4 political parties oppose copyright changes in SA

Hanno Labuschagne

Journalist
Staff member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,401
4 political parties oppose copyright changes in SA

On 1 September 2022, the Copyright Amendment Bill was passed by the National Assembly with 163 votes for and 45 votes against the Bill. There were no abstentions. The Bill will now go to the National Council of Provinces.

It is a progressive Bill that will afford South Africans rights similar to those enjoyed by people in many countries around the world, and yet four parties — the Democratic Alliance, the Freedom Front Plus, the African Christian Democratic Party, and the Economic Freedom Fighters — rejected the Bill.

[GroundUp]
 
Just more evidence that the real "Dark Forces" are the copyright middlemen and brokers who stand to profit from content marketing and the throttling of sales and distribution.

So I come back to my original point.... if you want to prevent actual piracy, then facilitate easy and wide sales and distribution and fair and honest pricing.
Make your product avaliable around the world at a reasonable price and piracy will fall away.
But when you allow greedy and dishonest middlemen to throttle sales and withhold distribution in order to drive up pricing, then you're going to see a concommitant increase in piracy.
DSTV and STER KINEKOR are perfect examples of this in South Africa...
The USERS are not the bad guys... Stop making them out to be pirates.
Greedy Corporates always have been and always will be the real pirates.
 
4 political parties oppose copyright changes in SA

On 1 September 2022, the Copyright Amendment Bill was passed by the National Assembly with 163 votes for and 45 votes against the Bill. There were no abstentions. The Bill will now go to the National Council of Provinces.

It is a progressive Bill that will afford South Africans rights similar to those enjoyed by people in many countries around the world, and yet four parties — the Democratic Alliance, the Freedom Front Plus, the African Christian Democratic Party, and the Economic Freedom Fighters — rejected the Bill.

[GroundUp]

Conscience voting.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but how can it pass with only 163 votes to 45 out of 400 seats? Unless there were abstentions...

Since you would need 201 votes to pass a bill without abstentions?
Probably 192 were absent. Absentees don't count as abstentions as they aren't counted at all.
 
Isn't' this the same bill the US threatened SA with sanctions? If so, good luck to the rich ANC cronies and all their money and assets abroad....
 
Isn't' this the same bill the US threatened SA with sanctions? If so, good luck to the rich ANC cronies and all their money and assets abroad....
There was a request by the International Intellectual Property Alliance for the US to investigate but it hasn't gone anywhere. We don't appear on the Special 301 Review list:
 
Just more evidence that the real "Dark Forces" are the copyright middlemen and brokers who stand to profit from content marketing and the throttling of sales and distribution.

So I come back to my original point.... if you want to prevent actual piracy, then facilitate easy and wide sales and distribution and fair and honest pricing.
Make your product avaliable around the world at a reasonable price and piracy will fall away.
But when you allow greedy and dishonest middlemen to throttle sales and withhold distribution in order to drive up pricing, then you're going to see a concommitant increase in piracy.
DSTV and STER KINEKOR are perfect examples of this in South Africa...
The USERS are not the bad guys... Stop making them out to be pirates.
Greedy Corporates always have been and always will be the real pirates.
I agree on the distribution, but why a reasonable price and what is that? Aren't we a capitalist world?
 
There was a request by the International Intellectual Property Alliance for the US to investigate but it hasn't gone anywhere. We don't appear on the Special 301 Review list:

Well, in all fairness, the act has not been signed into law back then, so chances that the US government would have taken any actions were 0%. The US Government, as like any other government in the world has a legal duty to protect its citizens and businesses. So, if this becomes law, the ANC stands a great chance of being sanctioned. We will also see a lot less books, movies, series, music, etc., coming here.
 
South Africa is probably the only country in the world where intellectual property rights are deemed more important than actual property rights.
 
Well, in all fairness, the act has not been signed into law back then, so chances that the US government would have taken any actions were 0%. The US Government, as like any other government in the world has a legal duty to protect its citizens and businesses. So, if this becomes law, the ANC stands a great chance of being sanctioned. We will also see a lot less books, movies, series, music, etc., coming here.
Doubt it
 

Let's wait and see.

The US and UK and some other EU countries are still protecting their citizens and businesses against Zimbabwe and refuse to lift sanctions until they have been compensated. Even Biden just this month told CR he would not be lifting the sanctions.

International copyright laws are clear. Maybe they will turn a blind eye to SA, as they do with China... maybe not.
 
I agree on the distribution, but why a reasonable price and what is that? Aren't we a capitalist world?

Well reasonable pricing is just common sense for both capitalism and to avoid piracy.
If you actually want to SELL your product it must be competitive in pricing or you're never going to be able to move it.
And if it's over-priced, then pirates are going to use that as an excuse to pirate it.
So be reasonable. People will respond to that.

For Example DVD's priced over R200 now these days seems over-priced to me... even for new releases.
Unless it's a box set with many additional special features.
 
Last edited:
Let's wait and see.

The US and UK and some other EU countries are still protecting their citizens and businesses against Zimbabwe and refuse to lift sanctions until they have been compensated. Even Biden just this month told CR he would not be lifting the sanctions.

International copyright laws are clear. Maybe they will turn a blind eye to SA, as they do with China... maybe not.
Which part of the bill breaks International copyright laws?
 
Which part of the bill breaks International copyright laws?

Admittedly, as per my first post and question, I have not reverted back to the changed amendments to see if there were any change after the South African government was warned about possible impending sanctions by Donald Trump's government in the US. But, as it stood back then, several parts of the act was in contradiction with international copyright laws, hence the reason for the calls for sanctions and the actual threat thereof and South Africa's decision via Cyril Ramaphosa not to sign it into law back then.

So, if they are signing this act into law, either under Biden or a new US leader, South Africa is likely to face severe sanctions. Probably also the reason why opposition parties were against approving the act.
 
I agree on the distribution, but why a reasonable price and what is that? Aren't we a capitalist world?
We're actually not. Capitalism is the default system but copyright is based on socialist concepts. It's even worded that you have the right to attempt to make a profit and not that you have the right to make a profit.

Let's wait and see.

The US and UK and some other EU countries are still protecting their citizens and businesses against Zimbabwe and refuse to lift sanctions until they have been compensated. Even Biden just this month told CR he would not be lifting the sanctions.

International copyright laws are clear. Maybe they will turn a blind eye to SA, as they do with China... maybe not.
It's very much aligned to international laws. There might have been a few minor flaws but it's gone through many revisions since then and is now one of the newest frameworks with all the international best practices. It would be hypocritical for the U.S. or any other state to take a stance since they implement much the same and if they do we can actually use the act to acquire their works like they would do.

My only question is does copyright still fall on the commissioner of a work or on the creator now?
 
Back
Top