Don't Put The Words 'Rugby' 'World' And 'Cup' Together In New Zealand, Or You Might Get Fined

from the descriptive? dept

Not again. What is it with major international sporting events and governments' willingness to bend over backwards to give them extraordinary intellectual property protections? We all know about how the Olympics seems to always get intellectual property rights that go beyond any standard trademark laws. And we've seen similar things with the FIFA World Cup. Apparently, the same is happening for other "World Cups" as well. Lawrence D'Oliveiro points us to the news that the Rugby World Cup was able to get a special law passed in New Zealand that could make using those three words together in the wrong way subject to fines of up to $150,000. Basically, you can't say those words in any sort of fundraiser, promotion or event, unless you're an official sponsor. The Rugby World Cup people promise they'll "use common sense" before going after anyone using those words, but already some fundraisers and car rental shops have been told to change their signs for mentioning the World Cup.

Filed Under: new zealand, rugby, trademark, world cup

New Zealand Authors Demanding Compulsory Blanket 'You Must Be A Criminal' Internet Charge

from the author-welfare dept

With New Zealand's copyright reform proposal still being discussed, we're hearing about some really ridiculous proposals to make it even worse. We already noted the idea of a full internet ban for users found to be infringing, and Glyn Moody Michael Scott points us to a proposal from "The Society of Authors" in New Zealand saying that there should be a blanket licensing fee for anyone accessing content online. Yes, basically they're asking for free money, backed by a government proposal. Rather than having to actually work to put together a business model, they want the government to just tell ISPs to collect a fee from everyone and then they'll figure out a way to give it to some authors.

Filed Under: authors, blanket license, copyright, new zealand

New Zealand Lawyers Suggest Full Internet Ban For Repeat Infringers

from the as-if-that's-possible dept

We've covered the ongoing debates in New Zealand over the proposed three strikes law in the latest copyright reform bill. There are many, many people who are quite concerned about any sort of three strikes law -- which is why the earlier version was scrapped and the process was restarted. However, there are still some who think that it doesn't even go far enough. Lots of you have been submitted TorrentFreak's story about recent hearings about the bill where one group, the New Zealand Law Society, says that rather than a "disconnection" for three strikes, users should get a full internet ban. There's no indication that anyone in the government is seriously considering such a proposal, but it's really a rather startling suggestion. It ignores (as do basic three strikes laws), just how prevalent internet access has become in our lives. Talk about the punishment going way beyond the "crime."

Filed Under: copyright law, internet ban, new zealand, three strikes

New Zealand To Dump Software Patents Afterall (But Will Allow 'Embedded Software' Patents)

from the back-and-forth dept

Back in March, we discussed a report claiming that New Zealand politicians wanted to completely outlaw software patents. However, in June, it was reported that a lobbying group claiming to represent tech industry companies, NZICT, had convinced politicians to back down somewhat, and go back to allowing certain types of software patents. In our comments, there was a bit of an interesting discussion, with one knowledgeable New Zealander noting that NZICT mostly represents foreign tech companies, and that none of the top 15 New Zealand software firms are members.

It looks like those reports of NZ politicians backing down may have been a bit premature. Chirag Mehta points us to the news that, despite the lobbying effort, it's been announced that the patent bill will not be changed, thus basic software will remain unpatentable. However, the details suggest that embeddable software can be patented, and there are some concerns that the "guidelines" (yet to be developed) for such embeddable software will be used by some to sneak in standard software patents.

Still, it's good to see New Zealand realizing that basic software patents can be harmful. It sounds like a big help was the fact that the two biggest New Zealand software companies both came out against software patents certainly helped. Orion Health noted that patents generally are "counter-productive" and "are often used obstructively." The company also noted that the " best protection is to innovate and innovate fast." Exactly. Meanwhile, Jade said: "We believe the patent process is onerous, not suited to the software industry, and challenges our investment in innovation."

And really, the fact that the domestic software industry doesn't want software patents, while foreign competitors did, is not a surprise. If you look back at the history of patents, it's the same story over and over again. When Switzerland was finally pressured into adding patent protection for dyes, it was due to strong pressure from foreign dyemakers. When Italy was finally pressured into adding patents on pharmaceuticals, again it was due to strong pressure from foreign pharmaceutical firms. In both cases, after patents were put in place, they weren't used to make those industries more innovative, but for large multinational conglomerates to come in and lock up the market. It's nice to see that New Zealand may avoid this fate on software.

