Copyright vs Theft: The Internet is Not Skynet
Illegal downloading is a problem. I can agree with this statement. But my disagreement is a 180 from the position of government and corperations, shockingly enough. I know all of you are.
Shocked.
I completely disagree that the best way to handle it is a cosmetic legislation that will only impact casual, uninformed Internet users, or those that cannot be bothered undergoing sidestepping methods such as fake IP addresses because it's not a frequent enough practice, when the people actually making an impact in the world of piracy will be able to evade monitoring as effortless second nature. I could die. This is maybe the first time I've really objected to something that National has done, despite not voting for them - that said, Labour threw in their favour too. I guess I'm voting Green next election.
And WHY was this pushed through in urgency? What the fuck is urgent about this? Unless it's secretly a favour to the NZ population to put through something that is ineffective and retarded and do it fast so no one protests, but I get the feeling this isn't so, seeing as we so far have both presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and state sanctioned spying by private individuals and companies.
Why don't we all sit down, bring in some unbiased, informative analysts of files-sharing and Internet piracy from both sides of the argument, and actually come up with a long term effective solution that recognises the changing medium of media distribution as well as copyright laws? I will be fine with a law made by people who know what the fuck they're talking about, unlike the jokers in Parliament comparing the Internet to Skynet (really), and confusing file-sharing with illegal downloading and theft with copyright infringement. That you know nothing about computers is not funny nor endearing, when you are law makers - it's depressing.
I have an idea.
How about you make available movies and music in ways that don't limit the way people can have it? iTunes does it, sort of, within their limited iPriorities, but make it a common, standard practice, and support it politically. I mean, do this until the entirety of the entertainment business realises that they need to make available their shit for free and rake in profit from concerts, tickets and merchandise (as if they already don't) because being precious about a media text after its release is backwards, frankly, but UNTIL THEN, let's study the reasons behind piracy beyond price, and find lawful ways to make it work.
Some acknowledgment towards the fact that this kind of distribution actually promotes artists and allows them amazing exposure would be nice too rather than banging on and on about theft. There are bands in the world that have worked this out already. Oh but wait - that puts freedom of choice in the hands of consumers, regarding who is popular and distributed, and what major label or studio would want that? Good thing you have governments bending over for you.
Add to the fact that it's the independent, local artists who would actually benefit from "illegal" downloading in terms of exposure or at least wouldn't be able to pursue the pirating of their work in comparison to major overseas studios and labels. So anyone who bitches that this supports local media is kidding themselves.
Government!!, understand that the world has changed. Globalisation is happening. New Zealand no longer wants to put up with a year-long wait to catch up with other countries to consume media - maybe 20 years ago, no one cared because there was no choice, and now there is, and you're trying to prosecute people who are not criminal. We are a country of copyright consumers rather than copyright creators, because our economy can barely support local media. Recognise the cause as opposed to treating the symptoms.
Oh, and last thing's last, and this is a general statement regardless of region - copyrighting television shows is utterly ridiculous. How much does it cost to watch a programme on television? One that's free to air? Nothing. The cost of your television. Because, like newspapers which are piss cheap or even free in some places, they get their money from advertising.
I won't deny that there is art in television shows. There is, if only to hold our interest and compete for an increasingly critical audience. But they are first and foremost a product of advertising. A television is an advertising box. That is literally all it is. Entertainment comes second - no one would bother if it didn't sell something. The only exception is during national crisis, when programmes and advertising both are put on hold for news coverage, but for the most part? Shows are vehicles to sell products advertised in between them, and made freely available to do so. Producers bitching about illegal downloads are crying because we're not looking at the advertisements of the stupid corporations they whore themselves for.
At the very least, the VERY least, shows could air remotely on time. Maybe. Television in this country, a lot like our data caps, is a joke.
Otherwise, produce better mediums for consumers to consume for free. Your streaming sites are shitty, slow and laggy, as well as outmoded in the same way television is, with restricted variety dictated by you. Package episodes in formats that are accessible and flexible, place all the advertising you want on the website, link to where we can buy collectors DVDs (because the only people who buy DVDs of TV shows are the fans anyway who will do so regardless of what they have on their computer if you give them a fraction of a reason to do so) and get over yourselves.
I think what makes me mad about this is that this isn't about a law that supports the people, just massive companies. It's corporations hiding behind legislation, because changing and adapting doesn't pull in easy dollars, and it is simple luxury that the law favours them as opposed to any moral indignation and protecting the artists. I used to be glad that New Zealand didn't change its law-making in the name of American money, like Australia, but never mind.
