From my point of view, that DMCA-like extension to copyright has the effect of outlawing the use of the brain: "so that the prohibition against the making, importing, hiring and    Âselling of devices, services or information designed to circumvent    Â"copy protection" be expanded to cover devices, services or    Âinformation that circumvent technological protection measures that    Âprotect all rights provided to copyright owners, including    Âcommunication, not just copying;"
Bang goes the New Zealand Knowledge Economy if you can't get intimate and physical with your nearest and dearest to make a device a.k.a. a child's brain, with the ability and capacity of circumventing "copy protection"! And then it suggests outlawing the hiring of such a device as an individual human equipped with a brain with the ability and capacity of circumventing "copy protection". To put it bluntly, it doesn't make any sense. And nonsensical laws have a way of being ignored to death. Anyone know a politician who they can say this to, without getting the "Mrs Grundy" treatment? Wesley Parish On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:26, Timothy Musson wrote: > Here's section 14 of NZ's Bill of Rights Act: > > "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the > freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any > kind in any form." > > And now for something completely different: > > "Digital Technology and the Copyright Act 1994: Policy Recommendations": > http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/int_prop/digital/cabinet/index.html > > <quote> > The Ministry of Justice advises that this raises issues of consistency > with section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act (the right to freedom of > expression). Proposals intended to ensure that copyright applies equally > to works in analogue and digital form are, however, likely to be > considered reasonable and justifiable in Bill of Rights terms. > </quote> > > Take a look at the Recommendations section, especially: > > <quote> > It is recommended that the Committee: > ... > - agree to amend the provision relating to technological protection > measures: > 1. so that the prohibition against the making, importing, hiring and > selling of devices, services or information designed to circumvent > "copy protection" be expanded to cover devices, services or > information that circumvent technological protection measures that > protect all rights provided to copyright owners, including > communication, not just copying; and > 2. to facilitate the actual exercise of permitted acts where > technological measures have been applied > - agree to create an offence (of a fine not exceeding $150 000 and/or > a term of imprisonment of up to five years) for large scale > commercial dealing with devices, services or information designed to > circumvent technological protection measures; > ... > </quote> > > > "Amendments Proposed for Copyright Act" > > http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/int_prop/digital/media/minister-20030625.html > > <quote> > The proposed amendments: > ... > - Prohibit the supply or manufacture of devices, means or information > that circumvent technological protection measures, where circumvention > could enable infringement of any of the copyright ownerâs exclusive > rights, and provide criminal penalties for large scale commercial > dealing in circumvention devices, means or information; > - Introduce protections for electronic rights management information > ("ERMI") that identifies content protected by copyright and the terms > and conditions of use, and provide criminal penalties for large scale > commercial dealing in copyright material where the dealer knows that > ERMI has been removed or altered; > ... > </quote> > > Here's the main page (the list of received submissions is interesting): > http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/int_prop/digital/index.html > > > I didn't know about this until very recently. I knew the government was > considering adding "fair use" provisions to copyright law, but I didn't > realise NZ was about to enact a DMCA equivalent. > > Y'know... > For "fair use" to exist (and it must -- and the government seems to > agree), it follows that tools that can circumvent copy protection must > be legally and easily available to anyone. But if they are, then copy > protection systems are completely and utterly useless and pointless. > > I also recall a RadioNZ interview earlier this year, in which the > Recording Industry Association of NZ argued that we didn't need "fair > use" rights because the RIANZ wasn't interested in suing people for > taping a purchased CD to listen to on the car cassette deck. Judith > Tizard (Associate Minister of Commerce) replied to the effect that it's > just plain silly that something that everyone does (making "fair use" of > copyrighted material) shouldn't be legal. > > What to CLUGers think? Does anyone have pointers to mailing lists / > groups in NZ keeping an eye on changes to copyright law? -- Wesley Parish * * * Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish * * * Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
