Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx for the full report
-
Here's the link to the relevant statement as read in the House of Commons and the response.... (which also allows the speech and the amusing responses to be watched).
-
So as per the relevent sections from the executive summary, only vague mention of copyright reform is made in the form of " enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators "....which seems to shoring up copyright, rather than more radical reform.
The term "copyright reform" is not used in the document itself.Digital Content
In relation to the Economics of Digital Content:
ACTION 10
In the final report we will examine measures needed to address the challenges for digital content in more detail, including opportunities for providing further support to foster UK creative ambition and alternative funding mechanisms to advertising revenues.In relation to Rights and Distribution:
ACTION 11
By the time the final Digital Britain Report is published the Government will have explored with interested parties the potential for a Rights Agency to bring industry together to agree how to provide incentives for legal use of copyright material; work together to prevent unlawful use by consumers which infringes civil copyright law; and enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators. The Government also welcomes other suggestions on how these objectives should be achieved.ACTION 12
Before the final Digital Britain Report is published we will explore with both distributors and rights-holders their willingness to fund, through a modest and proportionate contribution, such a new approach to civil enforcement of copyright (within the legal frameworks applying to electronic commerce, copyright, data protection and privacy) to facilitate and co-ordinate an industry response to this challenge. It will be important to ensure that this approach covers the need for innovative legitimate services to meet consumer demand, and education and information activity to educate consumers in fair and appropriate uses of copyrighted material as well as enforcement and prevention work.ACTION 13
Our response to the consultation on peer-to-peer file sharing sets out our intention to legislate, requiring ISPs to notify alleged infringers of rights (subject to reasonable levels of proof from rights-holders) that their conduct is unlawful. We also intend to require ISPs to collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers (derived from their notification activities), to be made available to rights-holders together with personal details on receipt of a court order. We intend to consult on this approach shortly, setting out our proposals in detail. -
Response from the Guardian.
-
The Guardian's response references the BBC News (TV) coverage, which includes an interview with Clay Shirky, which is an iPlayer only and thus probably unlikely to be available elsewhere. Audio is available here.
-
Hey Simon, I'm very happy for him, but frankly, so what? Here he was, acknowledging that one part of his business operated at the expense of the other part, and advising customers to break the law. What's not to laugh?
You're only as good as your last hit, and he clearly never understood the Internet, or the implications of what he was selling. Time to move on.
To be honest Mark, Mike Gladding could probably buy and sell your understanding of the internet as relates to music copyright several times over. I'm sorry if that sounds snippy but he's been at the coalface of copyright law as relates to the recording industry for twenty years, admittedly part of that time as the Chairman of an industry organisation. You are kinda making wild, and quite unsubstantiated swings (as you are prone to do) and I'd respectfully suggest that a slightly less arrogant and smug tone would do you wonders.
Just a thought.
-
To which I say bullshit. And that's all.
-
To which I say bullshit. And that's all.
Every time I land on this thread I'm presented with a good reason to never engage with it seriously, ever.
-
Every time I land on this thread I'm presented with a good reason to never engage with it seriously, ever.
your witty one liners do it for me mate, even if they are sometimes at my expense, a sense of humour is always welcome.
-
your witty one liners do it for me mate, even if they are sometimes at my expense, a sense of humour is always welcome.
Oh, I only wish I knew enough about the issue to actually contribute, but my lack of relevant work experience and the prevailing tone of discussion means I usually stick to 'snarky voice from the rafters'.
I used to wonder whether PAS' great minds would somehow cut through the civil warfare and progress the copyright debate, but that was about three of these threads ago.
-
I'll try the rafters this time. It's a tad embarrassing for all of us when even the equivalent conversation on Kiwiblog is free of claims that the earth is flat or repeated questioning about what flat means.
-
I used to wonder whether PAS' great minds would somehow cut through the civil warfare and progress the copyright debate, but that was about three of these threads ago.
dude, for the light relief that's just depressing,
I thought you were going to say something funny,.... no pressure,.......waiting,...
you will be marked on your effort,
-
Okay, guys. Fair cop. My response to Simon was intemperate. Bad day, but I apologize anyway.
Let me try again.
Simon,
Obviously, you know Michael Gladding. I don't. I'm not denying he was a major part of the NZ music scene, but I contend that it's not relevant to the matter at hand. I can only go by what he's reported to have said, or that I've heard on the radio. While he was MD of Sony NZ and RIANZ, he said some things, which have been referred to above, that were not what I consider to be consonant with a great understanding of how the Internet worked, or the real impact it was having on his business. He seemed, like others, to be wanting to turn the clock back to a time before the net.His advice, when confronted with the paradox of offering equipment with one hand yet restricting what you could do with it with the other hand, was to break the law. A major player in the marketplace advised his customers to break the law. That, all smugness and arrogance aside, I do find laughable, yet sadly indicative of his industry.
