Green MP sparks intellectual property debate
Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
Get the latest news from Computerworld delivered via email.
Sign up now
Green MP Gareth Hughes, in a blog post, has sought to reignite public debate on the intellectual property provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Media discussion of the proposed international treaty has recently focused on access for agricultural produce and regulations governing overseas investment and pharmaceuticals.
New Zealand has been hosting the latest round of the TPPA negotiations in Auckland this month and the event, at Sky City, has attracted vociferous protest. However, as usual, details of the negotiation are under wraps. If previous rounds are any indication, the public may get a brief communiqué some time after the round concludes.
Hughes has based his comments on leaked drafts indicating the US position, which may well have been significantly amended since the drafts appeared. The last extensively leaked draft of the US position on IP is dated February 10, 2011 and was characterised at the time by local IP lawyer Rick Shera as “negotiation bullying” – setting an extreme but hardly realistic position from which some concessions could safely be made.
“Well it's all we have to go on, and obviously was a negotiating point,” says Hughes when questioned on its current relevance. “Talking to people involved in following [the discussions] it seems very much still on the table,” he says.
“Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the US-influenced IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and stifle innovation,” Hughes says on his blog. He is quoting from and linking to a bulletin on the site of digital activist organisation the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF comment in turn bases its argument substantially on the February 2011 draft.
Hughes rehearses arguments about potential erosion of “permitted uses” of copyright material under New Zealand law, the possibility of liability for online copyright breaches attaching to intermediaries such as ISPs, and the US proposal to regulate temporary copies, which are integral to the functioning of the internet.
Hughes’s blog is attracting comments, some in sympathy with his views, some accusing him of only seeing “half the story”.
“You’re happy to have laws that will allow any big overseas company to rip off Kiwi creatives – photographers, cinematographers, writers, designers, artists, musicians etc – and give them little power to do anything about it,” says “photonz1.”
“It’s hard enough to stop that now under current weak rules,” the commenter continues “And you want to weaken them further so Kiwis can be ripped off even more.”
“The question of how you get compensated and how, and how someone is prevented from scanning one of your images or bootleg recording someone’s songs and then posting, is quite difficult,” replies “bjchip”.
“[However], the proper response isn’t to extend copyright to the end of time, or to cede our sovereignty in making our laws. That’s wrong.”
Posted by kalpanaceo at 20:07:17 on December 17, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 11:36:27 on December 17, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 16:17:59 on December 15, 2012
Posted by Grant Paton-Simpson at 9:34:52 on December 15, 2012
Whichever of the major parties the anonymous author of that comment supports, the lack of introspection is staggering.
With National seemingly intent on looting the country's resources and selling them to the highest bidder, and Labour too lacking in leadership, confidence and ideas to put up any kind of a fight, it is a sad fact that the Greens appear to be the only party in which any kind of coherent forward thinking is happening and being communicated. It's not all that surprising that they should be the ones suggesting that we aim at sustainability - after all that has been their "USP" for years. That they should be the only party who seem to actually understand some of the issues we're facing in technology is more surprising, and the two major parties' deficiencies in this area are inexcusable.
Posted by Nick Phillips at 17:31:14 on December 14, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 14:32:16 on December 14, 2012
And yes they have it and independent 3rd parties quite often speak of how good it is. (e.g. energy policy) They think a LOT about it and do damned well considering they don't have the resources the two main ones do to come up with it.
You don't have to agree with it, that is what democracy is about.
But feel free to regurgitate this truism you read in a paper somewhere. After all, if you just stick to believing spin lines you wont be intellectually challenged in any way and will find many who support your views like on 1ZB. (the home of the intellectually unchallenged...)
Posted by yeah right at 8:13:28 on December 16, 2012
Posted by Dave Lane at 15:58:28 on December 14, 2012
Once was Green (under Fitzsimons and Donald) is now Red.
Co leader one - Russel Norman - was with the socialist workers Party in Australia - read 'communist'
co leader two - Metiria Turei - is from an anarchist background.
Sue Bradford just wants to break everything so she left to continue that.
Look at their pedigree. They are dangerous and are generally Marxist Leninist textbook followers. One of many sources. http://www.trevorloudon.com/2009/05/green-party-file-9-anarchist-metiria-turei-wins-greens-co-leadership/
Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by Wayne at 10:54:39 on December 18, 2012
Posted by You got to fight for your right....to paaaarrrrrttttyyyyy..... at 14:31:55 on December 18, 2012