On receipt of a not-so-nastygram

10:27 Apr 19, 2007 69

In this gig - that is, trying to earn at least part of my income blogging - I do sometimes sit at my desk about 5pm and wonder what I'll lead with tomorrow. As it was yesterday, until Andrea Haggit, Legal Counsel for Air New Zealand, came through for me.

At 4.48pm, she sent me the following message via the reply button on the blog:

Hi,
I am Legal Counsel for Air New Zealand. I would be grateful if you could provide me with a contact email address so that we can formally request the removal of Air NZ's copyrighted material from your website, namely the parody of the Air NZ commercial located at
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,356,air_new_
zealand_suicide_commercial_parody.sm.
Kind regards,
Andrea Haggitt

To save you the bother of cutting and pasting, that's a posting in OurTube, here.

Anyway, fair enough, she's just doing her job, and the "Hi" salutation was a friendlier touch than "Dear Mr Brown" or "To whom it may concern". I replied promptly:

Hello Andrea,
This is my email address.
I would first like to state that I don't believe this to be copyright infringement. Your imagery is clearly being employed for satirical purposes and there is no suggestion of passing off.
Secondly, you don't appeared to have noticed that the allegedly infringing material isn't on our website. I have simply linked to a YouTube video.
Do feel free to communicate further with me on this.
Regards,
Russell Brown

It seems they haven't grasped the difference between me hosting content and me linking to content (or, rather, a reader linking to content via a part of the site that allows users to post links). Anyone with a legal insight on this kind of copyright dispute should feel free to chip in with an opinion.

I'd also appreciate a little help for a query from a Listener reader: "why are some websites .com and .co?" I know a bit about the domain name system, TLDs and ccTLDs, but it would be nice to offer a detailed answer (it'll appear in the Listener's Any Questions column). Specifically, what was the process around the creation of .nz? I recall that we followed the British convention (with a .co 2LD) while the Australians went for .com, and that we plumped for .govt rather than .gov, and .ac rather than .edu. But why and when?

Something I forgot to do yesterday was direct you to a bunch of podcast items from Saturday's Public Address Radio programme on Radio Live (we're back atcha 2pm this Saturday), including reports on the Wellington Flickr Group and a night with the Wellingtonista, as well as a further 180 Seconds With Craig Ranapia and a report from Keith Ng. If you want to subscribe to the podcast, the feed is here.

And, finally, the second half of this excellent video rant from Bill Maher, and this column by Paul Krugman go together. When you're choosing US administration officials on the basis of their professed godliness rather than their competence, you really are asking for trouble.

69 responses to this post

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

John Fouhy, 10:42 Apr 19, 2007

There's a page here that may be of use: http://wlug.org.nz/NewZealandInternetHistory
You could also try contacting John Hine at VUW, since he's apparently been around from the beginning.

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report
Michael Robinson, 11:23 Apr 19, 2007

The key event in the NewZealandInternetHistory is in 1987; the adoption of the Janet Gray Book protocols.
More information on the Gray Book naming scheme is available on Wikipedia.

Wellington • Since Apr 2007 • 8 posts Report
Riddley Walker, 11:23 Apr 19, 2007

well i'm no legal expert but i would've thought in these situations it'd be better PR for corporations in this situation to feign a sense of humour and let it be. Haggit can be commended at least for taking a non-aggressive tone.

AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report
nic.wise, 11:38 Apr 19, 2007

On the AirNZ thing - I wonder if she's sent this to Google, too, cos I have their GrabASeat RSS feed in google reader, and I'm SURE thats (C) AirNZ....
<sigh>. Welcome to the 1990's
:)

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report
Che Tibby, 11:40 Apr 19, 2007

...must.... rrrrresist anality..... loosing... battle...
we use ".govt", oztraylia uses ".gov"
and, i would addressed my email to air new zealand, "dear andrea, how about we spend your salary providing decent customer service..."

the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report
TracyMac, 12:07 Apr 19, 2007

Also with regard to the "copyright infringement", the lawyer says herself it's a parody. While NZ copyright law doesn't explicitly permit use of copyright works for the purposes of satire (as the US law does), I believe it's generally assumed to be part of the common law right of "fair dealing". As you say, there is no attempt to pass off the work as the original creator's, and there is no commercial gain for the deriviative work's creator (although I don't think we have a concept of "derivative work" in NZ law), nor is there any commercial penalty for the copyright holder.
I mean, really, why bother? And the thing about not even realising that YouTube is hosting the content is just bizarre.

