In 2001 the Ministry of Economic Development – under the Labour government – ordered a review of the outdated Copyright Act 1994.  The rational for the review was to update the law so it would address internet piracy and technological changes which were not covered by the 1994 Act.  The final result was The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008  which came into effect on 31 October 2008.  There was a public backlash to a clause in the Act – Section 92a – which required ISPs to disconnect those accused of infringing copyright after three warnings.

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
“(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
“(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

No judicial process was factored into the clause for those accused of copyright infringement.  Public concern led to ‘The Blackout Protest’ in February 2009 – led by the Creative Freedom Foundation of  New Zealand  and several bloggers – ended in a march on parliament.   In response to the National government delayed the law so ISPs could work out a code of conduct that intended to address public concerns with Section 92a.  This was unsuccessful because Telstra Clear refused to take part in the drafting of the code, sighting flaws within the law and the effects that would be passed on to their customers. 

The law was indefinitely delayed in March 2009 when John Key announced the law would be redrafted by Minister of Commerce and Justice Simon Power and officials.

In July 2009 Minister Simon Power released a discussion document – the Section 92A Review Policy Proposal Document.  The document took several months to complete and was undertaken by a working group, including experts in the fields of intellectual property and internet law and officials from the Ministry of Economic Development.  In the proposal document a three-phase process is outlined which would give those accused of copyright infringement recourse through a mediator, The Copyright Tribunal.

1) Where there has been suspected infringement, rights-holders could complain to the internet service provider (ISP) which would notify the subscriber. If there was further infringement, a cease-and-desist order would be sent.

2) If there was further infringement, the rights-holder could apply to the Copyright Tribunal for an order to obtain the subscriber’s name and contact details.

3) The rights-holder could then serve an infringement notice. The subscriber could elect mediation. If that failed or there was no response, the tribunal would convene, and could impose penalties ranging from fines to termination of a user’s internet account.

 Reaction to the reviewed proposal was mixed.  Although it was agreed that the proposal was a marked improvement on the original Section 92a, The Creative Freedom Foundation, Internet NZ, Labour’s spokesperson for communication and IT Clare Curran and others argued disconnection from the internet was still too harsh a punishment.  Public submissions on the proposal document were called for.

In a blog-post Labour’s spokesperson for Communications and Information Technology Clare Curran criticized the National Government for rushing the redraft of Section 92a.  In the post on Labour’s Red Alert blog Curran questions the effectiveness of disconnecting copyright infringers.  She suggests financial penalties as a more appropriate punishment. 

To provide some context on the habits of younger overseas internet users a post was made on a report by the European Commission.    The report found that one in three young people (33%), aged 16-24 prefer not to pay for downloadable music and video content.  The report also found that 10% of the same age bracket had paid for online content.  The relevance of this report reveals the size of the issue governments around the world were (and still are) trying to address.  There are some clear differences in attitudes between older and younger internet users regarding piracy and more generally the sharing of digital information.

A study undertaken in the UK by Chief Economist Will Page at PRS for Musica UK group (which collects royalties) found that despite the prevalence of P2P illegal downloading music revenues in the UK had increased in 2008 by 4.7%.  The study showed that music sales had declined but concert ticket sales had increased and the UK was in good health.

Back in New Zealand The Creative Freedom Foundation were encouraging the public to make submissions on the Section 92a Review Policy Proposal.  The Creative Freedom Foundation outlined the issues they had with the proposal – highlighting their belief that the internet is a necessity and disconnection from it for copyright infringement would be an unfair punishment.  The Foundation suggested reasonable fines as an alternative.  The inclusion of the Copyright Tribunal as mediator, providing judicial process for accused infringers was supported by the Foundation.

The British government announces a crack down on internet piracy.  The planned law changes were included in the Queen’s autumn speech. Business Secretary Lord Mandelson was said to have been persuaded to implement tougher laws to curb illegal file sharing by a lobby group campaign supported by prominent people from the music and film industries.  Proposed punishments included a fine of up to £50,000 (NZ$121,000) and ‘severe restrictions on internet access.’  With one in twelve people (seven million people) estimated to be involved in illegal downloading it was no surprise that a political party was formed – the Pirate Party UK.  This followed soon after the Swedish Pirate Party  won a seat in European parliament in June.    

Within a week of the Pirate Party UK received as many as 100 members per hour after announcing they would be running in the next general election.  A month later the Pirate Party UK had more supporters on Facebook than the incumbent Labour Party.

TV3’s consumer watchdog show Target was criticized by the Creative Freedom Foundation for presenting one side of the online copyright infringement debate in an episode on piracy and illegal downloading.

