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.

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.
And... at the same time he was being catered to by studio bosses, counterparts in New Zealand were aggressively lobbying other officials there:
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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Oct 9th, 2012 @ 7:05pm

    New Zealand has become a favorite location for movies. Hollywood has dumped a ton of money into movies shot in NZ, and there are more movies waiting to be made there. The NZ economy benefits enough from the movie industry to give the MPAA a fair amount of clout with the government.

    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.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 8:16pm

      Re:

      My personal take here is that the MPAA member companies put way more into NZ than anyone would like to admit, spending tons on filming, locations, and the all important "keeping people employed" thing. The NZ government is very unlikely to ignore the economic impact of the movie industry in the country.

      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.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Chargone (profile), Oct 9th, 2012 @ 9:00pm

        Re: Re:

        'course, then the current government runs into issues with the fact that they gave him residency in the first place (which had people pissed off because the process involved was even introduced) which has only been NOT blowing up in their face utterly because he's subsequently become something of a public figure with popular support.

        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.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Scott, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 9:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Such a blessing in disguise. It's a win-win situation for Dotcom,even if he looses it'll expose mass corruption in several governments that would a long time to recover,and MAFIAA's PR is destroyed.

           

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The word is 'loses', you ignorant freetard.

            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

             

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The word is 'loses', you ignorant freetard.

            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

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 11th, 2012 @ 12:53am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The word is 'loses', you ignorant freetard.

            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

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Chargone (profile), Oct 11th, 2012 @ 2:32am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              you see how your previous (two) posts got flagged?

              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.

               

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 1:23am

        Re: Re:

        It's not KDC's resitence status that protects him from extradition...he has no links to the US, and would have a right to xactly the same legal defences as a non-resident (as indeed some of his co-accused are). And the idea that the NZ econom depends on a few film poductions is preposterous. It's a very small percenage of GDP, and certainly not what you'd call a sustainable industry. The NZ gvmt would do better to suport a local innovative tech secor.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 3:08am

        Re: Re:

        @ #4

        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!

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 5:46am

          Re: Re: Re:

          His resident status was obtained through questionable means.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 10:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            No it was not -he did not deveive anyone in his application, and it was officially approved. The previous convicitons had long since been eradicated from the German penal register and someone in the NZ bureaucracy decided they were not relevant. You may disagree with this decision, but everything was out in the open.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Chargone (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 5:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ehh... more like, the NZ government decided to implement a questionable means to decide who's residency to grant, and he went through that process legitimately.

              the government (not Dotcom) were getting raked over the coals for this just before the whole extradition thing blew up in their face. hehe.

               

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 4:11am

        Re: Re:

        Several problems here.

        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.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Oct 9th, 2012 @ 10:06pm

      Re:

      So the MPAA has enough clout to make studios abandon they NZ shootings in case they don't support TPP?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2012 @ 10:33am

      Re:

      Of the many of the things they want in the TPP to fight piracy, none of it is likely to help movie profits.


      The problem is that the MPAA is more concerned about control, not profits. Profits is the banner but control is the goal.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 8:06pm

    It will impact too many other businesses and "stifle the growing local industry."

    Really? What industries and how?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      fogbugzd (profile), Oct 9th, 2012 @ 8:45pm

      Re:

      >>Really? What industries and how?

      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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Nimas, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 11:34pm

        Re: Re:

        Just want to point out, the Hobbit is happening this year. That alone will probably do quite a bit for the NZ tourism industry (plus 2 more to come for people to be continued to be employed).

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 1:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          yes, but that's a follow on process which has already happened. Z is a tourist destinaton cause fils like Lo fo the Rings, Hobbit etc made it so..but that's already the case, and no longer relies on movies to make NZ known. NZ now is already known as a beautiful place, and people ravel there becase other people did and told them about it.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 10:39am

        Re: Re:

        For a minute I thought you said 'servicing movie producers' and was thinking that's already covered by the hookers and blow...

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Hephaestus (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 7:42pm

        Re: Re:

        "Location shooting can dump a lot of money into the local economy."

        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.

         

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 8:13pm

    Oh Noes! They actually took people out to dinner and had a chat.

    Damn people using their free speech rights and all.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 9th, 2012 @ 11:02pm

      Re:

      You are correct, however when they use their free speech rights to try and setup violating more peoples rights there might be a problem.
      Or is free speech for them not us?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:35am

        Re: Re:

        What the article suggests is that the MPAA shouldn't be allowed to push their interests. You would suggest to deny them their free speech?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Nope, not once has anyone here at Techdirt advocated stopping the MPAA from making their own speech.
          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.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Hephaestus (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 7:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Nope, not once has anyone here at Techdirt advocated stopping the MPAA from making their own speech."

            Does suggesting duct taping the mouth of the head of the MPAA count? Or was that at Torrent freak?

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 10:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Nope, not once has anyone here at Techdirt advocated stopping the MPAA from making their own speech."

            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.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Chargone (profile), Oct 11th, 2012 @ 2:41am

              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?

               

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

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:43am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hey trade unions are denied their free-speech rights int he US all the time. And seeing as the MPAA is a trade union in all but name, well, they should get the same treatment, no?

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 4:43am

      Re:

      Wine & Dine = free speech? ... I don't think so. It's not a free lunch either.