Your contention that he "could probably buy and sell your understanding of the internet as relates to music copyright several times over" I dispute completely, actually. It sounds less snippy than arrogant in itself. I took offence, and that prompted my response. However, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'll leave that there.
You say "he's been at the coalface of copyright law as relates to the recording industry for twenty years" and that's the problem I have with his utterances, as reported. They reflect what he learned in the time before the Internet was a factor (and we're still probably in some disagreement as to how much of a detrimental factor it has been). His experience of the Internet (as made know by reports) was as something to fight against, not to embrace. That, to me, is the base problem.
I'm happy to leave Mr Gladding out of any further discussion.
-
The Code of Practise lives:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0902/S00085.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0902/S00083.htm -
apra's Anthony Healey bulletin on section 92a
note he specifically addresses guilty by accusation argument and says he expects a high level of evidence, and counter claim ability.
that 92A has a requirement for internet service providers to have, and reasonably implement, a policy dealing with repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances, and that any opponents to the copyright legislation should wait until such time as the ISPs draft code of practice is released, ie wait and see what the isp's come up with.
Anthony Healey on the Copyright Act: New Technologies Amendment – Section 92A
After some time in the pipeline the NZ government last year passed into law new copyright provisions with the stated goal of promoting innovation, creativity and economic growth. The amendments are a range of initiatives that both support the needs of consumers by improving clarity around the law and modern practice and provide further certainty over the scope and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Included in the legislation were significant provisions that benefitted consumers (format shifting rights), ISPs (safe harbour provisions or protection from liability for infringing material flowing along their lines) and provisions that in our view assist in educating consumers of the importance of copyright.
One of the key provisions in the Act for creators is the introduction of Section 92A which contains a requirement for internet service providers to have, and reasonably implement, a policy dealing with repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances. This may include policies to disconnect repeat infringers in certain circumstances.
APRA supports its implementation.
Criticism has however been labelled at the legislation. Publicly I have indicated that such criticism is premature and that any opponents to the copyright legislation should wait until such time as the ISPs draft code of practice is released. We have been involved with the ISP working party in developing their Code since the outset and have had the opportunity to offer productive suggestions in the formulation of the Code. In our view the Code will dispel the issues that have been raised.
The Code of Practice put forward will ensure that education is the primary focus of notices given under Section 92. It will ensure that the level of evidence required to create such education notices in the first place is high, so high that there will be little chance of mistaken identity or misinterpretation. There will be safeguards. It will not be “guilt by accusation” and there will be opportunity for those that receive education notices on the basis of infringing material, to issue counter-notices in reply. The hysteria that has developed around the issue is unwarranted.
Of course I understand that APRA is a large organisation and the views of our members are diverse. There are a few members that do not share the Association’s view of this process and they have made their opposition clear. However, the vast majority agree that we cannot sit idly by and watch the disintegration of these core crucial rights. Just because technology makes an act easy does not make it right. These are the views that we must represent.
Whilst I am not naïve enough to believe that this is the simple answer to all problems, I do believe that ISPs must play a part working towards a solution. This is a step towards a solution.
Anthony Healey
Director, NZ Operations APRA -
InternetNZ Executive Director Keith Davidson says
It is already outrageous that the Government is requiring ISPs to be judge, jury and executioner towards their own customers.”
isn't that what happens with policing of age restrictions at bars. aren't bar owners judge jury and executioner? kicked off their property without any recourse?
trademe do this to their customers as well deleting accounts as they see fit. -
Last I knew, being unable to drink in a bar wasn't a major impediment to operating my business; nor is it hard to go to another bar in the space of a few minutes. The analogy to an internet connection is quite wrong.
The fundamental problem is that "repeat infringer" is going to be anyone who receives more than one properly made complaint. No trial required. Ant's "safeguards" are nothing more than our goodwill. I am sure that he personally deserves it, but that is no reason for me to cede control over my access to the internet to anyone prepared to fill out the paperwork.
Note also that APRA are not the only copyright holders out there. In fact, you don't even need to hold a copyright to complete the process outlined in the proposed code of practise. The whole thing is wide open to abuse, and it needn't be.
