© kiwiright from nu4mz on Vimeo.
Worth watching and mostly good.
But a specious argument (starts about 1.50) reveals a mindset:
Do you know if you walk around town with a camera you’d be filming a lot of trademarked signs, You might have to get a permit for that. You might have to pay a licence fee for that.
Oh really?
Now do you think that money gets passed onto the artists? It doesn’t. It goes straight into the pockets of the multinationals. The law isn’t there to protect us who create content either. They’re [sic] there to help the people who make money off us and who make money from the public. And that’s the big faceless conglomerates around the world.
While I agree with a lot of the sentiment of the clip, and the stupidity of Section 92A (internet disconnection on accusation) it’s a shame this is being portrayed this alarmist way: “Whistling Happy Birthday in public would be a copyright crime.” That’s not the same as the day care centre being told to take down its Disney characters (a request which was, let’s face it, stupid).
But language like, “the big faceless conglomerates around the world” is just appealing to the Greenpeace demographic … big = bad.
The Free Trade Agreement linkage/shilly-shally is probably imaginary, or pre-emptive weasel-ing by Govt departments/diplomats seeking to earn brownie points. Or vaguely mafia-like behaviour by the local agencies with no basis in reality.
What a strange video. Are these New Zealanders actually saying that Copyright infringement is OK?
Was the cut-away to Disney movies an “in-your-face” slap at Disney? I’d love to be a fly on the wall when the Producer of the video receives a bill from Disney!
Typical of New Zealand reporting, though; opinions only. Where are the facts? What is the relation to the US Free Trade Agreement that was only hinted at? What is it that the New Zealand Copyright law does not say that the US Copyright law does? What is the controversy here?
Just bad reporting, in my opinion; also, the continuous cut-away to the Disney movies is cute – only once!
Here are some facts:
Copyright is about securing the monetary claims over a person’s intellectual property and nothing more. Basically, you can use other people’s material as long as, one, you have their permission, and two; you pay them for it, and three, give them credit. Some exceptions are: true facts, numbers, and most government documentation (at least in the USA).
Yes, it is strange. I’m not sure what they’re saying either, but found it interesting.
The whole ‘eat the faceless conglomerates’ bit is silly, as I said, and I was surprised at what seem like attempts to slip ‘extra bits’ with implications into the law. Lobbyists for ‘the industry’ trying to kill two birds with one stone?
You haven’t mentioned fair use – intended for the purposes of criticism or review – which gives another ‘right’ of reproduction within limits of other people’s IP. Attribution (‘credit’) is a key factor in distinguishing it from plagiarism, as Witi Ihimaera is not the first or last to learn.
The controversy, it seems to me, is the threat to disconnect someone from the internet if they are *accused* of infringement. That threat was what prompted the ‘black out’ campaign of earlier this year. – P
Unenforceable laws have no teeth. The very idea that someone, after 3 infringements, would be forcibly removed from the Internet is unworkable and just plain silly. The people who made this video appear not to know that.
It is common for lawmakers, the world over, to make ridiculous, unworkable and unenforceable laws. Mostly, Courts and police just ignore them because, as would be in this case, who would provide the resources to police such a thing?
Piracy of intellectual property is categorized by criminal law and thereby punitive penalties could apply (depending on country). Copyright infringement is not criminal, but only a Civil in nature. It is up to the person infringed upon to seek recompense for their own damages and not another.