[nzlug] PCWorld Anti Piracy

[Nick Rout]

On Tue, January 8, 2008 1:07 am, Simon Bridge wrote:

>
> Refers to "copyright theft" which is meaningless. Further, there is
> nothing in NZ law which equates copyright infringement or unlicenced
> distribution with theft (AFAIK: provide reference if I am wrong.)

A bad article I agree.

There are offences against the Copyright Act, punishable by imprisonment
of up to 5 years. That puts it pretty much on a par with theft. The
punishment for theft varies from 3 months to 7 years depending on the
value of what is stolen and the nature of the theft. However most of the
copyright offences involve some element of commercial endeavour. But look
at the importing provision (s 131(1)(b)) - does a bittorrenter who
"imports" the latest episode of "Heroes" do so solely for his own private
& domestic use? Probably not because he also copies it to others (thats
how BT works). See also paragraph (1)(f) which does not require a
commercial or business element.

The problem with equating copyright infringement and "theft", from a legal
point of view, is that our legal concepts of theft have traditionally
dealt with physical things, not intangibles like intellectual property. In
fact electricity is something that is specifically mentioned in the
legislation as being "capable of being stolen", because traditionally you
couldn't steal it.

So its all semantics, you could equally say in s131 Copyright Act that
"Every person commits theft who, other than pursuant to a copyright
licence..." - either way its an offence. Either way its punishable by
imprisonment. Morally? Is it OK to obtain a copy of a show produced by a
rich US media conglomerate, but not OK to copy an album by a struggling NZ
independent band? I know plenty of people who think like that and will
always buy their NZ music, but will download US and UK TV programmes and
movies willy nilly. That seems to involve a pretty narrow view of
morality.

Sect 131 follows, sorry about the setting out, go to
http://www.legislation.govt.nz if you want to see it set out better.

131 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects

(1)Every person commits an offence against this section who, other than
pursuant to a copyright licence,—

(a)Makes for sale or hire; or

(b)Imports into New Zealand otherwise than for that person's private and
domestic use; or

(c)Possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act
infringing the copyright; or

(d)In the course of a business,—

(i)Offers or exposes for sale or hire; or

(ii)Exhibits in public; or

(iii)Distributes; or

(e)In the course of a business or otherwise, sells or lets for hire; or

(f)Distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an
extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner—

an object that is, and that the person knows is, an infringing copy of a
copyright work.

(2)Every person commits an offence against this section who—

(a)Makes an object specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a
particular copyright work; or

(b)Has such an object in that person's possession,—

knowing that the object is to be used to make infringing copies for sale
or hire or for use in the course of a business.

(3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, every person commits an
offence against this section who—

(a)Causes a literary, dramatic, or musical work to be performed, where
that performance infringes copyright in that work; or

(b)Causes a sound recording or film to be played in public or shown in
public, where that playing or showing infringes copyright in that sound
recording or film,—

knowing that copyright in the work or, as the case requires, the sound
recording or film would be infringed by that performance or, as the case
requires, that playing or that showing.

(4)Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies in respect of
infringement of copyright by the reception of a broadcast or cable
programme.

[(5)Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on

 conviction—

(a)In the case of an offence against subsection (1), to a fine not
exceeding $10,000 for every infringing copy to which the offence relates,
but not exceeding $150,000 in respect of the same transaction, or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding [[5 years]]:

(b)In the case of an offence against subsection (2) or subsection (3), to
a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
[[5 years]].]

(6)Where any person is convicted of an offence against this section in
circumstances where that offence involves the making of profit or gain,
that offence shall be deemed to have caused a loss of property for the
purposes of [section 32(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2002], and the
provisions of that Act relating to the imposition of the sentence of
reparation shall apply accordingly.

(7)Sections 126 to 129 of this Act (which relate to presumptions) do not
apply to proceedings for an offence against this section.

>
> Sharing unlicensed copies online is asserted as a "sister evil" to
> pornography.
>

Some say pornography isn't evil of itself, only if it infringes the three
main legal taboos (kids, animals, violence).

>
> Does say that MPANZ represents *US* movie studios, not NZ movie studios..
> Does point out alternative methods of discouraging copyright
> infringement. (Re. BBC + YouTube etc.)
>

AFAIK BBC still only allows downloads from windows boxes in the UK and is
DRM'd. Youtube is a poky little low quality version of anything. OK for
most of the homemade trash on there - coke bottles with mint lollies
exploding etc - but i wouldn't want my fix of Dr Who on it.

>
> Yes OK, I've been talking to Stallman again... but still...
>



-- 
Nick Rout