      Wine & Dine = corruption. But let's not let ethics and conflict of interest get in the way of pushing an agenda.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 8:24pm

    I wouldn't be surprised that Hollywood had a word with John Key or whoever and told them that if they don't extradite Dotcom or revoke his residency and kick him out of the country then there will be sanctions on NZ and that Hollywood would no longer deal with NZ or put business their way. I expect John Key will bend over for Hollywood and suck up to them in having Dotcoms residency revoked. Once Dotcom is kicked out of the country then it will be much easier to get hold of Dotcom and taken to the US where the FBI will be waiting to have him served once he steps off the plane on to US soil.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Oct 9th, 2012 @ 8:54pm

      Re:

      'course, the one thing Key Can't control by anything even vaguely approaching legal means is the courts.

      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.)

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 9:00pm

        Re: Re:

        Kicking him out of NZ wouldn't result him being sent to the US, but there are a limited number of places that Kim could go and hide without ending up in the US. Unless he took a private plane, he is very likely to land at some point in a country that would arrest him and send him onto the US.

        Perhaps he can join Assange hiding out in an embassy because they don't want to face their legal issues head on.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Chargone (profile), Oct 9th, 2012 @ 9:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          because not wanting to end up railroaded and/or tortured and/or assassinated is totally the same thing as that.

          (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.)

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 1:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If he was kicked out of NZ while the extradition process is running (which i think would be legally impossible, given that a case is before court - look a his co-accused who aren't), he would be sent back to his hjome country. That's not the US, but Germany, which never extradites its citizens (actually part of the German constitution)

           

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

  •  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Oct 9th, 2012 @ 8:51pm

    not that the PM will Admit anything like that, oh no.
    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.)

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Vincent Giannell, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 10:31pm

    John Keys will probably turn down their offer and stick to NZ's opposition.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 10:59pm

    Being Hollywood's Bitch

    If politicians worldwide would like to stop being Hollywood's bitch, the answer is simple. Start a RICO (Racketeer Influenced Criminal Organization) investigation against a few studios. There is plenty of raw material lying around to support that course of action.

    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).

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 9th, 2012 @ 11:03pm

      Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch

      First off, a RICO investigation isn't the same as RICO charges. It's not often that an investigation is announced, and to be fair, don't change anyone's legal standing.

      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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 12:55am

        Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch

        You sweet, naive, little thing you.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Chargone (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:11am

        Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch

        .... years ago. things for which he already served time. in Europe, to my understanding.

        this and that are two completely different things.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        The eejit (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:45am

        Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch

        ...then how come Rapidshare is still a fully legal service, despite doing almost the exact dsame things as MU? They both have identical procedures and uses and were fully compliant with the DMCA. But onyl MU was targeted in this raid...

        Funny that.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Scott, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 3:32am

          Re: Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch

          Because he was going to launch Megabox which would allow artist sell their material to the consumers and get nearly all the money with the annoying middlemen.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Michael, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 6:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch

            How unfortunate that in this day and age, anyone attempting to innovate is at serious risk of being criminalized. Maybe within 5-10 years, upstarts will have to pass through some sort of government filter at the behest of the RIAA, MPAA, et al. The filthy rich corporations want to control the destiny of the internet.

             

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

    •  
      identicon
      Scott, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:27am

      Re: Being Hollywood's Bitch

      I think they all ready did shitty job with obtaining Megaupload illegally and possible ignoring a judges orders of giving him fair trial.If they truly want to do this,they shouldn't do so many fuck ups,Which makes me suspect they doing this on purpose to pay lips service to Hollywood. Besides they know they are the wrong by doing illegal seizure but they don't want Hollywood know of it.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 1:58am

    This is the problem I have with modern politics.

    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%.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:12am

      Re:

      hard to force them to when they are part of the 1%, though.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Hephaestus (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 7:50pm

        Re: Re:

        Arab spring???

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Hephaestus (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 7:58pm

        Re: Re:

        Speaking of 1%. Did you know that most governments fall when just 1% of the population goes into armed revolt.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Chargone (profile), Oct 11th, 2012 @ 2:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          i was not aware of that, no.

          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...)

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 2:34am

    Funny how politicians will talk to foreigners who have money while ignoring their own electorate.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 3:16am

    if the Mega case is ignored temporarily, with the attention now being given to what Hollywood are up to with politicians in NZ and including Keys visit to the USA, i would hazard a guess that there would be some serious questions asked over the TPP issue in NZ parliament. i doubt if it would get the backing wanted anyway now, but any sort of softening would be debated pretty strenuously, i suspect. NZ are now realising what morons they made of themselves by introducing the ridiculous '3 strikes law', just to please the US entertainment industries. it's bad enough having bribes paid and lobbying done in your own country, but when it is extended to other countries to suit your needs/aims but of no benefit to those other countries, sooner or later there is a backlash, and rightly so as well!!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Paul Keating, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 3:16am

    Not so secret negotiations

    How is it that "Hollywood" knows about the NZ opposition (and thus by extension the US negotiating position) when the entire process is "secret" and releasing text to the (gasp) public would supposedly be so dangerous?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Paul Keating, Oct 10th, 2012 @ 3:37am

    Not so secret negotiations

    How is it that "Hollywood" knows about the NZ opposition (and thus by extension the US negotiating position) when the entire process is "secret" and releasing text to the (gasp) public would supposedly be so dangerous?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Oct 10th, 2012 @ 3:55am

    It's interesting, they wouldn't need to resort to this sort of dirty tactics if they had public support. But they don't have it, they have a huge and growing opposition. The bright side is that it'll become more and more expensive as the opposition mounts up to the point it will either be too expensive to get politicians to do what they want and virtually kill their career or it simply will not work anymore.

    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.

     

    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