KEY POINTS:
If you watch a teenage party, you'll observe teenagers play their music loud and that some of it is from their parents' teen era.
Bizarrely, they don't think it's naff. You'll see they like to dance - and during the dancing, inevitably, someone will bump into the stereo and knock over a speaker.
You'll notice, too, they bring their music in a startling array of pocket devices and then argue about who has the best playlist.
But what's really different is that most of their songs come via the internet or have been swapped among friends. This is the iPod generation, who, according to our lawmakers, are a tribe of thieves.
It's a disappointing way to view our children. But it's the view our politicians - with the exception of the Greens - seem determined to promote in their support of the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers Rights) Amendment Bill, which has had its second reading in Parliament.
Here was a chance to address one of the great philosophical questions of our time: when is a copy right? For today's youth the answer is simple: when everyone else is doing it. But for our crusty politicians today's reality - widespread civil disobedience of copyright - is something they can't abide. As far as the bill is concerned, sharing music and video files through the wonders of the web and computer technology, no matter that it's happening under their noses, is still theft. Which is, of course, totally wrong.
But the time is long overdue - especially when you're drafting a new law to deal with the paradigm-shifting magic of the digital age - to get real. When there is a global thumbing of noses at the law, there is really only one appropriate response - acknowledge the law is an ass. It's time also to reframe this debate of rights and wrongs to something more sophisticated than "all file sharing is theft". After years of file sharing, we now know the world doesn't come to an end. Music is still being made and listened to, the record companies are still making obscene amounts of money and artists, by and large, are still getting paid. We also know there is a vast audience out there getting much of their music for free.
But rather than develop an innovative response to the vexed issue of subverted copyright, our lawmakers try and stop the horse after it has bolted. The new bill reluctantly allows format shifting of music - from CD to PC to iPod and vice versa - for private and domestic use. But then it prohibits the same practice for video. Why? Because Parliament apparently believes not many people are doing it.
Parliament obviously has no idea about the vast number of Kiwis who watched the final episodes of the Sopranos long before TVNZ finally deigned to show them here.
Or that last week Bit Torrent tracked 470,000 downloads of Lost.
Or about sites like joox.net and videohybrid.com which allow viewing and format shifting of just about any TV series you could care to mention.
Then the bill insists that if you do format-shift music you must keep the original copy. Which sets up the perfect defence when the format shifting police come knocking at your door - "I lost it, but I made a backup" Even more stupid is the rule which allows copyright owners to contract out of allowing format shifting. "Thou shalt not copy this recording to a PC, iPod, CD or DVD or any other recordable material" is going to go down a treat with prospective purchasers.
There is more unworkable nonsense in restrictions on time-shifting recordings - "for the purpose of viewing or listening at a more convenient time". Under the new rules, burning a DVD of a TV programme, or copying a file from a hard-disk video recorder to a video iPod, to loan to a friend, will be illegal. Then there is the similarly silly and impractical burden placed on internet providers to remove copyrighted material from web pages.
At the very least, this bill needs to remedy these glaring failings by sanctioning all methods of format shifting of all file types for personal use, and by regarding internet service providers neutral conduits in the copyright wars.
As to the wider issues, we know there is no easy answer. A world without copyright is too difficult for most to imagine. But sooner or later, if our children are not to remain "thieves", we are going to have to accept that the sharing of files for no financial gain is a reasonable copyright exception.
