Keeping the Trans Pacific Partnership from changing our copyright laws

http://fairdeal.net.nz/

by wingworks • 14 years ago

113 42 14 years ago

fairdeal.net.nz

ioquatix• 14 years ago

I'm a New Zealander and I think this is ridiculous. Anyway, I don't support mainstream media and instead buy as much as I can direct from the artists.

What I don't understand is why the government thinks this is a high priority.. there are far more serious issues to address and deal with.

locusm• 14 years ago

It becomes a priority when there is serious lobbying by an industry with very deep pockets.

jasonlingx• 14 years ago

Yes it is ridiculous. The next logical step is to make it illegal to watch media you buy directly from the artists.

tokenizer• 14 years ago

That would never happen. At least, I hope this would never happen...

That would require all forms of media be passed through a distribution chain, which would be ridiculous. But then again, this law seems ridiculous so let's wait and see.

icebraining3• 14 years ago

the TPP could stop future governments from making their own decisions on important issues including how long copyright lasts

Pretty sure that was already done when NZ signed Berne in 1928 and TRIPS in 1995, both of which impose a minimum duration of copyright terms.

dsymonds2• 14 years ago

You'll notice that that was still New Zealand's decision.

icebraining3• 14 years ago

How were they NZ's decision but TPP isn't?

Retric2• 14 years ago

Treaties don't actually bind governments all that much. Generally, there is pressure to sign them and not leave, but many governments agree to do things behind the scenes without formally signing a treaty.

icebraining3• 14 years ago

So how is TPP different?

cashmonkey85• 14 years ago

People still watch movies on DVDs? We should just do it if it gets us a trade deal with the US even if it is insanely illogical.

adaml_623• 14 years ago

Your comment is a bit unclear but I think you're being positive about getting a 'trade deal' with the US.

Do you realise that the US 'delegation' for any of these negotiations are very well funded professionals who are well connected with industry and are often being groomed for industry jobs. Some of the delegates are probably actual industry reps. There will be a lot of them and they are paid to throw their weight around. And their weight is the weight of the US economy. The only people in the US who will pay attention to this negotiation and protest if it displeases them are the industry groups.

On the other side the NZ delegates are probably keen for a trade deal.

This truly a case of Lions meeting gazelles. And unless the NZ population stays informed and vocal enough this won't be a deal that brings a net positive to them.

nl• 14 years ago

NZ isn't going into this as some naive player.

I'm not sure if you realize, but free trade deals are very important for primary-producers like NZ (and Australia).

The US has significant trade barriers in place for things like farm goods, and for many nations almost any price is worth paying to get around those restrictions.

The GP comment is because - from the NZ perspective - being able to access the US market maybe worthwhile taking some restrictions on a dying technology like DVDs.

I think it was meant in jest, but the idea behind it is valid.

JamesBlair• 14 years ago

What makes you think we will get said trade deal with the US?

yobbobandana• 14 years ago

A range of difficulties have emerged for TPP seeking to strengthen IP standards beyond those agreed to in TRIPS. Analysis of the costs and benefits of IP protection shows that there is a tendency towards overprotection of IP in all our societies, particularly in the areas of copyright and patents. The analysis also shows that the optimal rate of protection differs between countries and that it can differ across time as countries move through different stages of economic development.

The second linked document - New Zealand's submission - was quite readable and seems fairly rational.

The essays by NZ organisations opposing TPP were also pretty much all interesting reads.

rplnt• 14 years ago

Isn't it illegal already almost everywhere? This is a question, I don't know, but here's my reasoning: DVDs are region locked. And breaking restrictions/protection is not allowed, even if your dvd drive supports it out of the box.

bodhi• 14 years ago

According to Wikipedia[1]:

> Under New Zealand copyright law, DVD region codes and the mechanisms in DVD players to enforce them have no legal protection

I have a vague recollection of it not being possible to buy region locked DVD players in New Zealand, but I may be incorrect, or the law may have been changed.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_code

archangel_one• 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure it's been possible to buy them in the past (certainly PS2's were region locked by default) but it was also pretty easy to get a region-free player if you wanted.

Also, I suspect they may have legal protection now; I was under the impression that the poxy copyright amendment bill of a couple of years ago added something along those lines, but I don't remember specifically enough to be sure (since I no longer live in NZ it's a bit less relevant).

flyinRyan2• 14 years ago

Where I live, stores can't sell DVD players unless they at least provide a way to turn the player into a region-free device.

mcbridematt• 14 years ago

Region free DVD players are sold in Australia, and the continued legality of them is thanks to the... US Free Trade Agreement.

(This is not counting any action the DVD interests could take, i.e patent suits. Most region-free players I've seen are 'chinese' brands)

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-o...

My recollection is that the competition regulator (ACCC) has taken a rather dim view of DVD region locking in the past - but they can't do anything to stop it. They took a similar attitude to modchips but the Federal Court disagreed with them.

beloch• 14 years ago

The funny thing about this law is that it will actually promote piracy.

