Hard News: Citizens
144 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
OECD figures from Stats NZ.
Bingo! And Prebble is not just wrong, he's raving, drooling out of his tiny mind wrong ...
"New Zealand has [the ] second-lowest government spending in OECD"
Rich, want some coffee? Email me.
-
John Hutchings
Bryce Johns
Bryce JohnsonMr Brown, is similarity of name an important factor on your show when you are picking guests?
Just wondering…
-
Mr Brown, is similarity of name an important factor on your show when you are picking guests?
Not at all. Indeed, I can see it's going to make things tricky ...
-
There goes my plan to be a guest on Media7 by changing my name to 'John Bryce'
Oh well, back to the day job...
-
Take for example an artwork. The artist paints it, they have copyright. Someone buys it, they have copyright. A photographer takes a photo of it, they have copyright. A book publishes the photo, they have copyright. All four of those people/organisations have copyrights over the version that appears in the book. Copyright of the original artwork however rests with the artist and the owner.
No, wrong. A person who buys the painting does not get a copyright right over it, unless the artist assigns the copyright to the purchaser. By default, that doesn't happen. A person who commissions an artwork holds the copyright in the resulting commissioned work, but a person who simply buys an artwork that's already been created doesn't.
For the photographer, and the book publisher, while they do indeed hold copyright over their works (which in the case of the publisher is the copyright in the cover layout, not the copyright in the photo, unless they commissioned the photo in which case the bit above about commissioned works applies) they don't hold copyright over the original painting. They are also breaching copyright if they use their copies in the absence of a licence from the copyright holder, which in this case would be the artist.If TVNZ recorded the speech with their cameras, they have copyright over that recording, though it possibly also rests with David Lange's estate, and the Oxford Union.
Debates are a tricky one. If the debaters talk from preprepared notes, then they have copyright in their notes. Anyone recording the debate has copyright in their own recordings. A body organising a debate can grant exclusive recording rights to a particular person, but the breach by another person who also records the debate would be breach of contract, not breach of copyright, since the organising body doesn't hold copyright in the debate itself (unless it's a TV show that involves scripts and the like, in which case the studio holds the copyright in the show format).
In the case of the OLU debate, if the Archives have a recording that they made, or to which they have been assigned the copyright, then well and good. But if they merely have a copy of someone else's recording, then they have no copyright in that recording and are actually breaching copyright by charging for its use. However, given that it's the Archives, you can be pretty sure that they'll have the copyright issue well under control.
-
Are we all familiar with the number of people currently in prison for murders committed after they served time for an earlier murder? I believe it's three.
That would make it at least three innocent people dead that shouldn't be...
Why are the police, no matter how "unlightly" they work, charging a person for protecting themselves, their family and their property? This case will destroy that family and undermines the economy.
-
Thanks Rich - that's a very handy little table. Not one I'd seen before either.
-
If a talk is taped by a media organisation, does the copyright sit with the media or the speaker. Do groups like the Oxford Union have their speakers sign a release that transfers the copyright?
Or is the "creative input" of turning up and getting the levels right enough to acquire copyright?
A person who records a performance has copyright in that recording. The copyright in the performed material rests with various people, or nobody, depending on various things. For a debate, which is generally somewhat off-the-cuff, there's no performance copyright since there's no base literary work, as opposed to a play, or even a speech or lecture.
So, to give you a quick answer, yes, "turning up and getting the levels right" is enough to get copyright in your recording. But absent an exclusivity agreement, you cannot do anything to stop others making their own recordings, and the makers of those other recordings are the holders of their own copyrights in those recordings.
-
In the case of the OLU debate, if the Archives have a recording that they made, or to which they have been assigned the copyright, then well and good. But if they merely have a copy of someone else's recording, then they have no copyright in that recording and are actually breaching copyright by charging for its use. However, given that it's the Archives, you can be pretty sure that they'll have the copyright issue well under control.
Depends what you mean by "they made". Sound Archives' recording comes from the TV broadcast, although I couldn't tell you whether it was recorded directly from the TV or provided to them (it sounds pretty good).
TVNZ's copy will be the recording it made directly from the international broadcast -- it didn't produce the event or originate the broadcast.
