http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5769/125/
Saturday April 30, 2011
This week I published multiple posts Wikileaks cables revelations on the U.S. lobbying pressure on Canadian copyright
including attempts to embarrass Canada, joint efforts with lobby groups such as CRIA, and secret information disclosures
from PCO to U.S. embassy personnel (posts here, here, here, here, here, and here). Wikileaks has also just posted hundreds of cables from U.S. personnel in New Zealand that reveal much the same story
including regular government lobbying, offers to draft New Zealand three-strikes and you're out legislation, and a
recommendation to spend over NZ$500,000 to fund a recording industry-backed IP enforcement initiative. Interestingly,
the cables regularly recommend against including New Zealand on the Special 301 list, despite the similarities to
Canadian copyright law that always garner vocal criticism.
As New Zealand was working through its own round of copyright reform in 2008, the U.S. was actively lobbying several
cabinet members. A February 2008 cable notes:
Post has presented the list of noted shortfalls in the draft legislation to Minister Tizard (Consumer Affairs), Minister
Goff (Trade) and to officials within the Ministry of Economic Development, the agency primarily responsible for drafting
legislation and monitoring IP enforcement. Post remains engaged with Bronwyn Turley, Senior MED Policy Advisor for IP
issues to maintain a dialogue to address the needed technical corrections.
The copyright bill passed in April 2008 and took effect later that year. In a March 2009 cable, the U.S. embassy recommended that New Zealand not be included on the Special 301 list arguing it would be
counterproductive. That recommendation is striking when compared to the regular placement of Canada on the list, despite
very similar laws…
An earlier cable similarly recommends not including New Zealand on the Special 301 list despite the fact that NZ had not ratified the
WIPO Internet treaties (Canada has been placed on the highest list for the same thing). The cable is notable for the
objection to a proposed format shifting provision, similar to that found in Bill C-32 and under U.S. fair use…
The U.S. involvement in New Zealand's ISP liability provisions, which included regulations for terminating subscriber
access (three strikes) also comes out in the cables…
Finally, an April 2005 cable reveals the U.S. willingness to pay over NZ$500,000 (US$386,000) to fund a recording industry enforcement initiative.
The project was backed by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) and the Australasian Mechanical
Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS). Performance metrics include:
The project's performance will be judged by specific milestones, including increases in the number of enforcement
operations and seizures, with percentages or numerical targets re-set annually. The unit also will be measured by the
number of reports it submits to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) on its contributions to
IP protection and enforcement methodology.
The proposed budget included four salaried positions, legal costs for investigation and prosecution, and training
programs. The RIANZ still runs an anti-piracy site, but does not include disclosure about the source of funding. It certainly raises the question of whether New Zealand
is aware that local enforcement initiatives have been funded by the U.S. government and whether the same thing is
occurring in Canada.
****