London School of Economics on copyright

Yesterday I had a guest blog published on Kiwiblog, discussing a new report from the London School of Economics, challenging the punitive and protectionist stance to copyright that many Governments, including our own, have taken. 

It’s a timely report that challenges the claims the music industry is at mortal peril from online file-sharers and that graduated response regimes like our Copyright (Infringing File-Sharing) Amendment Act, or more popularly known as the ‘Skynet Law’ are the best way forward to address the challenge of copyright infringement.

The New Zealand Government unfortunately has decided to delay the anticipated copyright review and with more reports published challenging the effectiveness of graduated response regimes to copyright infringement as seen in our Skynet Law it’s time the Government reopened the copyright debate and let evidence set policy. I would much rather the Government put their energy into promoting legal content over punitive laws that stifle innovation and plainly don’t work.

We know that these punitive approaches don’t work. Let’s scrap the broken Skynet, and approach a 21st century issue with 21st century thinking.

 

 

9 thoughts on “London School of Economics on copyright

  1. No photonz1 – having already paid a high price for a thin piece of plastic that we want and paid for the packaging, advertising, distribution, rent, wages, etc to get that thin piece of plastic, we don’t want to have to pay again for all that stuff we don’t want and don’t need to shift format. What we want is to be able to listen to the music we have already bought where and when we want to.

    I have a CD player in my car. If I take a holiday, I would like to use it to listen to music as I drive. I don’t want to have to take a box of 15 or so disks worth around $500 if I can find an alternative. So I load the CD contents onto a $7.50 micro SD card the size and weight of a folded postage stamp and insert that into my player, and leave space in the glove box for more useful stuff like maps, torch, tools, and a first aid kit. It is safer too as I don’t have to change anything when it reaches the end of an album. And the $500 of CDs stays safely at home away from the hot sun.

    If I am not allowed to do that, then rather than buying a second copy of the music I am more likely to not bother buying the first copy. (After all, I can’t listen to both copies at the same time.) Tell me how that would benefit the musicians.

    Trevor.

  2. Kerry says “They try and stop me listening to music I have already paid for.”

    No they don’t – you can still listen to your records or cassettes.

    When you pay say $20 for a new CD, around $3 is gst, another $9 will go to the retailer which will pay for the costs of their building costs and/or rent, staff, advertising, profit, tax etc, distribution and warehousing will cost another $1.50, $2 will go to the musicians, and the other $4.50 will go to the record company and cover their advertising, staff, making the CD, plastic cover, designing and printing the artwork, producing and recording the music etc.

    Do you really expect all those companies to supply you with all that for free?

    When you buy a CD, you don’t own the music. You’ve bought a licence to use it in restricted ways (i.e. it doesn’t give you the right to broadcast it publicly, use it in a film, on tv, radio etc).

    It’s just like if you buy a print of one of my images to put on your wall. You can’t then print it on postcards, or use it in a worldwide advertising campaign.

  3. Kerry says “I also object to the music industry selling me the same song over and over in different formats.”

    Are they forcing you to buy what they are selling?

    If you object, it’s simple – don’t buy it.

  4. I also object to the music industry selling me the same song over and over in different formats.
    Much of my music I have bought on record, tape and CD. I have already paid the artist, recording company for the right6s to listen to that song, several times over.

  5. Photo.
    I agree with you on this one, about copyright protection for your legitimate art.

    However,do you seriously think that laws and regulations designed to protect US mega-corporates are going to help you with your film copyright.

    In fact, as I have found first hand, they enable the wealthy, who have the money to register patents and defend copyright, to patent and copyright others ideas and intellectual property, and get away with it!

    Not to mention those who develop software being tied up in the courts by dishonest big outfits, who want to remove competition,and who have bottomless pockets for legal fees.

  6. Photographers are being screwed left right and centre by copyright infringers, and unless they can come up with a several thousand dollars in legal fees to fight it (or tens of thousands if it gets to court), then there’s often not a lot they can do.

    And you want to weaken laws and make this worse?

  7. Great to see you still have the ability to raise the bile level in our fellow NZers. The more that choke the better.
    Do you think that completion of the TPP will mean that the Govt suddenly finds it in their interest to complete a review? (Hell no – I forgot – they will just change this Act, and lots of others, without offering us any period for a review phase.)

Comments are closed.