So what happened in New Zealand after submissions on the Section 92a Review Proposal closed? 

Here are some things which should have been included in this blog to update what has happened in New Zealand.

In September 2009 the Ministry of Economic Development released a summary of the 113 submissions that were made on the Section 92a Proposal Document.  40 submissions came from industry organisations.  There was general support for the proposal, but some submissions raised concerns about disconnecting copyright infringers from the internet.

On 16 December 2009 Commerce Minister Simon Power released a Cabinet Paper which outlined the new copyright legislation following the review of Section 92a of the Copyright Act.  In the paper the government favours a three-notice (three strikes) process to deal with illegal downloading.

Minister Simon Power introduced the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill on February 23, 2010.  The Bill will repeal Section 92a of the Copyright Act 1994.  The Act comes into force on 1 October 2010.

********************************************************************************************************

First of all I’d like to thank everyone that checked out my blog and thanks to those that left a comment or two.

On the July 7, 2009, I added the first post to this blog.  The primary purpose of the blog was to meet the requirements of the Whitieria Journalism School programme – start a blog and regularly update it.  Well this sounded pretty straight forward, but it wasn’t always.  In fact the blog slowed to a halt in November last year and consequently it was hard to jump-start it again.  Time was a factor and other interests, mainly photography, took up allot of spare time.  That aside, it was a bit of an experiment that I mostly enjoyed and I learnt some damn good skills.  I salute all the bloggers out there that maintain blogs – it takes a great deal of commitment.

What I would say is blog about something you’re really interested in.  The subject of this blog was the changes to copyright legislation in New Zealand, mainly the issues around Section 92a and the redraft.  I also looked at what is at the heart of this debate, illegal downloading in one word piracy.  This was of interest to me, but I think I actually preferred to read about it, rather than blog about it.

I also made a number of other posts which interested me.  On the way I discovered, Archives NZ on the web and Wikileaks, currently struggling to continue their services – give them a donation if you can.  If you have some time check out Vanguard Journalism, they always have some great videos that address global issues.  The Creative Freedom Foundation of NZ is also worth checking out.  As for the Newzbie Video YouTube channel, created to accompany this blog, it was very difficult to maintain, I’m blaming that on learning shorthand. 

So I would say if you’re going to blog, pick something(s) and update regularly.  It’s probably a good idea to interact with other bloggers – something I didn’t do much of.

I will be using the things I learnt here to create a photography blog.  There are enough of them around already but what’s another one to the blogosphere.

This is a twelve minute documentary (as the description states) ”about how copyright laws have been contorted to benefit the financial needs of corporate rights holders and no longer benefits the public nor the artists who create the work itself.”  The doco cuts between interviews with New Zealand lawmakers and technologists to a remix of Disney clips used to define and comment on copyright law.  Politician Peter Dunne, Bronwyn Holloway-Smith from the Creative Freedom Foundation and  Tech Journalist Juha Saarinen discuss the problems with the proposed copyright law,  specifically Section 92a.  The connection between free trade with the US and  changing New Zealand copyright law is identified as one of the reasons the government has moved in this direction.

TV3’s consumer watchdog show Target received a fair bit of criticism for a piece on piracy and illegal downloading in Episode 1039. (WATCH IT)  The Creative Freedom Foundation of NZ called “Shame On You” Target for presenting one side of the online copyright infringement debate.

Top Shelf Productions, the makers of Target, showed just one side of the argument and left many unchallenged viewpoints and statistics from NZFACT or RIANZ. Target became little more than a press release for these lobby groups, and our response follows...”

The CFF questioned the use of statistics and figures in the Target segment , pointing to artists who are increasingly bypassing the middleman, the major labels, “namely the companies in RIANZ ,” and signing with idependent labels or utilizing a lar carte music services like the distributors Rhythm Method.  In response to lost revenue from the movie industry, due to illegal downloading, the CFF quote a recent official UK Parliamentary enquiry (PDF) which concludes that rightsholders’ have been to slow to make popular legal alternatives available. 

Target also told viewers the closure of music stores and video/dvd rentals stores was a result of illegal downloading, the CFF argue that these retailers will be made obsolete by internet services, Sky, Fatso, TradeMe and online stores like iTunes.  This Reflects a change in consumer demand rather than the direct results of piracy.

The CFF go on to argue that the artist viewpoint featured on the show is not representative of artists in New Zealand.  This is followed by a reference to a recent UK study which has shown that illegal downloaders spend the most on music.  The CFF argue that Target’s assertion that the risk of viruses or malware infection is increased by illegal downloading of movies or music is nothing more than scare-mongering by NZFACT – generally these file types mentioned in the show do not carry viruses.

