When the National government took power in November 2008 the one silver lining as far as I was concerned was the proposed $1.5 billion investment in a better broadband network. For all the shortcomings of a National government I thought that at least they understood the importance of the internet to our future economy. It is an area where New Zealand has lagged behind due to the tight control telecom has over the infrustructure and a lack of competition in the market. In most developed countries they don't know that internet comes in amounts, flatrate internet is the norm.

Last week the National government passed a piece of legislation that showed they really don't understand the internet at all. Johnathan Young compared the internet to skynet and Katrina Shanks patted herself on the back for using google on an Ipad ( http://bit.ly/gF9qZa ) (I would say this speaks more for apple functionality than her technical prowess). The term filesharing was overused and abused. It should be a prerequisite of legislating in an area that you understand what is being legislated. I was proud to see Young Green Gareth Hughes was the lone voice of reason in that debating chamber. (http://bit.ly/enhNQN)

This brings us to the fundamental problem with internet regulation. Those trying to legislate cannot keep up with the evolution of the internet. It is an arms race the legislators are destined to lose.

The current Copyright Act was introduced in 1994. If it were a computer operating system it would be Windows 3.1 (propped up by a few subsequent patches). In terms of copyright we need a new operating system which reflects the realities of the 2011 world.

A fundamental question is “what is the internet?” While some politicians may say that the internet is “skynet” or “a series of tubes”, in my opinion the internet is one large filesharing system. It is a meme (idea) replicator which works more quickly than anything we have ever known. A single (nameless) video on youtube can be viewed over 100 million times in a matter of weeks. New Zealand artists have benefited as well. Artists like Zowie and the Kids of 88 have been praised by US uberblogger Perez Hilton and exposed to thousands of new fans in ways they never would have been without the internet. While the internet poses some threat to artists, this shows that artists, who accept the fundamental properties of the internet as a replicator, have proved sucessful. The threat posed to artists certainly does not require internet accounts to be suspended as a punishment.

I would suggest that the ammendment has less to do with protecting artists from copyright infringement and more to do with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and making sure that New Zealand's copyright protection is acceptable to the US. (For more on the TPP: http://bit.ly/gsnHmu )

New Zealand could instead be a bastion of internet freedom. In Iceland they have are developing the Iceland Modern Media Initiative, as part of this ISPs are seen merely as conduits and are given immunity. Iceland looks set to become a haven for free speech and whistleblower organisations. (For more on Iceland: http://bit.ly/hSrIpI )

The battle around internet regulation may be a long one, but I am throwing my hat in with the Nerds (and I use that term affectionately). They may lose the odd battle but in the long run the nature of the internet is on their side.