[wellylug] Creative Freedom - a Response

[Mark Foster]

Regarding Creative Freedom - A response...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matthew Holloway <matthew at holloway.co.nz>
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Subject: Response for Wellylug list



Hi folks, Matthew from CreativeFreedom.org.nz here (I was on the wellylug
list years ago, as "Matthew Cruickshank" which was my surname before getting
married),

Here are some answers to your specific questions and then at the end is a
more general response...

They talk about section 92, which is a perfectly benign section of the
> original Act; it just happened to be the last section before the new
> problematic sections 92A--92E were inserted.



You're correct of course. Our stated reason for this has been noted by
Jethro.

For the same reason that we say "Artists Against ACTA" despite not being
against all of ACTA it's because the accurate term "Artists Against ACTA
Subsection 45-44 Paragraph 5" would harm readability and clarity.

During testing of the content amongst non-technical people it was suggested
to not even mention the law at all and to stick firmly to principles. We
decided against this but we joined with most of the media in talking about
"Section 92" rather than "Section 92a/92c".

On the ACTA page we also have a similar disclaimer.


They talk about the "proposed" section 92 of the "Copyright Amendment Act".
> The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act is no longer merely
> "proposed"---it's passed through Parliament.



I believe that page means proposed in the sense that the law isn't currently
active (s92a is currently disabled in order to give the ISPs and major
copyright holders time to negotiate a reasonable procedure).

The page could be more clear about that however so we'll look at revising
that tomorrow. Thanks for noting your concern about how we're phrasing this
stuff because we do need feedback on how to make this issue clear :)


They appear to be counting down to a "vote" at 3am on the 1st of March
> (viewing the website in Firefox or Konqueror on Kubuntu Intrepid).
>

The code doesn't rely on client browser time (as computers may be
misconfigured to think it's 2004 or something, and we don't want people to
relax while thinking that it's over 1000 days away!) but instead it uses
server time and the unix time for february 28th 2009. If you view the source
you'll see this (and the server time will change each reload)...

    <script type="text/javascript">
        serverDate = 1231288414
        s92aDate = 1235829600
        drawHyperlink = true
    </script>

The server is hosted in the states so it might be off due to timezone
differences. I'll have a look at the code tomorrow.


As I understand it (and I may be wrong), 92A comes into force on the 28th of
>
> February without any further voting, so it's even more important that we
> get
> the attention of the politicians who can change this situation.
>


Section 92a comes into effect on 28th Feb 2009. It's my understanding that
it isn't debated in parliament but that it requries a regulation to be
passed by the Executive Council, which is effectively Cabinet (who are
comprised of the National Party). This is the 'vote' referred to.

*Now as said at the top here's my more general response.* These details are
important and we'll respond to them (and any further issues raised). There
is certainly no intent to mislead -- I'm a Wellingtonian artist and
programmer and I'm helping the Creative Freedom Foundation because I
genuinely believe that this is a ridiculous law that hasn't gotten the
attention it deserves. Unlike the people pushing for this law however we
don't have marketing budgets -- we have to rely on people understanding this
and spreading the word. Trying to make an issue mainstream is difficult (I
have a new respect for marketers after doing this!) and it does mean boiling
down an issue to it's base. Most of the time on the site we call them 'Guilt
Upon Accusation Laws' rather than Section 92a/92c for this reason.

I hope we can both agree that the issue here is much bigger than us so if
you agree then help us spread the word. Beyond Section 92 comes ACTA and
surely other copyright laws done in the name of protecting artists. The band
Elemeno P spoke passionately about the harm the piracy was causing them to
former-minister Judith Tizard, as did the makers of Siones Wedding - and
this was backed by an economic argument from RIANZ. It would be easy to
frame the argument as IT vs Art  and in this case the government chose Art
instead of IT. The Creative Freedom Foundation now has over 1700 people
(many of them artists) saying they don't want this -- so now the government
have a more complex decision. I believe that RIANZ *do not* have the support
of artists, and we need to reach artists in order to prove that. Anyone you
can contact would be appreciated.

Now I'm not trying to say that readers of this should support us despite the
errors you've pointed out (that's your choice). I am saying that those
pushing for Section 92 and ACTA will continue doing pushing for decades and
we need to start somewhere. The CFF are doing their bit, but there are many
other speaking up against this and if you look you'll find a way to help.

If you can help, I'd appreciate it. Our website has forum where you can
suggest new approaches, fixes, and get involved. Thanks!




-- 
.Matthew Holloway
http://holloway.co.nz/


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wellylug.org.nz/pipermail/wellylug/attachments/20090107/67c406f6/attachment-0001.htm