Filed Under: new zealand, patents, software patents

New Zealand Media Claiming That Huge Local Film Success Story Is Being Harmed... By 200 Downloaders?

from the say-what-now? dept

Reader Matt Perryman points us to a bizarre story down in New Zealand, which he claims is all over the news. Apparently, a local movie, called Boy, has been a huge success -- having the third most successful box office of a New Zealand film ever. Not bad, right? But, months after the film has been out in the theaters, it's now been leaked to the internet, and suddenly the media frenzy is about just how much this is "costing" the filmmakers. No evidence (at all), is presented. They just claim that a leak like this will cost a million dollars. Even more amusing, at the time these reports came out, they said that the movie had only been downloaded 200 times. But, if you look at the comments on that article, a ton of them are thanking the publications for letting everyone know the movie was available for download. Of course, many of the commenters are also pointing out that they don't live in New Zealand, and there was no way for them to see the movie otherwise... meaning that those downloads aren't losses at all. But, it seems the reporters never bothered to mention that rather important fact.

Filed Under: copyright, downloads, losses, movies, new zealand

Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

from the evidence-please? dept

Techdirt reader Mark Harris (a technologist and actor in New Zealand) alerts us to the submission he made to the government concerning the proposed new copyright law that would effectively create a three strikes rule in that country. His main concern is the same one that has been raised around here plenty of times: where is the actual evidence that this bill is needed or that it will "help"? As always the evidence is lacking. He notes over and over again that no actual evidence is presented to back up this bill. There are claims from industry representatives, based on nothing, but no actual evidence. He concludes by pointing out that the real issue isn't file sharing, but the industry's unwillingness to change:

The problem here is not filesharing or even copyright infringement under old rules. The problem is a disruptive sea change in technology that is causing old business models to become irrelevant. It's not even about people wanting material for free -- evidence shows that people will pay even when they don't have to IF they want to, IF they feel that the object of payment is worthwhile.

The issue facing the content industries especially is an unwillingness to change their business models, even in the face of their irrelevancy. Content business models are about selling scarce things, such as albums and movies. When things can be copied at little or no cost, they are no longer scarce. These industries now want legislators like you to impose artificial scarcities through legislation such as this Bill.

The whole letter is well worth reading.

Filed Under: copyright law, new zealand

New Zealand Politicians Convinced By Lobbyists To Bring Back Software Patents

from the so-much-for-that dept

There was widespread happiness among software developers a few months back, when it was announced that New Zealand had decided to explicitly ban software patents. Of course, it didn't take long for a lobbying campaign to kick off from those opposed to this provision, and it appears the lobbying was effective, such that software patents will now be allowed -- though, they will still be somewhat limited (as they are in Europe). So, it's not quite as bad as the situation in the US. A New Zealand patent attorney posted a letter from the head of the lobbying group discussing this shift. While that blog post has since been deleted, as of this posting Google still has the cache. Most of the letter rambles on a bit about who was in the meeting, but the key points are towards the end, where he claims that the government official they met with made the following points:

• The intent had never been to ban software patents outright (and the MED would have serious concerns about that if it were proposed).
• If it is patentable in the EU then it should be patentable in New Zealand.
• Software should be treated like other technology, so should have a technical purpose and be an inventive step to be patentable, as in Europe.
• Not just any software would be patentable, it would need to meet the above test.
• Embedded or not embedded is or was not the distinction that is intended.
• The signal that the Government wants to send is to follow European law and practice.

Of course, that does seem to contradict some of what was discussed a few months back, where it was explicitly stated that:

"Protecting software by patenting it is inconsistent with the open source model and its proponents oppose it. A number of submitters argue that there is no "inventive step" in software development, as "new" software inevitably builds on existing software. They felt that computer software should be exluded from patent protection as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques. In general we accept this position."

In general, you accept that position until the lobbyists get busy, apparently.

Filed Under: new zealand, patents, software

New Zealand Moves Forward With Three Strikes; Big Questions Left Unanswered

from the not-so-good dept

New Zealand has been working on putting in place a three strikes law which is only marginally better than the one that it originally tried to pass. Right now, it looks like the "new bill" is moving forward with little opposition, even though there are some serious unanswered questions. Reader Matt Perryman has written up a detailed look at some of the bigger issues, asking about things like the privacy issues and the costs put on ISPs. However, his final two points are perhaps the most important. First, he notes that no details have been released or discussed about this special "copyright tribunal" that will handle these cases, even though that's pretty central to the whole deal:

You're creating a copyright tribunal to handle all of these complaints, and yet we've heard exactly nothing about what this will entail, regarding standards of evidence and valid defenses....