Give it another generation, I guess, and get some fresh blood in Parliament, and maybe then things will change when the law makers aren't people who wouldn't know how to purchase a song from iTunes if they tried.
Shocked.
I completely disagree that the best way to handle it is a cosmetic legislation that will only impact casual, uninformed Internet users, or those that cannot be bothered undergoing sidestepping methods such as fake IP addresses because it's not a frequent enough practice, when the people actually making an impact in the world of piracy will be able to evade monitoring as effortless second nature. I could die. This is maybe the first time I've really objected to something that National has done, despite not voting for them - that said, Labour threw in their favour too. I guess I'm voting Green next election.
And WHY was this pushed through in urgency? What the fuck is urgent about this? Unless it's secretly a favour to the NZ population to put through something that is ineffective and retarded and do it fast so no one protests, but I get the feeling this isn't so, seeing as we so far have both presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and state sanctioned spying by private individuals and companies.
Why don't we all sit down, bring in some unbiased, informative analysts of files-sharing and Internet piracy from both sides of the argument, and actually come up with a long term effective solution that recognises the changing medium of media distribution as well as copyright laws? I will be fine with a law made by people who know what the fuck they're talking about, unlike the jokers in Parliament comparing the Internet to Skynet (really), and confusing file-sharing with illegal downloading and theft with copyright infringement. That you know nothing about computers is not funny nor endearing, when you are law makers - it's depressing.
I have an idea.
How about you make available movies and music in ways that don't limit the way people can have it? iTunes does it, sort of, within their limited iPriorities, but make it a common, standard practice, and support it politically. I mean, do this until the entirety of the entertainment business realises that they need to make available their shit for free and rake in profit from concerts, tickets and merchandise (as if they already don't) because being precious about a media text after its release is backwards, frankly, but UNTIL THEN, let's study the reasons behind piracy beyond price, and find lawful ways to make it work.
Some acknowledgment towards the fact that this kind of distribution actually promotes artists and allows them amazing exposure would be nice too rather than banging on and on about theft. There are bands in the world that have worked this out already. Oh but wait - that puts freedom of choice in the hands of consumers, regarding who is popular and distributed, and what major label or studio would want that? Good thing you have governments bending over for you.
Add to the fact that it's the independent, local artists who would actually benefit from "illegal" downloading in terms of exposure or at least wouldn't be able to pursue the pirating of their work in comparison to major overseas studios and labels. So anyone who bitches that this supports local media is kidding themselves.
Government!!, understand that the world has changed. Globalisation is happening. New Zealand no longer wants to put up with a year-long wait to catch up with other countries to consume media - maybe 20 years ago, no one cared because there was no choice, and now there is, and you're trying to prosecute people who are not criminal. We are a country of copyright consumers rather than copyright creators, because our economy can barely support local media. Recognise the cause as opposed to treating the symptoms.
Oh, and last thing's last, and this is a general statement regardless of region - copyrighting television shows is utterly ridiculous. How much does it cost to watch a programme on television? One that's free to air? Nothing. The cost of your television. Because, like newspapers which are piss cheap or even free in some places, they get their money from advertising.
I won't deny that there is art in television shows. There is, if only to hold our interest and compete for an increasingly critical audience. But they are first and foremost a product of advertising. A television is an advertising box. That is literally all it is. Entertainment comes second - no one would bother if it didn't sell something. The only exception is during national crisis, when programmes and advertising both are put on hold for news coverage, but for the most part? Shows are vehicles to sell products advertised in between them, and made freely available to do so. Producers bitching about illegal downloads are crying because we're not looking at the advertisements of the stupid corporations they whore themselves for.
At the very least, the VERY least, shows could air remotely on time. Maybe. Television in this country, a lot like our data caps, is a joke.
Otherwise, produce better mediums for consumers to consume for free. Your streaming sites are shitty, slow and laggy, as well as outmoded in the same way television is, with restricted variety dictated by you. Package episodes in formats that are accessible and flexible, place all the advertising you want on the website, link to where we can buy collectors DVDs (because the only people who buy DVDs of TV shows are the fans anyway who will do so regardless of what they have on their computer if you give them a fraction of a reason to do so) and get over yourselves.
I think what makes me mad about this is that this isn't about a law that supports the people, just massive companies. It's corporations hiding behind legislation, because changing and adapting doesn't pull in easy dollars, and it is simple luxury that the law favours them as opposed to any moral indignation and protecting the artists. I used to be glad that New Zealand didn't change its law-making in the name of American money, like Australia, but never mind.
Give it another generation, I guess, and get some fresh blood in Parliament, and maybe then things will change when the law makers aren't people who wouldn't know how to purchase a song from iTunes if they tried.