Hi Douglas I think you summed up the online debate very well. Thank you for making a submission on our behalf!
cheers Janine >>> Douglas Bagnall <[email protected]> 08/10/09 4:08 PM >>> hi Friday was the day for submissions on this section 92 review, and although I had known that for some time I did not start writing until about 3:30 that afternoon. That means I didn't get to run it past you lot, I didn't squeeze everyone's opinions in, and I confabulated where I could not recall details. Also I missed at least one apostrophe. Sorry about that. On the positive side, it is short and mostly to the point. Douglas -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Section 92 Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:57:04 +1200 From: Douglas Bagnall <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Dear MED, The Aotearoa Digital Arts network was formed by and for New Zealand artists who use digital media. We hold regular symposia and maintain a vibrant email discussion list. Our main focus is on visual arts in the traditional gallery-centric sense, though many of our 200 or so members are primarily musicians, theatre practitioners, film-makers, writers, or otherwise artistically oriented. Some of us are also members of the CFF and APRA and other groups that purport to represent artists, but ADA is not affiliated with them. In July we discussed Section 92, and copyright in general, on our mailing list. Although our members have widely ranging views, there were some points of consensus: * We think disconnection is an excessive response. Most digital artists depend on internet connections for their livelihood, and many of us use shared connections in studios, offices, or flats. Disconnecting what seems like an infringing account from the ISP's point of view may well affect several innocent people, perhaps drastically. * We are not all particularly fond of fines either, as they punish in inverse proportion to wealth, but we prefer them to disconnection. * The sending of notices is fine. * Most of us support the idea of copyright in general, if only due to a lack of plausible alternatives. Those who suggested we oppose copyright as a concept were proposing this as a posture and not meaning to eschew its protection for their own work. * We are all users of open licenses, whether as consumers or producers, and most believe they are a useful option for artists. Although it may not seem directly relevant to the section 92 review, copyright law should be written with support for these kinds of licenses in mind. Somebody also suggested a surcharge on internet traffic that could be redirected toward artists, but this was not widely supported. Another person proposed a set of rites that downloaders should perform that would put them in a grateful frame of mind. Although this may not be legally practical, it is interesting to shift the debate from the damage to rights holders profits to the damage inflicted upon downloaders souls by an excessive sense of entitlement and greed. The email list discussion can be found here: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/ada_list/2009-July/date.html regards, Douglas Bagnall (on behalf of the Aotearoa Digital Arts trust) _______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
_______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