Canberra, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 701 posts Report
Steven Price, 12:09 Apr 19, 2007

Be warned: parody is not a clear-cut defence to infringement of copyright in NZ. It's certainly arguable in many circumstances, but it's not entirely clear what the courts will make of it.
I can't see a mere link being an infringement of copyright. But almost every day I see big chunks of text being quoted by bloggers which probably exceed the width of the fair use defences.

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 29 posts Report
Robyn Gallagher, 13:26 Apr 19, 2007

Interestingly, in the UK, the government 2LD used to be .govt.uk, but a few years ago they changed it to .gov.uk.
I assume the reason for this is that it's bloody difficult to say "govt" aloud, something that probably wasn't considered back in the '80s.

Since Nov 2006 • 1946 posts Report
Riddley Walker, 13:27 Apr 19, 2007

GOVT. you're right. it's easier to say theatre

AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report
3410, 13:39 Apr 19, 2007

Copyright Act 1994 - Part 3 - Acts permitted in relation to copyright works

Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report
Rachel, 13:43 Apr 19, 2007

Its not directly relevant to this case, but if you're publishing links to other websites in your own website, my understanding was that you can only link to the home page of other websites, as linking to specific pages/sections/items within the website does breach copyright unless you have obtained permission. Obviously, youtube, etc, has a different commercial imperative, but there are number of jurisdictions where I thought this applied (even NZ?).

Sandringham • Since Apr 2007 • 6 posts Report
Rachel, 13:45 Apr 19, 2007

"Can only"... should have said thats if you're worried about copyright, or being audited, etc

Sandringham • Since Apr 2007 • 6 posts Report
Span ., 13:48 Apr 19, 2007

But almost every day I see big chunks of text being quoted by bloggers which probably exceed the width of the fair use defences.
I've often wondered about this, thanks for that clarification Steven. I don't mind so much if someone quotes my stuff, as long as they link to the original. What really really bugs me is when someone rips off something you have written and even acknowledges that you wrote it, but then doesn't provide any link whatsoever. But then I'm not paid for my words or the time spent writing them, so I imagine I might feel differently even about the quoting if I were?

Auckland, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 112 posts Report
Juha Saarinen, 13:48 Apr 19, 2007

I would prefer .guv actually.

Since Nov 2006 • 529 posts Report
Chris Chambers, 13:56 Apr 19, 2007

It is an interesting quirk the govt vs gov and ac vs edu isn't it? If the alternative nomenclature is not being used why for the sake of a moving a few extra 1s and 0s in the background don't both simply work?
I mean the computing power we had today with 3D games crunching in a second more maths than an average human would do in a lifetime yet the simple use of an alias is beyond the set up and use of basic everyday addressing. Why is there still a mindset in the techo world that you should know. "Ah yes you should be using govt not gov..."
The same is true for phone numbers, you call another country using digital technology and YOU have to remember to drop the 0 at the beginning of the local area code. This is obviously beyond the computing power of the telco switches. Why can't they simply see that the person dialled a 0 after the county code so lets ignore that.
Since the beginning of post (now called snail mail) there have been stories of cryptically address letters getting to the right person but not so with modern computing. So for now we have to remember govt, ac, co. Silly isn't it?

Devonport • Since Nov 2006 • 6 posts Report
Rachel, 14:07 Apr 19, 2007

That tickles: the power of the postie

Sandringham • Since Apr 2007 • 6 posts Report
Nobody Important, 14:41 Apr 19, 2007

It seems they haven't grasped the difference between me hosting content and me linking to content...
Of course they grasped the difference, they're not stupid. They just wanted to see how stupid you were ie can you be intimidated by their 'threat' of action. Yay you for not buckling immediately. Lawyers know that some people will wet their pants upon reciept of an embossed letterhead.
Re the .gov vs .govt etc question -- okay, this is tangential but not completely off-topic -- I think the international internet community missed a huge chance when they didn't take the opportunity to move all sex sites off www. and onto xxx.
Pornographers argued they were a 'legal' enterprise with zillions of consumers (no argument there) but moving them to xxx. would not have stopped them trading surely? It certainly would have made it easier for parents/schools to block -- not a bad thing surely?

