While it would be a massive shame to see Aro Video go (I’ve been a customer for years) it’s short-sighted to blame this on piracy. The market has shifted, that’s true, but this avoids the reality that most video/tv content still isn’t made legally available online in NZ.

Just as the industry shifted from renting videotapes to DVDs in the 90s, the format is now shifting to downloadable digital content but the industry has failed to keep up with consumer demand. While illegal downloading is wrong, the enormous success of sites like iTunes and NetFlix (only available in the US) has shown that when people are given a legal alternative to accessing content they will use it. It would be fabulous to see a store like Aro, with it’s reputation for quality content, allowed to make their stock legally available for sale or rent online. The gatekeepers of the industry, however, have made it very difficult for local businesses like these to adapt to meet the needs of their customers and therein lies the tragedy.

As mentioned, overall the film industry is doing remarkably well despite its crocodile tears over enormous losses due to piracy (and we’re yet to see concrete statistics backing up these claims). A recent study in to entertainment spending (called “The Sky is Rising” – google it) found that the film industry was indeed booming: with global film/tv spending increasing US$100 Billion in the past 10 years. Language like “piracy” and “cannabalises” is no more than industry propaganda that avoids the issue of an industry failing to adapt. That said, I don’t think this is Aro Video’s fault at all, but that of the suppliers they depend on. Blame them, not the customers.

I’ve just come across this white paper by Michael Weinberg of Public Knowledge titled “It Will Be Awesome if They Don’t Screw it Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology“. Although it was written just over a year ago, it’s a fantastic read and still highly relevant as 3D printing technology continues to evolve towards the domestic market. He’s released it under a Creative Commons BY-SA license so you can read & share it from here.

It’s an interesting look at how this new technology might be seen as a threat by those that hold Intellectual Property rights over 3-dimensional items (copyright, trademarks, patents…). As 3D printers enter the domestic market it will become very difficult to enforce these kinds of rights as people start imitating and modifying objects in the privacy of their own homes. As we’ve seen in the recent copyright battles over the internet (spurred by music and film downloading) some rights holding organisations are resistant to adapting to new technologies, rather using the law as a way of clamping down on the freedoms this new technology provides to individuals.

Following suit, it is highly likely that 3D printing will spur a similar battle between public versus private rights. As Weinberg emphasises, the challenge lies in being prepared to advocate for laws that protect creativity and innovation before these vital ingredients for progress are eroded from beneath our feet.

So how close are these things to the domestic market? You can put a RepRap together for between US$500-1200 (as estimated over here and available over here). If you prefer an out-of-the-box model the biggest yet, dual-colour Makerbot: the Replicator has just been released for US$1,749.00 and these things are just going to get cheaper.

And to end on a shameless self-endorsement, to see what 3D prints can look like check out this art project (printed with an earlier version of the RepRap): Ghosts in the form of gifts.

In a press conference on Monday John Key announced that Section 92A would be delayed until March 27th. There is a lot of work ahead but I hope everyone involved takes some time out to celebrate this victory. This shows how modern online movements and efforts can result in real world change. We couldn’t have done it without you — we’ve been amazed and humbled by your support. Thanks everyone!

UPDATE Mon 23 March 09:

Chris Keall at the NBR reports that “Prime Minister John Key has announced that the government will throw out the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act and start again. Section 92A has been scrapped.”. This is fantastic news, and it’s great that Prime Minister John Key has taken a stand on this important issue.

THOUSANDS AGAINST S92A
There are now over 4000 signatures on the Creative Freedom Foundation’s petition against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in NZ. The petition can be signed by artists and the wider public at http://creativefreedom.org.nz

RESPONSE TO APRA’S STATEMENTS ON CFF
We were disappointed today to discover that APRA are ramping up their efforts to push for Section 92A: a flawed law that presumes Guilt Upon Accusation, punishing internet users with disconnection before a trial and before any evidence is held up to court scrutiny. Similar laws overseas have been used to stifle free speech and harm public rights. Since our launch one month ago thousands of artists have rejected the idea that the creative sector want injustices like this done in their name. No one wants to deprive money from artists, but this particular law is an inappropriate and extreme measure for dealing with the problem of copyright infringement.

