New Zealand Politican Tweets How She's Violating Copyright Law Night Before Supporting Three Strikes Copyright Law

from the you-did-what-now? dept

This is just bizarre. Andrew Dubber points us to the latest on the debate in New Zealand's Parliament over the draconian new three strikes law, in which people will get kicked off the internet after accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. Dubber points us to the speech from Parliament Member Melissa Lee discussing her support of the new law. You can see it here:
All well and good... except the night before this debate, she posted the following to her own Twitter account:
Ok. Shower... Reading ... And then bed! listening to a compilation a friend did for me of K Pop. Fab. Thanks Jay.
Now, to be fair, in her speech, she does say she gets that sharing a DVD or a CD can be sensible. She even references the "Korean Wave" of k-pop and says that it happened because of file sharing (directly contradicting US VP Joe Biden's lies from yesterday).

In the end, then, she seems to have no logical consistency at all. She's happy to infringe on copyright when she gets to listen to good music. And she knows that infringement helped get artists attention and built up things like the Korean Wave of successful musicians... and yet New Zealand still needs to pass draconian copyright law to outlaw these things that she admits aren't so bad. Say what now?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 8:14am

    Welcome to politics, you must be new here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 11:16am

      Re:

      It isn't just politics. Everyone pirates. That's why these kinds of new laws are needed.

      As for the "exposure" argument, musicians became well known before piracy and there are plenty of non-pirate ways for musicians to become known now.

      Piracy as publicity is not necessary. If a band wants that promotion, they can just release their music for free. Then there is no piracy at all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 12:51pm

        Re: Re:

        So, if everyone is pirating then you claim we need these kinds of laws instead of realizing that maybe the laws are out of sync with reality?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re:

        Piracy happened long before the internet. Laws did nothing for it. What's really the difference between people swapping audio cassettes, and swapping mp3s? The quality alone doesn't suddenly make it 'less legal' or 'suddenly new'. Radio (in the UK at least) freely exposed you to new bands ho you would then go and spend money on. Heck, I've even bought stuff because it was playing at Virgin or HMV. So really, why is it suddenly so bad?

        No-one is really saying "release everything for free" as the only choice. Only, that in a world where music sharing happens (and this was as true in 1971 as 2001) you should make the most of it to gain a net benefit - and those who can make truly compelling business cases WILL benefit, no matter the 'piracy' levels. It's just that the day of gatekeeper monopoly rents are long gone, and music is once more no longer tied to a physical product. Remember, physical music items are purely a 20th Century conceit. A temporary fad that has now been superseded. For millennia before, music was purely performed, with only a written form as an alternative. Now, that 'writing' is bits instead of drawn notes. Welcome to the 21st Century. May the **AAs go the way of the Edsel and the dodo.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 3:13pm

        Re: Re:

        "Everyone pirates."

        I suppose that's kind of the point. If a minority "pirates" then you can ban it. If "everybody" does it, then you cannot possibly control it and you have to find another way to sell the product.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 7:15pm

        Re: Re:

        "It isn't just politics. Everyone pirates. That's why these kinds of new laws are needed."

        This is a non-sequitur. "Everyone drinks water. That's why anti-water drinking laws are needed."

        If everyone does it, maybe the problem isn't with everyone, but the problem is with the law that doesn't allow everyone to do it. and if everyone does it, maybe it's because everyone doesn't think it's all that wrong and so the law should change to reflect what the people think and not what some industry wants.

        and what are the chances that this person will be punished? We already have anti-piracy laws in place and if they are not enforced against this politician like they would be against anyone else then the laws effectively don't exist for certain people but they do for others. and why should they exist for some people and not others?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 7:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          (then IP maximists will turn around and claim that IP laws exist because the public wants them. but if everyone is breaking these laws then doesn't that at least suggest that the public doesn't want these laws?).

