New Zealand Halts Internet Copyright Law Changes 216
phobonetik writes "The New Zealand Prime Minister announced his Government will throw out the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act and start again. The proposed law changes contained 'guilty upon accusation, without appeal' clauses and heavy compliance costs to ISPs and businesses. The changes were hours away from being signed but a series of online protests, a petition on Government grounds, as well as public rebuttal by a large ISP and by Google contributed to the Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry."
Guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The proposed law changes contained 'guilty upon accusation, without appeal' clauses and heavy compliance costs to ISPs and businesses."
What the HELL, New Zealand?
Industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the wishes of the, um you know... people?
Re:Industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
So far as I can see, democracies have never had anything to do with the will of the public, just the will of their elected (from a pitifully small selection of) representatives.
There needs to be a better way of actually getting the will of the general public involved somehow, democracy as it stands is a pretty poor implementation of that. Politicians are a very dirty abstraction layer.
Re:Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
If you try to do a street protest in a country that has a dictator for life, you run the very real risk of being beaten, tortured, and killed.
It's been known for a long time that quite often the only way to get the government to actually listen to its citizens is to stage some form of peaceful mass protest. That's why that right is protected in the US Bill of Rights.
Laws like this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a few tips to any politician:
Re:Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
And why the UK has been slowly eroding any rights of protest near Parliament, at certain events, etc.
Re:Democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Light up the tubes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like a similar reaction Canada's minister (Jim Prentiss) had last year when he tried to pass a bunch of RIAA sanctioned copyright laws - He seemed surprised that anyone cared about the issue.
This news from New Zealand is extremely good news, (at least for now - they may sneak it back in piecemeal when the furor dies down),
At least some politicians can be made to feel the heat and go against the wishes of very high paid lobbyists.
Seems like one big problem, is that the mainstream media benefit by deals like the ACTA nonsense (national security my ass!) so will not dare print anything negative about it.
Very difficult in the current economic crisis to get any attention span.
Since politicians like soundbites, how about an internet headlines campaign:
"Obama appointees help RIAA sue Teenagers" or
"Government uses national security claim to protect the recording industry"
Try it yourself!
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Either we have a democracy, in which case demonstrations and protests again the democratically elected goverment shouldnt be needed, or we dont, in which case we dont need elections.
You must be one of those people who believes democracy operates based on fairy dust and kittens. Protests in the street are a particularly notable feature of democracy, not something democracy eliminates the need for!
To spell it out for you, politicians are for the most part corrupt and immoral and have little interest in mirroring the will of the people, but at least in a democracy the people have some leverage. Politicians can ignore a small fraction of the population pretty safely, but when that fraction takes to the streets and threatens to attract a lot of attention the politicians have to start worrying about reelection.
Democracy is not a perfect system, in fact it has many disadvantages when compared to a well run dictatorship, but the fact people can safely and effectively take to the streets in protest makes it the most effective system we've found yet.
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter" - (Churchill, afaik)
What there needs to be is some kind of supercrazyawesome education, and a willingness to pay attention and be involved, of the general population. Then, optionally, a way of getting the will of the general public involved.
Re:Industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 depressing.
So Democracy is a sham. People cannot force the government to do anything. The only way to cause a change is to become the government and whoever has a realistic chance of achieving that goal, will become as bad as those they replace.
*snore* (Score:5, Insightful)
"gubberment bad, people good", guaranteed positive mod points. Sure it's good to be sceptical but where is the insight in the parent post?
How about:
people> We want no taxes but good services.
people> We want more efficiency but no layoffs.
people> We want to drive big fat cars, cheap petrol, clean air and an end to funding nasty regimes
people> We want conspicuous consumption and a clean environment
people> We want total safety, zero risk, absolute liberty, no personal responsibility and no nannying from the state
govm't> *explodes*
Re:Guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you're confusing a Democracy with a Republic. Understandable, because they're similar. In a true democracy, the will of the people is followed. Right down to the burning of witches. A true democracy is better known as mob rule.
Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics. The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.
In a republic, you don't cast your vote for someone who will follow your will completely, or else you might as well get rid of the representatives and institute a true democracy. You cast your vote for someone that you think is honest, has experience and training that will help him get the job done, and thinks enough like you that you'll be satisfied with the job he does. The idea is that the elected officials are more intelligent, honest, and even self-sacrificing than the average person, or to put it another way, that they would do a better job at running the government than the aggregate will of the people. They're supposed to be the voice of reason who refuses to burn a witch in the midst of a rabid crowd carrying torches and pitchforks. Even if she weighs the same as a duck.
The democratic election process in a republic is not to guarantee that people get what they want, but to hold the leaders accountable to the people so they can't stray too far from their constituency. But in some cases, like the one described above, they can and should go against the will of the people.
Of course, whether the reality matches the ideal is certainly up for debate.
Re:Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Industry? (Score:4, Insightful)
people> You know... the constitution and all that... that says that goverment is elected by the people, ...
govm't> Well, government *is* elected by the people.
This is the really depressing part. Wake up, sheeple.
Re:*snore* (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's start with:
people> We want honesty, transparency, responsibility and accountability.
crickets> *chirp* *chirp*
government> Look! A paedophile terrorist pirate! We'll save you!
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*snore* (Score:1, Insightful)
people> We want honesty, transparency, responsibility and accountability. crickets> *chirp* *chirp* government> Look! A paedophile terrorist pirate! We'll save you!
or people> WE WANT A BETTER ENVIRONMENT!!!
car manufacturers> ALL NEW 2010 HUMMER WITH 5 MPG!!
people> OOOOOOO, SHINY!!!!! MUST GET CAR!!!
or
people> WE WANT A BETTER ENVIRONMENT!! hey you over there, go make my environment better. too lazy.......
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
In a true democracy, the will of the people is followed. Right down to the burning of witches. A true democracy is better known as mob rule.
No, mob rule is mob rule. That's not the same thing as democracy, and it's an absurd bit of political rhetoric to claim that it is.
Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics.
Most democracies are also republics. New Zealand, however, most certainly is not a republic, although it is a democracy.
The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.
Those are the principles of any workable democratic system that anyone has ever devised, as long as you replace the word "ruled" with "run" in point (a). A republic is one way to implement those principles; a constitutional monarchy, which is what New Zealand has, is another. Americans, living in a republican democracy (or a "democratic republic," but that phrase has been hijacked by a type of government which creates emphatically non-democratic republics) tend to confuse the two.
Re:Boy in suit at the wheel. (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, I am not actually a Tory supporter, and also have deep suspicions about bankers, especially the sort of banker that John Key is, but I think it is only fair to point out that the particular piece of legislation under discussion originated with the last Government. Helen Clark and the Labour parties record of listening to the people was not all that good, that was one reason why they were voted out, and since they originated the measure I think that if they were still in power it would have proceeded.
Note that governments in New Zealand are not voted in, they are voted out, eg it is not the merits of the alternative that gets them in, it is the failings of the incumbent that gets them sacked. This was true under the old first past the post system, and seems to be remaining true under the proportional system.
Re:Industry? (Score:4, Insightful)
And what do you propose we do?
What everyone before us has done when they were fed up with their rulers: Line a few of the worst offenders up against the wall. Makes one hell of an example for the rest, at least for a while.
Re:Guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
I was wondering how long it would take for other businesses to start putting up some resistance to the recording industry. I really hope this signals the start of a new trend.
I don't. I for one do not welcome our new corporate overlords. It's very sad to see that we have to rely on corporations like TelstraClear and Google to protect us from other corporations' re-writing the law, while the government stands off to one side drooling.
It's not precisely the government's job to protect our freedom; but it certainly is the government's responsibility to prevent itself from being manipulated the way it has been.