Hollywood Wines & Dines Kiwi Politicians To Get Them To Support Hollywood's Copyright Insanity In TPP
from the don't-fold dept
The whole Megaupload/Dotcom mess seems to have really woken up New Zealand to just how much damage an overzealous interpretation of copyright laws can do. New Zealand has already passed a ridiculous three strikes law that US diplomats offered to write for them -- but it seems that the whole Megaupload case has many in the country rethinking their government's support for Hollywood's interpretation of copyright.And that actually represents a big problem for Hollywood, because New Zealand has been a key force in pushing back on Hollywood's plans for copyright expansionism in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. But Hollywood (and the USTR) need New Zealand to come on board, so they've moved into aggressive lobbying mode. Prime Minister John Key, fresh off of apologizing to Kim Dotcom, showed up in Hollywood recently to be wined and dined by studio execs:
The movie industry's main motives for wining, dining and flattering the Prime Minister were not about Dotcom or subsidies, although it has an obvious interest in both.And... at the same time he was being catered to by studio bosses, counterparts in New Zealand were aggressively lobbying other officials there:
The end-goal is to get Key's Government to drop its opposition to aggressive United States demands in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations. New Zealand will host the next round of TPPA talks in Auckland in early December.
While John Key was in Los Angeles, top US intellectual property negotiators were in Wellington lobbying for their latest proposals.The article linked above, published in the New Zealand Herald, properly points out that what Hollywood is asking for of New Zealand "is too high a price" to pay, just to keep Hollywood happy, and to bring big movie productions to New Zealand. It will impact too many other businesses and "stifle the growing local industry." Hopefully, politicians in New Zealand understand that keeping Hollywood happy seems to result in pretty damaging situations for people in New Zealand and continues to push back against such overreach.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hollywood, john key, lobbyists, new zealand, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the government give Hollywood what it wants or will the Dotcom fiasco be too toxic?
However the government goes, the MPAA probably loses. They have spent a huge amount of political capital on NZ. Even if they get everything they are asking for they will have a hollow victory in the long run. Of the many of the things they want in the TPP to fight piracy, none of it is likely to help movie profits. In the meantime exposure of the fiasco with Megaupload is making other countries much less likely to get involved in MPAA-driven tilting at windmills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, I don't expect NZ to completely collapse like a cheap tent. Rather, I expect someone to start a review of how Kim Dotcom got resident status in the country, and possibly for that status to be revoked, such that the attempts to block extradition from NZ will become meanigless as he gets shuffled out the door, no longer a legal resident.
NZ has too much on the table to stand there and try to protect a guy who is pretty much using them as a doormat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
actually, Key and his mates have managed to walk themselves into a situation where our network is screwed if they go against china, the US is pissed and our security Maybe compromised if they don't (except it's Already compromised by US interests, so who cares?), the US and hollywood is pissed if they decide to come clean on the Dotcom thing, and the public is pissed AND they've broken the law all over the place if they don't... (and there's more things than That that put them between public outrage and US and/or Chinese interests, incidentally... not to mention the places where their own Policy causes paradoxes with internal issues...)
wandered themselves right into a nice little corner between a rock, a hard place, the devil and the deep blue sea. hehe.
'course, they're politicians, so the odds of it biting them anything like as hard as it should are low, but still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, you there: your morals are loose. You are a loser.
See the difference?
Good, fantastic.
Now please go die in a fire.
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
And look at the IQ of his fellow kool-aid drinking zealots. Oof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, you there: your morals are loose. You are a loser.
See the difference?
Good, fantastic.
Now please go die in a fire.
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
And look at the IQ of his fellow kool-aid drinking zealots. Oof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, you there: your morals are loose. You are a loser.
See the difference?
Good, fantastic.
Now please go die in a fire.
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
And look at the IQ of his fellow kool-aid drinking zealots. Oof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that doesn't mean 'post it again'.
let's see. you corrected spelling (helpful if done politely) insulted the poster you were responding to.
made up bullshit for a personal attack
and insulted even more people.
nice job.
moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
what has Dotcom done to warrant having his NZ resident status revoked? i would think that if that were to happen now, especially after the Prime Minister has personally (although i suspect hollowly) apologized to him, it would make Keys look a right plum and give him serious shit in Parliament!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the government (not Dotcom) were getting raked over the coals for this just before the whole extradition thing blew up in their face. hehe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hollywood would still want to use NZ as a place to film whether TPP is pushed through or not.
Kim Dotcom - "pretty much using them as a doormat"
I think he calls NZ home doesn't he? Yes.
Has he been convicted of anything illegal? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is that the MPAA is more concerned about control, not profits. Profits is the banner but control is the goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? What industries and how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Location shooting can dump a lot of money into the local economy. There have been enough big movies shot in New Zealand to create an industry around servicing movie production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are an idiot. A couple hundred people, for a month or two, here or there, is a fools errand. They would be much better off just promoting NZ for tourism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn people using their free speech rights and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or is free speech for them not us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What we have a problem with is the content of their speech. We have a problem with them even talking to the New Zealand Prime Minister at all, since the timing of it (right in the middle of the controversial Kim DotCom case) reeks of corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does suggesting duct taping the mouth of the head of the MPAA count? Or was that at Torrent freak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By posting such an article, Mike is trying to do exactly that, shame them from doing what others do normally.
