What does the proposed copyright law mean for you?

Email
Print

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:00a.m.

Protesters will descend on parliament today to deliver a petition against the controversial copyright act amendment which could see people's internet access cut without any proof they did anything wrong.

British comedian Stephen Fry has joined in the debate, blacking-out his profile picture on a popular website and calling for others to stand against the act

So what will it mean for you and me, and why is Stephen Fry in the thick of it?

Ant Healey of the Australasian Performing Rights Association and protest organiser Bronwyn Holloway-Smith spoke to Sunrise.

 
More on this story:
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

25 Feb 2009 08:48a.m.

chris wrote:

Well looks like most of NZ will have no internet if this goes through

24 Feb 2009 11:35p.m.

Shaytan wrote:

I'm not 100% sure on what this means exactly.
Quite honestly, I download up to 3 tracks from an album, and if its good, buy it for my CD collection, but if not, dont bother. With the limited and garbage music you have to put up with on the standard television and radio charts, there is no way I could listen to songs before buying an album... the government will have to force music channels to play a wider and more talented variety of music, so people can, in essense "try before they buy" if they stop sharing, or bye bye underground artists. Mainstream, paid for, top 40 garbage only. Because quite honestly, Im not paying $20 to $30 for a cd that could be crap.
Heres the thing, some bands offer free downloads of 1 to 3 of their tracks per album. How is the ISP to discern between a free MP3 and a stolen one? I am betting on key word search. "MP3 detected - disable account".

19 Feb 2009 10:30p.m.

James Morton wrote:

Basicly the way i see it, this isnt going to work that well, or at all.
I am probably what you would call a "computer nerd" so here's what I reckon is going to end up happening
1: Within a few days or weeks someone somewhere will have created a program that will have made it so the ISP can't see what they are downloading. This basicly results in all the people who download copyright software still being able to keep downloading and/or uploading anything they want, but this means people who don't know what they could be up/down loading, say from a virus doing this on purpose, they will end up disabled for what they know will be no reason at all.
2: I recently heard that New Zealand has the second highest hacking rate in the world, so what does this mean? people will just end up hacking the ISP to be able to keep on doing what they do.
3: It's called SHAREING, which is basicly the same as someone copying files from a PC to PC, say over a key drive, but instead of having to be right there, it is done over internet instead which makes it worldwide sharing over for example, limewire
Okay so now you see this isn't really going to work because it's still going to happen in ways the ISP's cant monitor or control.
Another thing that may end up happening is people deciding to take the ISP out of the situation (aka bypass the ISP) meaning they won't be monitored at all and from that they could get access to all sorts of things including other PCs
Nobody who downloads at all really wants this to happen you have to admit
Thanks for your time

Any complaints or opinions please contact me via email: llama.james@hotmail.com

19 Feb 2009 04:49p.m.

nigel wrote:

I do not consider downloading copyrighted material to be a crime. It is the equitable redistribution of resources and as such is neither immoral nor criminal. That is why people do it and do not feel the least bit guilty about it. Underworld 3 made $40 million on its opening weekend and will make hundreds of millions before it is finished. A million people downloaded it and that’s great isn’t it, if they were not allowed to download it the largest proportion would never see it all. If they can’t afford to go to the movies, or are too far away or whatever reason why should they be deprived of enjoying it? Because they don’t have the money is that why? After all Underworld 3 is only going to make 3 or 4 hundred million.

19 Feb 2009 02:45p.m.

Ryan wrote:

Not once has any APRA representative directly addressed the main concern - that of the guilt based solely on accusation. Every time an interviewer asks them about it the just change the subject and talk about the need to protect copyrights. If they are that concerned about protecting copyrights, the answer is simple - ban the internet. And anyone who breaks the law - by accusation - is punishable by death. Simple. The problem is, that that would be a law that is in direct conflict with current human rights laws - just like this one. It is up to APRA to work with ISPs and the government to find a workable and suitable law - not to push for the first law that comes along protecting and blatantly ignoring concerns. Whilst I don't really care too much about this current law - it's a slippery slope, and this law sets a bad precedent. In 10 years or so some MP or special interest group will go: "we use guilt by accusation laws for copyright - why not other offences - like murder, rape, theft, terrorism, etc". This will mean once you've been accused of a crime a few times you will be automatically found guilty - without any penalty for false accusations. It may seem ridiculous now, but that's what you get when you allow for laws like these to pass unchecked - and if you don't believe that, consider what happened with the Patriot Act.

19 Feb 2009 12:07p.m.

Todd wrote:

i wouldnt download if they didnt charge so much

19 Feb 2009 11:30a.m.

Alien wrote:

even the major isp's are admiting that this law is unworkable.

19 Feb 2009 08:29a.m.

Guy Smiley wrote:

Someone tell APRA not even theer members support this bill.