The CFF say that a ‘Three Strikes’ policy has not worked in Korea and will not work here.  They say that blatant illegal infringers will switch ISPs or hide/encrypt their traffic.  In contrast educational campaigns by ISPs, by the way of notices which advise of possible infringement, are said to have had a 70% success rate in the UK and Canada.  CFF: “Protecting artists means reasonable copyright laws, not internet termination.”

The Target episode, which also featured a bikini test, also received a few critical comments on the show’s website: 

Steve: ”A surprisingly biased item from a show I have previously viewed as a quality investigative and unbiased source. Usually Target would cut through the propaganda to give -all- the facts, and has always (until now) given a right to reply from the other side…”

Malcolm Locke:  “How did this item make it onto Target? This show usually provides information *to consumers* to help them protect themselves against businesses, but for some reason here we have a piece entirely for the purpose of *big business* (and thats who’s behind the S92A amendments) spreading propaganda…”

Dylan:  “There are a number of complex issues around copyright and online piracy. The Target item didn’t really cover those very well at all, but simply repeated industry talking points. The business model for creative industries needs to change (and is changing slowly) to better align with the market’s desires…”

ABOVE Fair Use explained through a Disney parody.  Created by Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University.  The Centre for Internet and Society

Mark Harris of the Creative Freedom Foundation talks about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on RNZ’s  Saturday Morning with Kim Hill PODCAST

Steve Knopper talks to Simon Morton (PODCAST) about his book “Appetite for Destruction: the spectacular crash of the record industry in the digital age“. (Read review by the Los Angeles Times)

WATCH THE REST: PART4   PART5   PART6   PART7

Footage from my recent trip to The Chatham Islands accompanied by the sounds of Schille.M.  The trip was sponsored by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of New Zealand.  READ the story on prostate cancer awareness in the Chatham Islands.    

A good part of the time on the island was spent driving around the main island which is much bigger than you might imagine.

Watch in HQ on YouTube.

Are you dependant on Google to peform work you brain would normally carry out?  Have you outsourced tasks like spelling remembering: important dates, events, history, names etc. to Google? Do you have withdrawal symptoms when you cannot access the search engine?  Do you google questions you already know the answers to?  You are not alone  Graeme Baker, Deputy news editor of the NZ Herald, writes about his own experience in: “ Heartfelt confessions of a Google addict” READ HERE 

“Commercial film and TV are now paid henchmen in the battle to subconciously maniplate the minds of viewers into unwitting respect for selected corporations and their products.

Want proof? Look no futher than this Cisco internal marketing analysis video showing placement of the Cisco name in an extraordinary array of films and TV series…” READ MORE

Check out WikiLeaks, a forum where important documents and information not seen by the public can be shared anonymously online.  WikiLeaks main goal is to expose oppressive regimes around the world and also to  reveal unethical behaviour in governments and institutions by offering a space for journalists, bloggers, dissidents and whistleblowers to leak information they believe the world should know about.  

 ”Wikileaks is an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. It combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the transparency and simplicity of a wiki interface.”

 Behind Wikileaks are: journalists, representatives from refugee communities, ethics and anti-corruption campaigners, including a former national head of Transparency International, human rights campaigners, lawyers and cryptographers.  There are 1,200 registered volunteers with the site asking for more people to volunteer.

Wikileaks is a multi-jurisdictional organization to protect internal dissidents, whistleblowers, journalists and bloggers who face legal or other threats related to publishing. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we are of assistance to people of all nations who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.”

The site began as an online dialogue between activists around the world. 

Although WikiLeaks shares the same interface and technology as Wikipedia for legal reasons there is no formal relationship between the two sites.

Examples of recent leaks:

• Product placement hell: Cisco “bribes” 24, CSI, House, Heroes…

(WATCH Cisco internal marketing analysis video)

• UK Toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations 

(READ confidential report PDF)

•  Gmail may hand over IP addresses of journalists 

(READ subpoena PDF)

• Vietnamese order to block Facebook

MORE LEAKS HERE 

Click to>DONATE< or to >HELP< WikiLeaks

After officially registering as a political party last month the Pirate Party UK now has more supporters than the incumbent Labour Party on Facebook. Compare: The Labour Party on Facebook to the Pirate Party UK on Facebook   READ MORE from FreakBits.  This may not come as a suprise to many as the demographic for filesharing is over-represented on Facebook.  Younger people are often accused of being apathetic and disengaged when it comes to politics.  Is this just a passing phase or a pendulum shift towards political engagement?