Wrong in so many ways: TV3 Target segment on Piracy

Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

Hello TV3 and Target. I was extremely unimpressed by Target's recent (3 Nov 2009) segment on "Piracy". Aside from the fact that the segment pandered entirely to the corporate interests (as opposed to the creative artists) of so called "rights holders", it also used very misleading, and in fact, incorrect language.

The issue at stake is the copying of works produced by creative artists and organisations without recognising their right to a limited monopoly over those works granted by the government of NZ. Copying a digital copy of a creative work *is not* "stealing" or "theft". Stealing and theft necessarily involve physical goods, like a bicycle or car or currency. It is also most certainly not "piracy" which is, in fact, commandeering ships and plundering their physical property on the high seas. It is Copyright Infringement, nothing more and nothing less.

You segment championed the position of a now well-and-truly defunct industry - that of corporate "rights holders" who purchase (or, in some cases "steal") the rights to creative works from artists and then try to maximise their income from those works in return for providing marketing and distribution channels. These corporations ceased to be relevant with the advent of the Internet and prevalence of powerful computing devices with recording/filming capabilities in nearly everyone's house or even pocket.

The only culprits in this story are

  • a tiny number of individuals who fraudulently infringe on copyright and then try to make money by selling the copies, and
  • the corporate rights holders who lobby government ferociously to protect their failing business models.

The former should be prosecuted for copyright infringement as per existing laws, and the latter should grow a spine and come up with an honest way to add value to the artistic/creative process, or die off gracefully. It wouldn't be a big loss.

I respect copyright - I'm a copyright holder myself - and I adhere - to the extent that it doesn't compromise my much stronger human urge to share with my friends and family. I suspect most people are the same.

That said, I also recognise the need for people to build on the work of others. I choose, in general, to release work I produce under a Creative Commons license which allows others to remix it. Just about every thought I've had, every idea I've written down uses words and images that other people came up with first. When you get down to it, everything we think or record as a creative artifact is based on what someone else did.

The sooner people around the world accept this, the sooner the work of the Creative Freedom Foundation will be done, and creative people will be able to get back to doing what they do best - being creative and creating artistic works.

Let's get with the programme, eh TV3 and Target.

Hi David, Thank you for

Hi David,
Thank you for posting this!
I urge anyone who takes exception with the mangling of this controversial (and extremely important) issue and the one sided manner in which it was presented to make a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (http://www.bsa.govt.nz/complain-start.php)

I believe that the show was in breach of both sections 4 and 5 of the BSA which state:

Standard 4 Controversial Issues – Viewpoints

When discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

Guideline

4a. No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial issues of public importance. Significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme. This can only be done by judging each case on its merits.

4b The assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented takes account of some or all of the following:

* the programme introduction;
* whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective (e.g. authorial documentaries, public access and advocacy programmes;
* whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage.

Standard 5 Accuracy

Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming:

* is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and/or
* does not mislead.

Guidelines

5a The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.

5b In the event that a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it at the earliest appropriate opportunity.

5c News must be impartial.

Some discussion on this can be found at the wonderful Creative Freedom Foundation here: http://creativefreedom.org.nz/forum/topic.php?post=1293#post1293

Please speak up so that we can have a rational discussion on this important topic rather than a 1 sided propaganda piece

The CFF have posted a

The CFF have posted a response here... http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=431

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.