I wish anyone good luck should they try and explore any copyright held by the Oxford Union. I tried calling them for that purpose, and spoke to several students who hadn't heard of this Lange chap and didn't seem terribly focused on what I was saying to them.
Finally, TVNZ Archives will often levy what amounts to a copyright license for material in which its copyright is questionable. That's not all bad, in that cost-recovery keeps an archive going, but there's a hell of a lot of stuff kept locked up by dubious assumptions of copyright.
-
Why are the police, no matter how "unlightly" they work, charging a person for protecting themselves, their family and their property?
We will doubtless find out once the case has been to court. Their reasons are sufficiently compelling to made a retired senior detective retract his earlier statements on the matter, which should be a good enough for anyone who gives a damn about lawful behaviour, as opposed to simple media-incited knee-jerking.
-
Depends what you mean by "they made".
In this case, that they showed up to the debate with a mic and a tape recorder, and actually took down the audio signals themselves (or by way of an agent).
If they have a copy taken off a TV feed, then it may be that TVNZ authorised them to take a recording. Or they may even have been given a copy of the audio track. As I have demonstrated, ownership of copyright is a messy, messy subject. When you're dealing in a non-performance that occurred a decade before the current Copyright Act was written, it's getting even murkier. UK copyright law is more useful to us than our own, and I have no desire to try and establish what the situation with copyright law was in the UK at the time of the debate. Then there's retroactive changes and all the other legislative fuckery that makes such things a decidedly non-trivial exercise, certainly one that's far beyond my degree of care (and really, really stretching my ability to trace drafting and implementation changes in legislation).
-
Russell
I've sent through a few photos of Bowenvale Track & Godley Head Track in Christchurch.
They have serious erosion problems along with cattle crossing the stream which goes through Christchurch polluting and silting the Heathcote River and the esturay.
Not up to loading them here as a comment.
-
Bingo! And Prebble is not just wrong, he's raving, drooling out of his tiny mind wrong ...
"New Zealand has [the ] second-lowest government spending in OECD"
That's a very uncharitable conclusion, Russell! Prebble obvious had some other OECD in mind, one consisting exclusively of such well-known countries as Friedmania, Randistan and Rogerland.
-
The PREFU is out; comments here. Short version: $6 billion deficit next year, no room for further spending, and we're in the red for the better part of a decade. Aren't you glad Dr Cullen saved for this rainy day?
-
I wish anyone good luck should they try and explore any copyright held by the Oxford Union.
And just to deal with this, the odds are that the answer is "none, whatsoever". Unless it was a scripted debate, and OLU wrote the scripts, they're simply a venue. A debate isn't usually a performance, since the basis doesn't usually doesn't qualify as a literary work. There needs to be some kind of structured, recorded (as in written down, or similar) beforehand, on which the performance is based, and IME debaters don't talk closely to a prepared script.
-
I had read that the shopowner who has been charged, had gone outside onto the footpath armed with a hockey stick, accused a youth of stealing from his shop, attacked the boy at which point the other youths joined in. Several people were hurt. At least one of the youths was also charged. If this was so, was the shopkeeper defending himself? Was he defending his property? Or was he attacking a youth? Not sure where the info came from so can't verify. Read it somewhere.
-
Are we all familiar with the number of people currently in prison for murders committed after they served time for an earlier murder?
I believe it's three.
According to the Herald, murderers imprisoned under the proposed legislation will need a new prison, costing $314 million.
Are the tories expecting a massive rise in the number of second-time-around murderers, or will this prison be a holiday camp for the three prisoners?
-
Ian: there may also be a question of proportionality. People are allowed to use reasonable force in defence of their lives or those of others. They're not allowed to use force to defend property, because we're Not Bloody Merkins.
-
And now to the Otara thing. When I read that Herald article this morning my instant reaction was that I'd love the stick a clue-by-four up McVicar's fundamental orifice. Sideways. I've since realised that getting it past his head could be a problem, but where there's a will there's a way.