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 10:02pm

        Re: “musicians became well known before piracy”

        When was that?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Apr 15th, 2011 @ 4:06am

        Re: Re:

        Piracy happened long before the internet. Laws did nothing for it. What's really the difference between people swapping audio cassettes, and swapping mp3s? The quality alone doesn't suddenly make it 'less legal' or 'suddenly new'. Radio (in the UK at least) freely exposed you to new bands ho you would then go and spend money on. Heck, I've even bought stuff because it was playing at Virgin or HMV. So really, why is it suddenly so bad?

        No-one is really saying "release everything for free" as the only choice. Only, that in a world where music sharing happens (and this was as true in 1971 as 2001) you should make the most of it to gain a net benefit - and those who can make truly compelling business cases WILL benefit, no matter the 'piracy' levels. It's just that the day of gatekeeper monopoly rents are long gone, and music is once more no longer tied to a physical product. Remember, physical music items are purely a 20th Century conceit. A temporary fad that has now been superseded. For millennia before, music was purely performed, with only a written form as an alternative. Now, that 'writing' is bits instead of drawn notes. Welcome to the 21st Century. May the **AAs go the way of the Edsel and the dodo.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    FUDbuster (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 8:55am

    Maybe her friend made her a playlist using her own music files. Probably not though. That certainly looks really bad. Wonder if she'll remove the tweet once she catches wind of this "bad press"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    umb231 (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:02am

    so... theoretically, we can kick her off all internet the moment this law goes into effect as we have a plausible accusation to level at her?
    What's that? It won't work cause the accusation has to come from someone she's getting all buddy buddy with for putting the law into place, so it won't ever be used on her? gogo governmental hypocricy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 4:43pm

      Re:

      No, because this was a CD. It's different when it involves the scary interwebs. (oh, and when it involves a brib...errrr....campaign contribution)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Sarah Black (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:03am

    At 4:45 she admits that she doesn't know how "Peer file sharing" works. How can one be against something that she doesn't understand? Oh wait. Never mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:19am

      Re:

      Presumably NZ has its own brand of RIAA lobbyists to "educate" the clueless politicians about which laws they should support, even to the detriment of their own constituents...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Matt P (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

        Re: Re:

        We have the RIANZ, local RIAA knock-off, and NZFACT. But they're effectively in league with the US & international orgs, as evidenced by the MPAA giving a submission at the committee hearing on this law.

        There's a lot of people believing that this whole thing was pushed through on pressure from the US, whether ACTA, the TPP, or both.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:07am

    I have a question...

    Do all politicians in New Zealand look like THAT!!??? I'd be watching CSPAN naked every day if that's how it was in the States....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rich, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:33am

      Re: I have a question...

      She is a cutie.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:35am

      Re: I have a question...

      What, Nancy Pelosi doesn't do it for ya?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:43am

      Re: I have a question...

      Agreed!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Greg G (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:51am

      Re: I have a question...

      Ditto.. except, you know, at my place, because it would be awkward if we were in the same room.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Greevar (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 11:01am

        Re: Re: I have a question...

        But you have no problem with performing the act synchronously? Do you think about DH while you do it? I bet he has a big, er...um...helmet!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 7:02pm

      Re: I have a question...

      alas, sadly, no. most of them are middle age or older white guys who spend too much time sitting around most of the time. (there are a reasonable selection of people who are not at least one of these, but young-ish + female + fit looking is a rather rare combination, no matter what ethnicity you're talking about...)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 8:29pm

      Re: I have a question...

      We have good lookers

      "Nancy Pelosi"

      ... Don't know, and I'm not googling that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 10:07pm

      Re: I have a question...

      She’s of Korean extraction—I believe the only such politician outside Korea.

      New Zealand runs a “Mixed-Member Proportional” election system. We have MPs of various Asian extractions, a Muslim, gays, even one who was a transsexual. Why? Because they’re representative of our society, so why not?

      That’s why I like proportional representation. Other countries should give it a try.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chargone (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 11:27pm

        Re: Re: I have a question...

        well, some of that's just because it looks good from a public relations stand point and the parties are more significant (at the expense of the individal MPs) than in a lot of places.

        i lean in the general direction of agreeing with you anyway though.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:26am

    I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit
    I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet
    I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain
    And still you play the sycophant and revel in your pain
    And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate
    I am the politician, and I decide your fate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Cashie, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:30am

    Just follow the money. That's the only consistent thing in politics.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:36am

    That tiled background is really creepy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:45am

    LOL, you couldn't make this shit up

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 10:02am

    Politicians

    Wait...you expected these laws to apply to politicians?