-
And something that I was brooding on in the bus - there is a fundamental inconsistency in APRA's position. On the one hand, we're supposed to trust them because they're going to voluntarily bind themselves to work with ISPs and follow the procedures in a code of conduct. That is, they're happy to restrict themselves. On the other hand, they love the law as it is and don't want it narrowed.
I would feel happier, frankly, if APRA were the only participant on the copyright hawk side. But their counterparts in other jurisdictions have demonstrated a willingness to abuse legal proceedings as much they can, to exploit the financial inequality between a big organisation and a private individual, and ignore the very real issues around shared internet access and identifying file sharers. What if one of those foreign organisations decides to bring those tactics here? What if organisations outside the music industry (Church of Scientology, anyone?) decide to use the loopholes in the Act to punish* people? Ant and APRA may very well act reasonably and in the best faith, but that doesn't mean that anyone who can fill out a form deserves the powers the Act would confer.
*Make no mistake, having your internet access yanked is a punishment, particularly for anyone operating a business.
-
Last I knew, being unable to drink in a bar wasn't a major impediment to operating my business;
it would be if you conducted your business over a pint, but that's beside the point, I was offering this as an example of an industry which was expected to police itself, nothing more, nothing less. simply as that it stands up just fine. no need to find further parallels past that.
But if you did want to take it further.....If you conduct your business via the internet then it would probably be prudent to not use your business account for downloading pirated content, save that for your home account.
if you conduct business meetings on a regular basis in pubs and it is an integral part of how you work then it would probably be wise not to get shit faced drunk and punch the barman.
Not telling you how to live your life or anything but, you know, common sense and all that.
In fact, you don't even need to hold a copyright to complete the process outlined in the proposed code of practise.
so isn't that the sort of points they're looking for you to submit by march. My understanding from pres releases is they're looking to hear these kind of concerns so they can address them. There seems little point in working one's self into a mouth froth when it's all still in development and open to input and direction.
read the code, comment on the code, work for a viable system. then get upset if its all ignored.
-
-
an industry which was expected to police itself
I suppose there are parallels in that narrow sense of presumption of guilt and no recourse to appeal or separate process.
Mind you, either you have valid ID or not - so simpler to make an instant judgement and take action. Must admit I can't imagine many third parties in that scenario accusing people of infringing either.
Enforcing the responsibilities of a liquor license is really within the same industry and even company, isn't it? Whereas ISPs are not record companies or movie studios - yet.
-
Pat Pilcher, Bronwyn Holloway-Smith of the Creative Freedom Foundation formed a panel to discuss 92A in the Media7 show we recorded this evening.
It screens tomorrow night at 9.10pm on TVNZ7.
Also, according to the Creative Freedom website, Friday at 12:10PM, Saturday 9:10PM and Tuesday at 12:10PM. Dude, I didn't know that.
Anyway, I think it was a good discussion for the time we had, and I thought Bronwyn came across as quite reasonable.
It was also nice to see Bronwyn and Ant talking straight after the show. The gulf between the warring parties actually does worry me sometimes.
-
Posted at 12:07AM on 5 Feb 09
It screens tomorrow night at 9.10pm on TVNZ7.
I got distracted while typing. It became Thursday already.
-
Perhaps we need a new thread to record/suggest excuses people could use to refute an allegation of infringement?
eg.
Somebody repeatedly broke into my house/business and downloaded the content whilst I wasn't present and I didn't notice the repeated break-ins.
My computer got infected with a virus/mal-ware that initiates covert downloads.
Someone is hacking my (otherwise thought to be secure) WIFI connection and stealing my bandwidth.
One of my flatmates was a "P" addict, who's now in a (court required) treatment program and doing well, and clearly wasn't sane at the time of the infringement. He/she has moved out now though.
I was visiting a blog about movies (coz the commentaries are really-totally up to date), which also contains links to P2P sites to download the movie (not that I use them), but the blog from time to time causes my browser to crash and downloads the movies of it's own accord when I randomly click around on the page in the hope of exiting the page.
My house is haunted and the ghost does it.
My computer is religious, does it’s own thing and any attempt to stop it is an attack on faith.
My horoscope said it would happen and this is merely fulfilment of the destiny that I happened to be lumbered with. -
Pat Pilcher, Bronwyn Holloway-Smith of the Creative Freedom Foundation formed a panel to discuss 92A in the Media7 show we recorded this evening.
with anthony healey apra?
It was also nice to see Bronwyn and Ant talking straight after the show. The gulf between the warring parties actually does worry me sometimes.
you saw a gulf between ant and bronwyn?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.