It's telling that you can't understand what Mike is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...
...
the bit you seem to be completely missing (corruption is NOT ok and free speech does NOT protect it) is quite telling too.
there is no problem with these organizations having their say. there are MAJOR problems with them doing so behind closed doors with the leader of a Different Country who has ALREADY PROVEN to be woefully untrustworthy.... among a whole laundry list of other things.
WHAT they're saying is a problem (preventing them saying it is not the solution)
HOW they're saying it is a problem (preventing them saying it is not the solution. forcing them to say it in the appropriate forum IS...)
the fact that they get to say it at all is not.
basically, preventing corruption and treasonous behaviour (doesn't meet the legal definition required to go to court, but it sure as hell is that sort of behaviour) on the part of a national leader trumps bogus 'freedom of speech' claims.
(not legit ones, but claims that they're quite entitled to usurp the democratic process and use corrupt and underhanded means to achieve objectives contrary to the public interest because of Free Speech is just nonsense.)
Ugh. i doubt i explained that well. point is, you're fabricating an issue that ISN"T THERE to attack.
i believe that is a strawman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wine & Dine = corruption. But let's not let ethics and conflict of interest get in the way of pushing an agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
revoking his residency would pretty much confirm the fact that the entire case is a political stitch-up, the courts would Still be involved, and i'm pretty sure the result would be a collapsed government. (i'm not sure of the exact court processes, but the extradition would fail, for one thing. if they then force him out of the country (which they might find themselves unable to do) i'm pretty sure they would, at least, not be able to send him directly to the sates. not legally, at least.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps he can join Assange hiding out in an embassy because they don't want to face their legal issues head on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(and whatever issues one may or may not have with either individual, the interests they find themselves opposing include elements known to be willing and able to do the above.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
after all, such behaviour is one of the main things that's Hammering his popularity. (though media spin and general voter apathy/stupidity may be compensating somewhat.)
also, the three strikes law? yeah. went through the whole process, got ripped out as a bad idea, added back in by the relevant minister as party policy or something, spawned wide scale protest, the entire section was tossed, or something like, then, when parliament was meeting under urgency, supposedly to deal with the Christchurch earthquake, they somehow contrived to add that bit back in again. (meeting under urgency means nothing that is brought to vote goes through the select comity or public consultation stage. it is presented, voted, and they move on. it is used to deal with crises and emergencies, as well as to clear the deck of minor stuff/things that need to be dealt with before parliament resumes in February or so at the end of the year. it's not uncommon for important stuff to be snuck into the end of year clearance, but the use of an emergency session to deal with a national disaster to pass it is in appallingly bad taste, at best.)
such is my understanding of the sequence of events at least. i may have the details wrong, but the final result Was rammed through under urgency after the earthquake. (and our government isn't as proportional/representative as it may appear. there's an obsession with it being able to 'carry out the business of government without disruption', nevermind that the disruption in question would, usually, be the crippling of Appallingly bad ideas the current system lets them get through simply by trading their agreement to support someone else's appallingly bad ideas.)
any other party running the show (except ACT) would have been more resistant to this nonsense (ACT would have folded even quicker/been more accommodating. they're the 'subsidise the rich, privatise everything, strip away all regulation, and fuck the public interest' party, really.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being Hollywood's Bitch
Then, when Hollywood comes knocking, the pollies can just say, "Oh no, I couldn't possibly talk to you. You are under a RICO investigation."
Voters should take careful note of which pollies want to stay friends with Hollywood versus which ones support the investigation (and make suitable "concerned" noises).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch
Second, you would need something to hang it on. The movie industry is a lot of things, but it isn't a specifically corrupt organization.
I think it's amusing that you think that these things can be fabricated out of thin air. Dotcom had to break the law endlessly and rub it in everyone face repeatedly before anything happened to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch
this and that are two completely different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch
Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians are far too easy swayed by fancy dinners and shiny donations and this means that multi national corporations have a scary level of access to top level politicians so that they can influence policy.
This must stop. Governments are there to act on behalf of 100% of the population, not 1%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
not sure there's enough weapons around here to do that without subverting the military though.
a few hunting rifles and sports(?) pistols, more swords than you'd expect (though a lot of them are either display blades of dubious utility or training blades... but there are people who make 'em about :D) oddly, a tank here and there (no ammo though) and trebuchets get built on a semi-regular basis as it is...
.... cheap cruise missiles with off the shelf parts are entirely possible (under 3kNZD)... sans warheads.
the same restrictions on weapons that make NZ so much more successful at keeping occupied regions under control also make it harder for us to revolt, ya know? if we were set up like the USA, we're still small enough that a revolt of that nature could happen and succeed without exceptional circumstances. but we're not. and most of us are Seriously glad of that. (and it's one of many reasons so many people have such strong objections to John Key's agenda and behaviour. we LIKE not being like the USA...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so secret negotiations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so secret negotiations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not so secret negotiations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so secret negotiations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty confident I'll see the death of the MAFIAA (not the label, the anti-piracy morons). It'll be a day to remember and party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]