    Where have you been?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 10:05am

    After hearing her speak, I don't think she actually understands that receiving the compilation is illegal under current law. I sincerely believe she's clueless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      harbingerofdoom (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 10:09am

      Re:

      she's a politician. sadly is far easier these days to just assume they have no idea and they are clueless and be pleasantly surprised after than to assume they have an idea of what they are talking about only to find (as usual) they have no idea.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    zegota (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 11:27am

    In a separate tweet, she says "lol, does it count if the [sharer] was the composer?" To which I say, it almost certainly does, as the composer probably does not have publishing rights. Still illegal.

    Also, big thumbs down to the random body-snarking in the comments here. Thought most of the TechDirt commenters (the non AC ones) were better than that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    herbert, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 1:00pm

    same old thing. 'dont do as i do, do as i tell you'.
    these assholes seem to think that it's ok to threaten ordinary people with anything from reprimands, to disconnection, to fines, to prison, but then do exactly the same thing themselves. talk about double standards! and these people are elected officials that are supposed to be looking after the interests of the voters. i dont think so!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Criggie, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 1:29pm

    And that's ONE!

    Strike ONE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alephen, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 3:54pm

    i value democracy, i do not pirate. i follow the laws we the people create. my honor is worth far more then some $2 song.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Fentex, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 3:54pm

    It's not entirely accurate to say this new law will have people kicked offline through accusation only.

    It requires a court order to kick you off. It just happens to detial a process by which the court order is sought.

    So it isn't quite as evil as one might imagine.

    As to why it was suddenly (no one in NZ new it was even back in parliament) passed under cover of urgent legislation regarding Christchurchs earthquake there is a growing suspicion in NZ that it's somehow involved with TPP negotiations, that it's a show of good faith or a demonstration of an early adoption of a requirement to be included in the TPP of having three strike laws.

    I know that some in NZ Internet administration think it's an attempt to pull the wool over lobbyists eyes by having a fairly toothless three strike law (because it has several safegaurds and involves fees for registering complaints to avoid spamming of them it's a bit of a sheep in wolves clothing) that can still be called a three strikes law.

    I suspect lobbyists wouldn't mind because NZ is a small and unimportant market in the global scheme of things but anyone having a three strikes law becomes a lever againt others.

    And once more adopt them lobbyists can always start moving back and forth arguing each should ratchet up theirs (as they do with copyrights) to better implement the idea compared to others.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 7:13pm

    It is worth remembering that NZ politics work a fair bit differently from US politics. not least is the party system. the party decides what way it's going, and then everyone in that party ends up voting that way/giving speeches to that effect, whatever their actual beliefs. while this is better than it used to be (a layered system of majority votes used to mean that it took (a specific) ten people or less to agree to get a law passed. MMP was introduced in part to put and end to this) it still means that it doesn't even require the invidual to be that clueless to get this sort of result.

    the bigger the party, the more MPs are in there off the list. that means if they go against the party line they get the boot and get replaced by the next persons on the list. the rest are in for specific electorates, so can't be just kicked out of parliament, but if they 'cross the floor' (that is, vote against the party) odds are very good that they will NOT get the resources they need to run for the next election, or will be running as an independant against another party member (which Usually, though not always, results in a loss).

    the exception to the above is when the party specifically states that something is to be a concence(sp) vote. this is usually done only for bills that would change the way elections work, start wars, etc. but is also used when a private members bill (proposed by an individual, not a party) comes up on an issue that is hot enough that voting either way has good odds of blowing up in the party's face and/or they have not made an opinion of it a part of their platform. alternatively if a coalition partner proposes soemthing that presents a similar situation. this is rare though.

    the flip side to all this is that, generally speaking, most people aren't as obsessive about aligning with one party or another as seems to be the case in the USA. it helps that you don't have to go all the way over to the other side of the spectrum on any given issue to change who's running things, of course. (yay for multi-party unicarmel parliaments in constitutional monarchies, i guess. though i always wonder a bit about NZ's 'constitution'. it seems rather... flexable and disorganised, from my understanding of the situation, which is admitedly limited.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 10:12pm

      Re: NZ Party Politics

      Chargone wrote:

      ... the party decides what way it's going ...