I always assumed that the police had a good reason to charge the shopkeeper. Contrary to public opinion, bringing charges against people who defend themselves isn't usually a vindictive act. It's frequently about making a specific point. In the gun shop case (Carvelli?), the point was that it's not OK for gun shop owners to keep a loaded firearm handy in order to afford themselves protection. I imagine that this case will have some similar point, probably that the shopkeeper went looking for trouble, with a hockey stick, rather than just trying to apprehend a shoplifter. Note that I'm speculating here, and have no information as to what the actual reason is. We will, no doubt, find out in due course.
Kudos to Miller for his public retraction. Shame that McVicar's too stupid to know when he's backing a losing horse. Though I guess it's possible that no matter what the outcome of the prosecution the general public opinion will be that the shopkeeper was prosecuted for defending his property, and I imagine that McVicar will do his damnedest to ensure that that's how it plays out.
-
Ian: there may also be a question of proportionality. People are allowed to use reasonable force in defence of their lives or those of others. They're not allowed to use force to defend property, because we're Not Bloody Merkins.
From what the Police have said, some degree of force in defence of property is accepted. I suspect that's in relation to s52 and s53 of the Crimes Act, which provide for "defence of movable property" by way of "reasonable force", but require that the defender "does not strike or do bodily harm to" the offender. So beating someone with a hockey stick doesn't count.
Also, on the "Not Bloody Merkins" note, s55 actually provides for the use of "such force as is necessary" to prevent someone breaking and entering into a dwellinghouse. It's not quite lethal force, but you're well within the law to punch or kick someone to stop them breaking into your house.
-
No, wrong. A person who buys the painting does not get a copyright right over it, unless the artist assigns the copyright to the purchaser. By default, that doesn't happen. A person who commissions an artwork holds the copyright in the resulting commissioned work, but a person who simply buys an artwork that's already been created doesn't.
An artist (for example) can't sell a work, then take a photograph of it, and publish that photograph, without the permission of the owner of the work.
Part of my job is getting the permissions to reproduce artworks for advertising, and we always have to work with the gallery or private collector as well as the artist, even if our reproduction of the artwork has come from another source (ie, the artist). The legal advice was quite clear on this.
-
Matt Robson had it about right when he spoke of the "terrible few" and the "sad "many". And before anyone says he's out of touch, his sister was killed by a drunk driver some years back.
Where would the Garth McVicars and Peter Lows of this world draw the line on vigilantism, if any at all? I'd be interested to see their reactions, for instance, if someone truly crossed the line and started solving the gangs issue with a good supply of C4, a remote control kit, some automotive know-how, and a leaf out of the Stern Gang's book.
-
s52 and s53 of the Crimes Act, which provide for "defence of movable property" by way of "reasonable force", but require that the defender "does not strike or do bodily harm to" the offender. So beating someone with a hockey stick doesn't count.
That's the bit I was thinking of. You can hit someone if they're hitting you, but not if they're simply taking your TV set. Money isn't worth shedding blood in this country.
-
An artist (for example) can't sell a work, then take a photograph of it, and publish that photograph, without the permission of the owner of the work.
That may be so, but it's more likely to be related to copyright in the frame than in the work itself. Easy to get screwed up with that. Not to mention that people could well get pissy if someone just randomly started taking photos of things.
Copyright doesn't pass with physical ownership, except by operation of specific contract. So the physical owner has no copyright in the artwork itself, except through assignment or by operation of the commissioning section of the Copyright Act.
-
According to the Herald, murderers imprisoned under the proposed legislation will need a new prison, costing $314 million.
Yes, the extra prison is for everyone that's covered;
"people who commit a violent offence that earns them a prison sentence of five years or more – regardless of whether or not they serve the full term – will not be eligible for parole if they commit a subsequent violent offence that receives a sentence of five years or more."
This will include some number of people with life sentences who will apparently never be let out and perhaps as many as two repeat murderers.
And I imagine we'll need an extra prison by 2011 anyway, so this would be on top of that.
My comment wasn't meant to directly reflect National's policy, but I will add that I don't think, say, Burton is going to be let out as it is.
That would make it at least three innocent people dead that shouldn't be...
Well, at least six if you count all the convictions.
It's just a question if you want to frame your debate on the justice system around that alone.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.