Read our response to APRA here:
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=51

Are you a member of APRA? If you disagree with their stance on this issue, let us know that you don’t want APRA to do this in your name. We advocate on behalf of artists like you: we will represent you and promise to protect your privacy. Of course if you want to contact them yourself that’s good too!
Email us at: cff@holloway.co.nz

CFF NEWSLETTER, 17 JAN 09
Read the latest CFF Newsletter here, if you haven’t already: http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=45

The Creative Freedom Foundation launched on 18 December 2008 in New Zealand to unite artists who are against the removal of New Zealander’s rights through proposed changes in Copyright law, done in the name of protecting creativity.

The Foundation’s first campaign is against a proposed law in New Zealand: Sections 92A & C of the Copyright Amendment Act. S92 assumes ‘Guilt Upon Accusation’ – cutting off internet connections and websites based on accusations of Copyright infringement, without evidence or even a trial.

Sound unbelievable? Do something about it:
Save the Net, Sign the Petition!

Go to http://creativefreedom.org.nz/petition.html to sign the petition:
“I don’t want Guilt Upon Accusation laws that will force the termination of internet connections and websites without evidence, and without a fair trial.

I’m not usually someone to push political issues, but I have recently found out about a treaty negotiation that the New Zealand government is taking part in that I think will affect a lot of people, so feel it is my duty to talk about it.
Basically, there have been several months of secret negotiation between the governments of New Zealand and other countries including USA, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Canada, Mexico & the European Union on a treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This international negotiation has been taking place without public consultation* until some (copyrighted?!) information was leaked to the internet.

Although it’s called “counterfeiting” it’s actually about tracking copyrighted material online, not just fake bank notes & Gucci bags (mine’s real by the way, darling). Currently if the police want to search your house or tap your phone or internet they’d need to present evidence to a judge, however with this proposed treaty then any copyright holder would be able to bypass the court and monitor your internet connection, your friends internet connections, and your travels overseas – all in the name of “protecting artists work”. As an artist, I’m not quite convinced that the protection of my work’s copyright warrants this kind of activity.

ACTA would also allow Customs (ie at the airport) to randomly search your laptop, MP3 player, and cellular phone for copyright-infringing content (ie, digital music files, a funny video someone emailed to you on your laptop, music or video that you are remixing or mashing up, a poem that you typed into your computer out of a book that you got from the library, etc…). Travelers who can’t prove what they bought would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.

As I said, the agreement has been kept secret from the public until some information was leaked to the internet. Since then, the Ministry of Economic Development has released only 13 out of 91 documents relating to its part in the negotiation after an official information request. Consultant Mark Harris made a request for “any and all information” the MED holds on ACTA. In response, MED identified 91 documents falling within the scope of the request. The department has supplied Harris with just 13 of these and some parts of most of have been withheld.

Included in the 13 documents are suggestions that copyright owners be given information about infringers “including their identities, means of production and distribution and relevant third parties”, so the owners can pursue further action against them or keep watch on their future activities.

In all likelihood these kinds of negotiations will lead to major copyright/intellectual property holders (ie, Disney, Sony, Time Warner) pushing for a situation where the internet will be constantly monitored. Everything you view, download, share, will be recorded.

Anyway, that’s the gist of it.

There will be another call for submissions, so a group of New Zealanders opposed to ACTA are looking for artists (musicians/visual artists/film makers/writers/VJs, etc…) that understand the issue and are happy to speak/write/email against it in order to convince MED that it’s not in our best interest.

So what can you do?

If you want to help the push against this, you can:

• contact me and say so!!
• forward this on to your friends & spread the word
• let me know if you want to be involved in the next submission round (dates are not yet public)

And, just to prove I’m not making this all up, you can find out more here:

• Radio NZ podcast (with Lynn Freeman & Colin Jackson) – ACTA bit starts at 4:05
• Wikipedia.org: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
• Wikileaks.org: Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007)
• med.govt.nz: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
• it.gen.nz: Your rights on the internet at stake
• it.gen.nz: Submission on ACTA
• acta.lemming-brothers.com: Completed submission

–

*Although the public were not consulted, several large companies were, including:

• Time Warner
• News Corp
• Sony
• Walt Disney Co