There have been a bunch of leaks from the ACTA process lately, and this week saw 2 of the biggest – the names of the countries who are opposing transparency and, even more surprisingly, a breakdown of the positions different negotiating teams are taking on aspects of the US proposal, known as the “Internet Chapter”. I think both documents are genuine, though I wouldn’t put it past the negotiators to put out misinformation as part of a bait-and-switch campaign, but I haven’t read through the documents yet in enough detail to comment on them, though others have:

• Nat Torkington
• Michael Geist
• Jamie Love
• Cory Doctorow

One thing that stands out, as Nat notes, is that the reported New Zealand positions are much more realistic and reasonable than MED’s public utterances would have lead us to anticipate. That’s great, but we’re only one voice at a table we shouldn’t really be sitting around. And I say again, there is nothing in a confidentiality agreement that limits you exposing your own position to your own citizens. If you’ve got nothing to fear… (more…)

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton spoke eloquently last week about freedom of information and what some countries needed to do about it. This cyber-sabre rattling was, however, in  contrast to Vice-President Joe Biden’s “piracy” summit at the White House last year. Biden’s view (as instructed by the “copyright industries” – and I can feel totally happy about using that term now, as even their key lobbyist refers to his clients that way) appears to be that information doesn’t want so much to be free as bought and sold.

There’s another interesting contrast: President Obama’s transparency memo – his first presidential act –  seems to have no impact on the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk, who still insists that the ACTA negotiations are a matter of “national security”. It’s an interesting sidenote that almost all the other nations involved in ACTA swear they’ve all urged greater transparency in the negotiations, so one is left wondering which country is actually keeping it secret. Lookin’ at you, Barack! (more…)

You may remember I mentioned the Copyright thread on Public Address System (PAS to its habitués). It got to 37 pages which we thought was quite a lot. There’s another one, starting from a review of Lawrence Lessig’s lecture in Auckland last year by Matthew Poole, which is now at 81 pages and 1600+ postings, and it’s gone into the issues for the music industry at some length (warning: abandon hope all ye who enter here, as much of it goes round in circles – just pick through and find the nuggets)

Yesterday, Rob Stowell posted a link to a series of posts on Hypebot about free music, from inside the industry. I recommend reading them for some insight and to form your own opinion before reading on, because I’m about to dissect them.

(more…)

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/section-92a-be-scrapped-89121

Prime Minister John Key has announced that the government will throw out the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act and start again.

Justice minister Simon Power will now meet with officials and rewrite the section of the Act from the ground up.

No timeframe has been set for whatever clause will replace Section 92A.

Let’s hope we can do it right this time.

I’ve called out Campbell Smith on his creative use of English to make black appear white. Now its APRA’s turn, and specifically Arthur Baysting. This will probably earn me wrath from some sectors of the music community, to whom Baysting has been a battler of the local industry for years, but his latest effort is a little much to swallow. (more…)

Over on PublicAddress, there’s a long running debate on copyright (actually, crossing over multiple threads and other discussions). It’s got a little heated at times but at the moment, it’s not too bad. Last night, one of the participants, Rob Stowell asked me a question that I had to think about, and this morning I posted my response. I’ve decided to repost it here, because I think it’s a good articulation of my views on the debate.

Effectively, it’s dead as a means of managing the Act. The TCF’s rules are pretty clear: (more…)

WOW! (hat tip to Paul Matthews (NZCS))

The code will not solve copyright issues, says TelstraClear

TelstraClear has pulled the rug from under efforts to implement New Zealand’s controversial new copyright law. The telco has told the Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum (TCF) and a working party trying to thrash out a draft code to implement section 92A of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act that it no longer supports the effort.

Well, don’t that put the cat among the pigeons!

Update: Also, now in Stuff

Astute readers of the net will have noticed that Korea has a proposal for a three strikes or, should we say “graduated response” piece of legislation.

France is also going through the process of such legislation in spite of the fact that the European Parliament has declared it not suitable to Europe. In Ireland, the IP industry has coerced the largest ISP and has sent demands to the smaller ISPs to put in place a graduated response mechanism without legislation. That’s their preferred tactic, I think.

Germany has recently knocked back such a proposal, but there appears to be a surge in United States and other countries for such processes to be put in place.

This has led some people to ask “is this just about the RIAA or are they just a useful stalking horse for wider goals of censorship and control?”.

In my view, that’s bordering on tinfoil hat territory. I’m not disputing there is a wider game being played globally by interested parties, and to some extent it’s about control. But I really don’t think censorship’s the driving force. However, I agree that the RIAA et al are front and centre, while machinations occur behind closed doors. (more…)

Well, sort of. Introduction of Section 92A has been delayed until 27 March, to allow the negotiating parties to sort the Code of Practice out.

3News has it here:

Government delays introduction of controversial ‘S92A’

The government has called for a delay in the implementation of Section 92A, the controversial Copyright Amendment Act due to come into force February 28.

John Key made the announcement at a post-cabinet press conference this afternoon, stating the implementation will be delayed until March 27.

“We are hoping that by that time we will have come up with a voluntary code of practice,” said Mr Key.

It is reported Section 92A will be suspended if no agreement is reached.

and Computer World has it here:

Finlayson John Key delays copyright law

[...] Computerworld spoke to technologist Nat Torkington who attended Finlayson’s press conference this afternoon at 4pm.

Torkington says the government may suspend the controversial S92a if no agreement is reached between the parties on how to implement it.

[...]Even if there is an agreement, Torkington says the government will monitor the first six months of the new regime and review the progress then.

My hearty thanks to everyone who has been involved in protests, and especially to Bronwyn Holloway-Smith and Matt Holloway of the Creative Freedom Foundation who, I have no doubt, are a big part of the cause of this. Well done guys!