Greed.

The following is a letter I wrote to the WCC about the Copyright Amendment Act currently before parliament. 


I think this bill is a step in the right direction but I first must highlight some of the shortcomings of fighting copyright infringement, and ask for the removal of one aspect in the legislation which will affect the human rights of all New Zealanders. The first issue I have with this bill is that it is clearly the archetype of lobbying via the entertainment industry.

The entertainment industry is clearly shown to be stuck in 20th century modes of thinking and ultimately, no matter what legislation is passed: it will all eventually fail and lead to a fairer market for both consumers and producers of media. Until then though, we have to deal with draconian laws that are at best, unnecessary. Turning to my first point, I am fine with the penalty to remain at a maximum of $15,000 but I would like to see this penalty only enforced by judges for repeat offenders who deliberately share and/or make a profit from materials to which they do not have a copyright for. I don't personally agree with the intent of the damages for individuals but, i understand this is a trade off I have to make due to certain viewpoints. I am not as sympathetic to other areas of the law though.

What I wish to see removed is the option for disconnection via the ISP (or anyone). The internet is an imperatively important part of our lives. Some people use it to keep in touch with family, others to read news, others run businesses online, share information, seek information, find articles to help with study, to entertain their children, publish blogs, video blogs, status updates, and also in emergencies such as when the power was cut in wellington not so long ago. Twitter was first place to find information and without internet access a human is cut off from the wider world in a way that has huge human rights implications that go beyond and above the crisis the entertainment industry faces by a person downloading a few mp3 songs or movies. One thing i'd like to point out are actual real case studies which have shown time and time again that those who download copyrighted material are almost always the ones who purchase the same or similar media in legal ways as-well.

 I refuse to comment on my online habits but for the purposes of this submission, I do regularly buy music from iTunes on a weekly basis. There is no way I would have been able to buy as much media as I have done without having first being able to preview it. What i'm saying is, outlawing innocent acts of preview or review - by an innocent individual will actually have counter-intutive effects for the entertainment industry as people are too afraid to test the waters and venture out into new music genres, tastes and forms.

This bill as it currently stands will exact much more negative influence than positive. The only good that will come of it stands in the pockets of executives and their ultra-conservative egos which are driven by greed, and the need for power and conformity in a world who's facets are evolving every day.

Ultimately, where the current copyright act fails, the new one also fails - but in different areas. There was a reason such huge public backlash was compelled last year. The law was an obvious tool for use only by the rich in their antiquated quest for supremacy. Listen to the people this time, seriously. Don't let the current version of the act pass - and don't vouch for the removal of a service such like electricity, should be deemed a necessity to human life. Regards, Morgan.