expat • Since Mar 2007 • 319 posts Report
Emma Hart, 14:45 Apr 19, 2007

Pornographers argued they were a 'legal' enterprise with zillions of consumers (no argument there) but moving them to xxx. would not have stopped them trading surely? It certainly would have made it easier for parents/schools to block -- not a bad thing surely?
The problem being finding a borderline for what's pornography and what isn't. Would you move erotic lit sites to xxx domains? And if not, then why erotic pic sites? And if not them... etc.

Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report
reece palmer, 15:26 Apr 19, 2007

As far as the link thing is concerned, you could say thats the way the cookie crumbles, but that would be a nasty pun.
So just tell them to go jump...

the terraces • Since Nov 2006 • 298 posts Report
Nobody Important, 15:40 Apr 19, 2007

Would you move erotic lit sites to xxx domains? And if not, then why erotic pic
Damn straight I'd move 'em! I think the line is easily drawn: would you want a 10 year old child to access this site? I've no problem with Erotic Lit but I wouldn't leave hard copies (paperback!) lying around for children to read so why should the internet be any different?
How is an Erotic Lit site disadvantaged by having a xxx. domain? If you're adult enough to seek out Erotic Lit then a xxx. shouldn't dissuade you (unless Mummy has blocked access to xxx).

expat • Since Mar 2007 • 319 posts Report
Emma Hart, 15:49 Apr 19, 2007

Because, oddly, people who work in erotic lit don't want to be associated with hard-core pornography. They find it repulsive.
Also. The site I work on has ONE section devoted to Erotica. This section is security-protected and only accessible to paying users over eighteen. We have other sections devoted to other kinds of writing, which are more open, and accept members over thirteen. Should that confine us to what would be widely viewed as a pr0n ghetto?
Frankly, if you took everything off the www net that I wasn't happy with my ten year old viewing, there'd be feck all left. And I'm not as conservative as a lot of people - some of whom don't want their children viewing anything that normalises homosexuality, even if it's not at all explicit. I was asked to move a picture of two men kissing, even though they were fully dressed, from an M-rated forum.
I wouldn't leave hard copies (paperback!) lying around for children to read so why should the internet be any different?
But would you ask for them to all be removed from every library and put in a special pron-only library so kiddies couldn't touch them?

Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report
Kyle Matthews, 16:02 Apr 19, 2007

But would you ask for them to all be removed from every library and put in a special pron-only library so kiddies couldn't touch them?
A porn-only library. Can't see that getting through a city council budget meeting ;)

Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report
Nobody Important, 16:10 Apr 19, 2007

ME: I wouldn't leave hard copies (paperback!) lying around for children to read so why should the internet be any different?
EMMA: But would you ask for them to all be removed from every library and put in a special porn-only library so kiddies couldn't touch them?
Last time I looked, the Kiddies section and the Erotic Lit sections were in two different parts of the library. If we're happy to have those sections seperated in our libraries, why not the internet?
Your argument is rejected.

expat • Since Mar 2007 • 319 posts Report
Rich of Observationz, 16:21 Apr 19, 2007

You could have a number of different porn domains:

.x
.xx
.xxx
.xxx_but_ugly_chicks
.xxx_gay_blokes
.xxx_but_arguably_arty
.xxxx_frankly_puke_inducing
etc..
Seriously I don't quite understand how Germany (90 mln people) manages with a single level .de but we need multi level domains for 4 million?

Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report
David Hamilton, 16:35 Apr 19, 2007

Your argument is rejected.
If you talk about the library as being a metaphor for a site it still holds. The very fact that it has erotic fiction would turn it into a pron library, despite the fact that a kid could walk in, grab a tintin book and walk out without ever being exposed (or allowed into) the erotic room.
.xxx is an nice, optimistic idea but its so very blanket. Also, what about the fact that pron is not the only objectionable content? Do violence, bad language and so on also deserve their own easily blockable domain suffix?

Hamiltron • Since Nov 2006 • 111 posts Report