The primary function of region codes is to allow license holders in different regions to release titles when they want instead of when the title is released in other regions. This way slothco in Region B can release the latest nerdgasm flick 6 months after it comes out in region A without worrying about people importing the region A bluray. That's a bad thing, since slothco paid a lot for the region B rights and any sales direct from region A are effectively lost revenue.

The thing is, even if this law worked people in region B would still have the internet. A lot of them are fairly honest and well-off people who would love to pay to watch that nerdgasm flick, but waiting 6 months for slothco to get around to releasing it is just too long!

The Slothco's of the world are in for a rude awakening if they think they can outlaw both airmail and the internet. This law is practically unenforceable. They should be focusing on bringing films to market in a timely manner. This will remove the motivation for importing out-of-region discs while simultaneously curbing piracy.

flyinRyan2• 14 years ago

Further, if you are, say American and the target movie is american this means waiting 6 months to get a dubbed version.

maeon3• 14 years ago

I challenge anyone to find a completely legal use of a single DVD purchase/usage/storage event.

The people are in desparate need of a new updated Human rights list.

1. Governments may not BAN digital storage mediums for use by the people. The right to store data on a device of our choosing shall not be made illegal.

These governments would ban talking if they could.

noarchy• 14 years ago

I have a hard time believing that governments today would be able to examine changes to basic rights that did not involve removing them. This is the direction of things, unfortunately.

hastur• 14 years ago

The Content Industries and their supporters are a threat to the intellectual and cultural lives of our societies and the development of the human civilization.

They need to be liquidated using all possible means within the bounds of law.

Politicians and govt officials working for the copyright extension and enforcement agenda need to be deprived of all power.

batista2• 14 years ago

>The Content Industries and their supporters are a threat to the intellectual and cultural lives of our societies and the development of the human civilization.

Yes, but not so much for restrictions such as mentioned above.

Primarily for the content they produce.

Animus7• 14 years ago

Forget ethics; just from a business standpoint, each new piece of legislation like this makes piracy an increasingly better alternative, costing Hollywood more and more money. Pirates don't have to deal with ridiculous restrictions like not being able to legally watch the movie you paid for.

And hilariously, it's not even a matter of price. Dotcom's 15 Ferraris are evidence people are quite willing to pay for the superior piracy experience. This is money that Hollywood could have had if only they gave their customers what they wanted.

Instead, Hollywood's plan seems to be

1) increased litigation and screwing over of existing customers

2) ???

3) profit!

sigh

skymt• 14 years ago

Are people willing to pay enough for that superior experience? Making movies is far more costly than hosting them. I can't imagine film executives could afford even one Ferrari if they charged Megaupload's rates for unlimited access to their studio's library.

chc• 14 years ago

Although this is a good point on its own merits, it's kind of a non sequitur when the topic is importing films rather than producing them.

CognitiveLens3• 14 years ago

The increasingly profitable examples of Netflix, iTunes, and other online digital media stores have clearly demonstrated the viability of digital distribution, and it's still a very young industry with room for refinement. Yes, making movies is far more costly than hosting them, but paying distributors to be the middle man in getting the media to consumers is even more expensive, and creates the kind of problems discussed by the OP.

mtgx• 14 years ago

Isn't a "free trade" supposed to be about making it as easy as possible to make as many exchanges with other countries as a "free trade". How are they getting away with putting more and more restrictions and still calling it a "free trade" agreement, if it goes the opposite direction?

anamax• 14 years ago

> How are they getting away with putting more and more restrictions and still calling it a "free trade" agreement, if it goes the opposite direction?

Humans often use names in such ways. For example, "for the children" is often used in arguments for things that are bad for children.

The idea seems to be "{phrase} has good associations and we need to {idea} to have good associations, so we'll use {phrase} to describe/promote {idea}". Note the absence of any dependence between the "meaning" of {phrase} and {idea}.

In this case, "free trade agreements" is how humans regulate trade.

This doesn't explain why they didn't call them "cuddly puppies and children agreements". I suspect that humans prefer oxymorons to nonsequitors.

Or, perhaps they're using "free" mean something different than what you're expecting.

zb• 14 years ago

Can we get rid of the editorialising in the title? The linked article mentions no such law or proposed law, and in fact encourages the NZ government to maintain its existing position in ongoing multilateral trade negotiations.

Edit: thanks for changing it.

sheckel• 14 years ago

Do people like using these sites with scrolling backgrounds? I find it quite difficult to actually read the page...

r00fus• 14 years ago

The only part that annoyed me is the silly "Share" widget that covered up text as I scrolled, and couldn't be minimized.

I thought the scrolling was nice - it even had parallax (lightbulb section).

Keeping the Trans Pacific Partnership from changing our copyright laws

Related Stories