Published 2007-01-06 15:52:00
Response to Copyright Changes consultation document:
Please Have a look through my response, (I'm not an qualified activist, or an English major - so you probably want to improve it) but please do respond if you live in Hong Kong. It's already a bad enough police state, without these idiots letting this kind of legislation loose.
To co_review@citb.gov.hk
Introduction:
The whole premise of this document is outrageous, it reads like a music industry wish-list, and follows on from a previous consultancy document that was rejected before. Basically trying to force a similar attitude without care or compassion for citizens of Hong Kong.
It Completely ignores fair use and consumer rights issues, which have already been seriously damaged by the current legislation, and are railroaded in favor of helping the antiquated business models of copyright monopolies. A particularly bad example of collusion between government and business over consumer rights.
Legal liability for Unauthorized Uploading and Downloading of Copyrighted works.
This has already gone far to far, with criminal proceedings being initiated against individuals. Since we do not have any monopoly laws, fair use laws, or consumer bundling laws, the balance of the law is so far biased against consumers that it is unbelievable that the real companies behind this consultation dare ask for further sanctions.
The fact that the document states (pg8) "resulting in tremendous loss in revenue" is outrageous. This is an industry lie, based on questionable research. In fact P2P technology has enabled new bands to reach new audiences and have a direct relationship with consumers, rather than relying on the existing music industry. Giving real value back to the creators and consumers, rather than the outdated businesses that this document seeks to protect.
The fact that my tax dollars are being spent attacking other citizens for what should be a civil mater, is yet another example of collusion between business and government that should not be done.
As the technology improves you will find that P2P networks would be driven so underground. In the worst case, a virus could end up installed on innocent citizen's PC's participating in P2P networks. Resulting in innocent participants be prosecuted without the ability to defend themselves. Being attacked by rich Laywers funded both by the industry and government.
The document encourages content creator's to use DRM technologies which already are proving problematic - Trying to play songs from iTunes store on a non-itunes device is problematic. - And even Microsoft's Zune player refusing to play their own DRM encrypted music. The fact is that no DRM methodology lives along side consumer rights, like backup, media transfer, time shifting. Consumer rights are being walked all over, and the government is just standing by cheering. This situation is in no way acceptable.
The document notes that P2P technology has uses, both in distributing free software, and music/ movies. Enacting laws that are unclear or wide ranging opens up legitimate users to fear of prosecution. or driving them towards more technically advanced secure solutions. Legislating in this area is futile, pointless and dangerous!.
The more legislation that is enacted in this area, the more advanced the technology will become to avoid detection. enacting laws are not only pointless, a waste of taxpayers money, but very quickly will be superfluous.
Suppliers should be forced to compete, in a similar manner that VCD prices dropped in the late 90's due to competition with piracy, leading to more consumers opting to buy legitimate copies rather than pirating.
My View: No changes to liability, and the removal of the current criminal for individuals is the only option.!
Role of On-line Service Providers.
It is ridiculous to expect service providers to provide logs of all access to IP networks. Due to the nature of the Internet, this is an expensive burden, and in a highly competitive market, is uneconomical, and disproportionate. This could bankrupt smaller ISP's who actually provide quality services, and favor the larger ISP's who generally offer appalling services. (Big business wins yet again, against small entrepreneurs. and consumers loose.)
My View: No liability for OSP's!, No requirements for outrageous logging. Protect our small businesses - don't kill them!
Facilitating copyright owners to take civil actions.
Again this is highly biased against consumers and citizens, it makes no mention of the fact that individuals are unlikely to be able to afford reasonable legal defense are result in becoming blackmail victims. This is the line where Government should stand up and ask the copyright owners to compete in a fair market, not abuse it's relationship with government to impose a unreasonable profit margin at the expense of content producers and consumers.
My View: No way!
Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement.
Copyright laws is supposed to be a civil of fence, and only when someone is profiting from copyright infringement should the maters be taken up in civil courts (perhaps with the help of government enforcement agencies). It is outrageous that the government would even consider stepping in on this blackmail of it's citizens, who often are unable to defend themselves legally, resulting in innocent people being convicted and bad case law.
All the research into industry losses has proved to be highly questionably, and in many ways' the industry which has been convicted in other jurisdictions of monopoly abuse and price fixing, continues to complain. Let them compete, as the previous VCD example showed, most consumers are not criminal, and will pay a fair price for a fair product.
My View: Stay out of this - governments should not become blackmailers.
Copyright exception for Temporary Reproduction of Copyright works.
This section is woefully short of the real needs in the changes in copyright law. Rights to copy, backup, and transfer medium for personal use. The ability to request (DRM) crippled free source. Not just proxy serving.
This whole area should be addressed with the urgency rather than spending taxpayers money presenting the music industry wish-list.
Summary
Stop consulting us with these outrageous suggestions, and get to work on Fair use laws.
