Sponsor's Message

In Brazil, a disgruntled customer who found that copy-protected disks sold by Sony and EMI would not play in his care stereo successfully sued both companies. From what I can make of the news report (poorly translated copy) They were ordered to pay him the equivalent of NZ$600 and to replace the protected disc with one that would work in his car.

However, on the other side of the coin, a US court has ruled that record companies have the right to force ISPs to hand over information that would identify individuals found to be trading copyrighted titles over the Net.

And, in an even more bizzare copyright and technology-related case, one would-be pirate's-mate has been thrown into clink for five years and ordered to pay US$180 million in restitution to pay-TV broadcasters after it was found he'd been hacking the encryption used to protect such material from unauthorized access.

What's the twist? Well the offender hadn't actually sold any of his devices and indeed it's rumoured that it wasn't even finished when the cops swooped.

However, the prosecution managed to talk the court into awarding restitution for the damages that would have been incurred if he'd succeeded. That's right, no damages were actually suffered but $180m reparation was awarded. Does this sound as unfair to you as it does to me?

Ah, but such a travesty of justice could never occur here in New Zealand right? Our politicians are much better law-maker's aren't they?

Which reminds me, what has become of the proposed reforms to our own copyright laws?

As regular Aardvark readers will be aware, the government has been reviewing existing copyright law with a view to making it more relevant and effective in this world of digital technology.

Well this month they published a cabinet paper that outlines the proposed changes.

Section 32 of this page indicates that the government would like to ramp up the penalties associated with the provision of circumvention devices. Yes, if you run a website carrying a copy, or a link to a copy, of that software (I can't name for fear of a $5,000 fine under existing law) which decodes Sky TV's UHF service on a PC then this proposed amendment to the law (if passed), could land you in the pokie and facing a fine of up to $150K. Look out Google.co.nz!.

This change would also, it appears, apply to circumventing the copy-protection applied to today's "enhanced audio discs" (sometimes incorrectly referred to as CDs) and DVDs.

Uh-oh, it looks as if Dick Smith Electronics will also be getting a visit from PC Plod if they keep supplying "DVD Decrypter" software with their DVD writers as described here.

But this proposed fearful retribution, to be exacted against those who sell devices for circumventing copy-protection, would appear to be at odds with section 47 of the proposed amendments which says it's okay for people to make a single copy of copyrighted material for their own use.

It actually states that "this limited exception would allow the owner of a legitimately acquired sound recording to make one copy of that recording (and the musical work contained therein) in each format for his or her personal and domestic use".

Hmmm... what good is the inclusion of an exemption that can't be used because it would likely breach another part of the act? Or will this exemption over-ride the proposed changes to Section 226?

Oh what a mess!

Come on you folks down there in parliament -- a law that can't be easily understood and which appears to offer contradictory restrictions/freedoms is not a good law -- especially when, as we all know, ignorance is no defense against infringement.

What's the guts? Will we be allowed to rip selected tracks from our legally purchased but copy-protected "enhanced audio discs" for use on our legally purchased MP3 player or Sony MiniDisc, or not?

How's this for a paradox:

As I read the proposed new law, it would be illegal for someone to sell technology that allowed you to perform the expressly exempt (and therefore legal) act of reading tracks from a copy-protected music disc for the purpose of creating a single copy.

However, the likes of Sony and others, who provide the CD and DVD burners required to complete the copying process, and who actually promote the copying of copyrighted material in their sales material, would remain immune to any prosecution.

Eh?

I'm sure most readers will have an opinion on this so share your thoughts in the forums!

If any Aardvark readers want to share opinion on today's column or add something, you're invited to chip in and have your say in The Aardvark Forums or, if you prefer, you can contact me directly.

Contacting Aardvark
As always, readers are invited to submit their comments on material covered in this column. If you'd like your comments published here then please be sure to use this form and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!