 fee for taking a case to the Copyright Tribunal will lead to a 6% cost recovery.

A Stuff.co.nz article that’s quickly attracting comments says,

The new Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act – christened ‘Skynet’ by opponents – comes into force on September 1. The three-strikes warning system aims to stamp out illegal file sharing.

“Skynet” was first associated with the law by those who voted for it while demonstrating an embarrassingly poor understanding of copyright and the internet.

TechLiberty summarise the news,

1. The cost of making a complaint will be $25 (rights-holders argued for $2, ISPs for higher). This is to be reviewed after 6 months. (Minister recommended $20, Cabinet raised it to $25.)
2. The paper recognises that this fee will not allow for full cost-recovery by the IPAPs and will therefore push up internet costs for subscribers (point 25 on page 7).
3. Rights-holders can appoint an agent to act on their behalf to send notices.

(read more at TechLiberty)

See also: CFF submission on the regulations [PDF].

Read more at LawGeekNZ

Submissions on Regulations of Infringing File Sharing Law Due This Week

Submissions on the MED Infringing File Sharing regulations discussion document are due this Friday 27 May, and here’s the CFF’s response (PDF). You may also wish to read the LIANZA submission (PDF).

A recent HorizonPoll showed that 89% of New Zealanders were opposed to having to prove “valid reasons” for their innocence. To assume these statistics are illustrative of the response of infringing file sharers would be naïve. Rather, the opposition to this approach is based on a more fundamental concern for the preservation of natural justice. This being the case, we remain deeply concerned by the premature optimisation of presumptive guilt in s122MA and that Internet Termination remains (albeit in an inactive form). As we do not view these elements as being essential to the law we submit that this law has unnecessarily caused harm to public respect for copyright which is detrimental to artists. A copyright regime that is insensitive to the public demands of modern copyright law will continue to erode public trust in copyright, proving to be easily bypassed and as ineffectual as alcohol prohibition.

Online Public Meeting this Wednesday about the Infringing File Sharing law

The Greens are holding an interactive online public meeting to discuss the recent Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) legislation: what happened, what it means and what the future holds.

CFF Director Bronwyn Holloway-Smith, Vikram Kumar of InternetNZ, and David Farrar of Kiwiblog will discuss the law with Greens MP Gareth Hughes, and respond to questions submitted by web audience members.

When: Wednesday 25 May, 7pm.

You can view and participate in the event via Ustream here: http://www.greens.org.nz/publicmeeting, and join the Facebook event.

Lawrence Lessig to speak in Auckland at NetHui

Presented by InternetNZ NetHui 2011 is a three-day conference at SkyCity Convention Centre in Auckland from 29 June – 1 July 2011 that will bring together people with an interest in the Internet in New Zealand.

Harvard University Professor of Law, Lawrence Lessig, will present a keynote speech at the event. Lessig is widely known in the global Internet community as a vocal proponent of reduced legal restrictions on digital copyright, and a champion of notions of ‘fair use’ and ‘free culture’, including the humble feat of inventing and establishing the Creative Commons movement.

A wide range of New Zealand community groups, organisations and individuals will come together in a conference format to discuss and debate how the Internet is enhancing and affecting our lives.

The registration fee is only $30 plus GST for the entire three days of the event.

Check out www.nethui.org.nz for more information about the shape of the event, how you can participate, and links to register.

(Guest Post) Don’t You Forget About Me: Remix Creativity the Forgotten Victim of s92A

CFF supporter and Law Clerk Alaister Moughan of Burke Melrose has written a CFF Guest Post on Remix Rights, and how NZ’s lack of protection for this could see both artists and the wider public penalised for this valuable method of expression.

You can read it here.

DOWNLOAD CFF SUBMISSION

The Internet is the most efficient copying machine the world has ever known. Most copyright law was written for the century when copying music (and books, and movies) was expensive but possible. Now it’s inexpensive and widely accessible. Rather than being a threat, new technologies offer artists new avenues and opportunities to export their work to broader audiences. It would be unsustainable to allow private entities to rely on Government intervention to support their outdated business models, at the expense of those who generate and consume creative works.

Copyright has shifted from regulating an industrial manufacturing process to regulating what people do in their homes. Laws targeting people’s behaviour within the four walls of their homes, on private internet connections, will always present unique challenges and trade-offs. New Zealand’s recent amendments to the Copyright Act 1994 (“the Act”) have constituted a significant change, which must be borne in mind when considering the wider impacts of the proposed regulations.

We support copyright policy that reflects the interests of both the public and artists

Given the ease of copying that the internet affords, copyright law depends more than ever on public awareness of not only the obligations it imposes, but the justifications for those obligations. Reasonable, transparent and straightforward enforcement processes and sanctions will be integral in maintaining and building public understanding of, and respect for, copyright. Unmeritorious infringement claims, unfair processes or disproportionate sanctions can be corrosive to the public trust in copyright. This in turn harms the artists that benefit from copyright’s protections, in two ways:

1. the public will consider artists’ legitimate interests as being contrary to their own and refuse to recognise them; and
2. at the same time, the sphere of artistic expression available to those who create will be limited by the expanding reach of copyright.

A recent HorizonPoll¹ showed that 89% of New Zealanders were opposed to having to prove “valid reasons” for their innocence. To assume these statistics are illustrative of the response of infringing file sharers would be naïve. Rather, the opposition to this approach is based on a more fundamental concern for the preservation of natural justice. This being the case, we remain deeply concerned by the premature optimisation in s122MA and that Internet Termination remains (albeit in an inactive form). As we do not view these elements as being essential to the law we submit that this law has unnecessarily caused harm to public respect for copyright which is detrimental to artists.

A copyright regime that is insensitive to the public demands of modern copyright law will continue to erode public trust in copyright, proving to be easily bypassed and as ineffectual as alcohol prohibition.

[1] http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/89-oppose-guilty-until-proven-innocent-file-sharing-law-aw-91574