      That decision is made at a meeting of all the MPs belonging to that party, called the “caucus”. There they get to vote individually, but once a collective decision is made, they must all abide by that in the Parliament vote itself.

      That is, unless it has been decided by Parliament that the matter should be put to a “conscience vote”, where each MP is free to decide for themself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chargone (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 11:32pm

        Re: Re: NZ Party Politics

        yeah, but how much say anyone gets in the meeting and how democratic the decision making in caucus actually is varies from party to party (or at least it used to. labour has a history of being very democratic at that level, national not so much).

        still, while making seem a little less suspect, that doesn't exactly change my point that once that decision is made, the individual MP's actual opinion doesn't mean much. :)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chargone (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 11:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: NZ Party Politics

          oh, worth noting that at least some of the smaller parties are prone to only binding their MPs to the party line on certain platform specific issues and allowing a conscience vote, so far as their MPs are concerned, on almost everything else.

          well, except when the nonsense that is coalition agreements gets in the way.

          (properly speaking there shouldn't even be a government/opposition divide. the house as a whole is the 'government' and the opposition only applies at election time (the people who didn't get in) or on an issue by issue basis (the people who disagree with you). the ministarial selection process is Supposed to be entirely under the control of the governer. unfortunately, the party system and an unwillingness to break tradition for fear of triggering a constitutional crisis (because God forbid they atually follow the consitution if it could do that(though for all i know they've finally got around to changing it. flexible and all that)) break this ideal horribly)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Simon Chamberlain (profile), Apr 15th, 2011 @ 5:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: NZ Party Politics

            On the government/opposition divide, it can be confusing in Westminster systems: whereas the Americans would talk about the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of Government, Brits and Kiwis (etc) talk about the Government when they mean the Executive. So from one way of looking at it, the opposition are part of the government (because they're part of the legislature); from another, they're not (because they're not part of the executive, which includes Ministers, and government departments)

            The Ministerial selection process is constitutionally under control of the Prime Minister. In practice, the PM will want support from his/her own party caucus, which means that they have to include a range of Ministers (e.g. from different parts of the country, male/female, the right and the left of the party). [This is why Lange had Douglas and Prebble in his Cabinet; the Labour right wanted them and he risked a leadership challenge if he sacked them].

            I think the Constitution is less flexible than you do, as well: while NZ is one of the few countries in the world to not have a specific written constitution, we do have several documents that make up the constituion: everything from the Bill of Rights Act and the Constitution Act to the Cabinet Manual and Standing Orders (and inherited bits like the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 11:49pm

    she's hot!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 11:49pm

    Easy solution to the problem...
    The law passes, but before it can be applied to "the people" it must be enforced on the government officials for 2 years first.

    They will automatically get the most severe punishments allowed by the law they passed. They should be showing us the "right" way and be held to the highest standards.

    They will be forced to have special monitoring of their accounts to make sure they do not do anything secretly.

    I've often found people with stupid ideas get smarter when they get real world examples of this idea in action, when it is directly applied to them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    miketee (profile), Apr 15th, 2011 @ 8:13am

    Resumtpion of innocence

    The single most disgusting aspect of this legislation and similar laws in other countries) is that someone can suffer because of a mere *accusation*.

    If in other aspects of law, someone could be penalised simply because of an accusation, huge chunks of the population would suffer.

    NOBODY should be penalised because of an accusation without clear evidence and a trial or right of appeal.

    This kind of knee-jerk, ill-considered law-mongering is destroying principles which protect people from unfair and arbitrary conviction. It is endangering our rights. It is a very bad precedent.

    "3 Strikes" is a catchy "tough"-sounding slogan, not a sensible philosophy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This