The dilemma: I have a wifi hotspot in my home, attached to my internet account. It's unsecured. A hacker or ne'er do well logs in to my hotspot, torrents a bunch of movies without my knowledge. Later I receive infringement notices and have to show up at the tribunal. I'm stunned, because I know nothing about it.

Is my defense of an unsecured wifi hotspot, combined with total ignorance of the matter, valid?

Change the parameters a little. My hotspot is secured by WEP, and a hacker cracks it (which is amazingly easy to do). Same scenario ensues. Is this a valid defense?

What about IP spoofing? What if someone frames me for infringement when I've not engaged in the activity? Is that a valid defense?

No matter what you feel the answers to the above questions are, the fact that this is not clear and has not been discussed with regards to New Zealand's proposed law seems tremendously problematic. It leaves all sorts of questions on the table that could make the law incredibly bad. And the answers to those questions -- no matter which way they go, raise questions about this law:

If these defenses are valid, then the copyright tribunal is redundant; anyone aware of these issues has so many plausible defenses that there is no way to prove infringement.

If these defenses are not valid, then the tribunal is a sham and a rubber-stamp for industry interests, because there is no way to prove your innocence in light of accusation.

His final point is that this bill would create a new class of criminals totally at the behest of an industry -- which isn't quite how things are supposed to work:

You're criminalizing a non-criminal behavior based on exactly nothing of substance, and at the behest of a private industry.

I'm of the mindset that if you're going to criminalize a behavior, you had best meet the burden of proof as to why that behavior is being outlawed.

Can the NZ MPs do that? If they can, they're doing their best to hide their evidence. The industry's own statistics have been called into question and ultimately they've been debunked.

So the obvious question: on what grounds are you justifying this?

Good questions -- but somehow I doubt we'll get any substantial answers from New Zealand MPs.

Filed Under: new zealand, three strikes

Missing From ACTA Release: What Each Country Is Pushing For

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

We've already discussed the (finally) officially released draft of ACTA -- which only came out after a ridiculous amount of public pressure, multiple leaks and a total beatdown by the European Parliament. While the official version shows that the leaked versions were quite accurate (this version only has the few changes made at the recent New Zealand negotiations, which came after the leaks), some are noticing what's missing. Jamie Love is pointing out that the leaked versions clearly showed which countries were pushing for which provisions. But the different country positions have been conveniently deleted from the "official version":

"It's late, very late, and missing a key element of transparency -- the country positions. Governments had to be forced by civil society groups to make the ACTA text public. Let's hope that the precedent for the future is to publish the texts, and to publish them much sooner. Now that the text is out, it will be easier to have public debates about its contents. It is unfortunate that the country positions were eliminated from the published version, but positions as recent as January 2010 are available from the earlier leaked texts.... Clearly the text goes way beyond counterfeiting and copyright piracy, into several categories of intellectual property rights, including patents, semi conductor chip designs, pharmaceutical test data and other topics. Governments should engage with consumer groups, civil rights organizations, educators, libraries, generic drug manufacturers, technology companies and others to re-balance the text, or abandon the negotiation if this is not possible in the current political environment."

Once again, it looks like this "transparency" isn't quite as transparent as ACTA supporters would like you to believe.

Filed Under: acta, europe, new zealand

New Zealand Politicians Want To Explicitly Outlaw Software Patents

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

As we wait for the Bilski ruling in the US (which my gut feeling tells me will have the Supreme Court totally punt on the issue of software patents), it seems like politicians down in New Zealand have figured out that software patents are a real problem. As a whole bunch of you sent in, a bill is moving through the process for patent reform that explicitly says software should not be patentable:

We recommend amending clause 15 to include computer programs among inventions that may not be patented. We received many submissions concerning the patentability of of computer programs. Under the Patents Act 1953 computer programs can be patented in New Zealand [...] Open source, or free, software has grown in popularity since the 1980s. Protecting software by patenting it is inconsistent with the open source model and its proponents oppose it. A number of submitters argue that there is no "inventive step" in software development, as "new" software inevitably builds on existing software. They felt that computer software should be exluded from patent protection as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques. In general we accept this position.

This is a welcome development, certainly. Even more impressive is the general realization (often missed by politicians) that too much patenting is a bad thing and can seriously stifle innovation:

[the old act] has a low threshold for patentability compared with most other countries. This low threshold can lead to broader patent rights being granted in New Zealand than in other countries, which can disadvantage New Zealand businesses and consumers[...] This can discourage innovation and inhibit growth in productivity and exports.

Now if only New Zealand would recognize similar problems with copyright law as well...

Filed Under: new zealand, patents