Keeping the Trans Pacific Partnership from changing our copyright laws
fairdeal.net.nz
fairdeal.net.nz
The primary function of region codes is to allow license holders in different regions to release titles when they want instead of when the title is released in other regions. This way slothco in Region B can release the latest nerdgasm flick 6 months after it comes out in region A without worrying about people importing the region A bluray. That's a bad thing, since slothco paid a lot for the region B rights and any sales direct from region A are effectively lost revenue.
The thing is, even if this law worked people in region B would still have the internet. A lot of them are fairly honest and well-off people who would love to pay to watch that nerdgasm flick, but waiting 6 months for slothco to get around to releasing it is just too long!
The Slothco's of the world are in for a rude awakening if they think they can outlaw both airmail and the internet. This law is practically unenforceable. They should be focusing on bringing films to market in a timely manner. This will remove the motivation for importing out-of-region discs while simultaneously curbing piracy.
And hilariously, it's not even a matter of price. Dotcom's 15 Ferraris are evidence people are quite willing to pay for the superior piracy experience. This is money that Hollywood could have had if only they gave their customers what they wanted.
Instead, Hollywood's plan seems to be
1) increased litigation and screwing over of existing customers
2) ???
3) profit!
sigh
Do you believe Marvel could make up the entire cost of the new Spiderman movie if they distributed solely on Netflix? Could Netflix remain profitable if they had to pay enough to Marvel to cover that (e.g. would people be willing to pay that much more for Netflix)?
I really believe the studios see Netflix as a way to get a little more milk out of the bottom of the bucket. If they believe there is some other way to get more milk, it doesn't show up on Netflix.
Studios might believe that digital distribution will eat the profits from theaters and DVDs, but that doesn't appear to be happening - at least, the "lost" profits appear to be recouped as part of digital distribution deals, and there is definitely room for improvement in this business model.
I should also clarify that I am not at all advocating digital-only distribution, I am advocating a model that is not physical-media-only. It must be possible to have a happy medium that allows consumers to get their hands on the media they are willing to pay for without having to decide between waiting for regional distribution deals or piracy.
Studios are shooting themselves in the foot by not implementing a more effective way of getting in-demand products to consumers using available digital distribution technology.
What I don't understand is why the government thinks this is a high priority.. there are far more serious issues to address and deal with.
That would require all forms of media be passed through a distribution chain, which would be ridiculous. But then again, this law seems ridiculous so let's wait and see.
It will happen. It's very easy for the bad guys to mandate at some point that all media must be passed through a distribution chain.
It _has_ happened in other forms. For example, once (not that long ago, a few decades) you could buy food products direct from the source. Now it has been outlawed in almost extinction, e.g in France (similar laws exist in the US).
Food (cheese, wine, tomatoes, etc) to be sold, has to pass several BS tests and production criteria, that are "for the good of the public", but that in essence prohibit anyone but large industries to be selling it, putting an end to a centuries old tradition of small local producers.
Humans often use names in such ways. For example, "for the children" is often used in arguments for things that are bad for children.
The idea seems to be "{phrase} has good associations and we need to {idea} to have good associations, so we'll use {phrase} to describe/promote {idea}". Note the absence of any dependence between the "meaning" of {phrase} and {idea}.
In this case, "free trade agreements" is how humans regulate trade.
This doesn't explain why they didn't call them "cuddly puppies and children agreements". I suspect that humans prefer oxymorons to nonsequitors.
Or, perhaps they're using "free" mean something different than what you're expecting.
The second linked document - New Zealand's submission - was quite readable and seems fairly rational.
The essays by NZ organisations opposing TPP were also pretty much all interesting reads.
> Under New Zealand copyright law, DVD region codes and the mechanisms in DVD players to enforce them have no legal protection
I have a vague recollection of it not being possible to buy region locked DVD players in New Zealand, but I may be incorrect, or the law may have been changed.
Also, I suspect they may have legal protection now; I was under the impression that the poxy copyright amendment bill of a couple of years ago added something along those lines, but I don't remember specifically enough to be sure (since I no longer live in NZ it's a bit less relevant).
(This is not counting any action the DVD interests could take, i.e patent suits. Most region-free players I've seen are 'chinese' brands)
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-o...
My recollection is that the competition regulator (ACCC) has taken a rather dim view of DVD region locking in the past - but they can't do anything to stop it. They took a similar attitude to modchips but the Federal Court disagreed with them.
Do you realise that the US 'delegation' for any of these negotiations are very well funded professionals who are well connected with industry and are often being groomed for industry jobs. Some of the delegates are probably actual industry reps. There will be a lot of them and they are paid to throw their weight around. And their weight is the weight of the US economy. The only people in the US who will pay attention to this negotiation and protest if it displeases them are the industry groups.
On the other side the NZ delegates are probably keen for a trade deal.
This truly a case of Lions meeting gazelles. And unless the NZ population stays informed and vocal enough this won't be a deal that brings a net positive to them.
I'm not sure if you realize, but free trade deals are very important for primary-producers like NZ (and Australia).
The US has significant trade barriers in place for things like farm goods, and for many nations almost any price is worth paying to get around those restrictions.
The GP comment is because - from the NZ perspective - being able to access the US market maybe worthwhile taking some restrictions on a dying technology like DVDs.
I think it was meant in jest, but the idea behind it is valid.
Pretty sure that was already done when NZ signed Berne in 1928 and TRIPS in 1995, both of which impose a minimum duration of copyright terms.
If NZ were to withdraw from the Berne Convention now, they would only suffer from the consequences in the realm of copyright. TPP appears to bundle several disparate things together, so there is serious leverage for others to prevent withdrawal if the treaty turns out to be significantly disadvantageous to NZ.
Edit: thanks for changing it.
I thought the scrolling was nice - it even had parallax (lightbulb section).
They need to be liquidated using all possible means within the bounds of law.
Politicians and govt officials working for the copyright extension and enforcement agenda need to be deprived of all power.
Yes, but not so much for restrictions such as mentioned above.
Primarily for the content they produce.
The people are in desparate need of a new updated Human rights list.
1. Governments may not BAN digital storage mediums for use by the people. The right to store data on a device of our choosing shall not be made illegal.
These governments would ban talking if they could.