Hard News: High Noon
203 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
But my experience of the man (and it's extensive) is that he's brutally honest and I'd be surprised if deviously tossing another bogeyman into the mix is in character. He speaks his mind.
In which case, to echo Russell, he is out of touch. Nothing wrong with that but let's kick that particular claim to touch.
Again, regarding the issue of 'the' CoP. There can be no such thing. Given the broad definition of ISPs one CoP cannot and does not cover all businesses. To suggest that this is the only remaining issue is pure fantasy.
We have developed our own CoP that is very different to the TCF one and I would imagine others will have to do the same. Not sure how these will manage the hairy ethics of cutting off peoples' IP phone systems though.
Finally I will once again point out that I personally, like many others in IT, have interests in large portfolios of copyrighted works. To suggest that we somehow don't care about the issue or don't understand about enforcement is a gross error.
We do. More than most, mainly because we see some of the wider side effects of the current swag of enforcement proposals (whether S92, DRM or DMCA). They are not good for progress and they are not effective for artists and they are not good for healthy, free societies.
-
More Herald after today's petition handover, interestingly carrying no byline.
-
The EFF chimes in with a very accurate and incisive piece (ta Juha):
"Repeat infringer" in the DMCA is a term that was not defined in the law itself, and remains contentious here in the United States. Legal experts like David Nimmer have argued that "repeat infringer" means what it says: someone who has been repeatedly shown in court to have infringed, not simply accused of multiple infringement by rightsholders.
There's certainly no universal acceptance in the home of the DMCA that rightsholders can force ISPs to throw US subscribers offline simply because they've been on the receiving end of (often inaccurate) notices by those same rightsholders.
-
So it looks like the cost of piracy to the music industry is far higher than has been estimated:
the total cost to the music industry was $11,440,939,650,000!
At this stage an honourable man would withdraw and apologise.
Calculations are here (if you refuse to take my word for it):
http://donnysblog.com/one-month-of-torrents-is-worth-more-than-the-gdp-of-france-riaa-rant.php
-
Great post Simon. I agree completely.
-
That analysis was 2006, and I am ashamed to say, it looks as though file sharers, not bankers, are responsible for the financial crisis.
-
Simon Grigg - nice post on your site. Now what you write *is* educational. To me at least.
-
That must be where Arthur's "80%" comes from...
-
But my experience of the man (and it's extensive) is that he's brutally honest and I'd be surprised if deviously tossing another bogeyman into the mix is in character. He speaks his mind.
Also, he's a hard-nosed lawyer. That's fine. He'd have gone wild if he'd had a client on the other side of the argument.
I had actually only called in to point out that Key's claims that (a) National opposed the provision, then (b) They only supported it because that was the advice from officials were both demonstrably untrue. Had I been planning a debate I wouldn't have been driving a car.
-
A lawyer who was a bit rough on an interlocutor? I've never heard of that being a discouraged habit. Just because Graeme has good manners doesn't make it an industry standard.
-
In which case, to echo Russell, he is out of touch. Nothing wrong with that but let's kick that particular claim to touch.
I don't know that either way. I value Russell's input and contacts on this, but to be honest, I'm also aware of Chris' network, which is equally deep. I think it's a matter of we really don't know rather than kicking anything into touch.
But that said, I do think that Chris' early comments were ill advised and I'd be surprised if he didn't concur. He ain't a dummy or close to out out of touch.
Great post Simon. I agree completely.
Ta, mate.
-
Me too on your post, Simon.
The funny thing is that I'm going to stand up tomorrow morning in front of a hall full of webby people and say, don't write these music people off and don't be polarised. I'm quite clear on the principles behind my stance on this issue and I'm not going to personalise it.
-
Cheers, Don, RB
-
I value Russell's input and contacts on this
Not just Russell's, I assure you.
I am not saying the TCF members aren't lobbying. Of course they are. But they and many of us taking a traditional advocacy and political route have been spectacularly unsuccessful over a period of at least 24 months in getting any movement on this legislation.
The change in political interest it is largely due to the CFF efforts in getting the issue noticed by a wider audience.
-
The change in political interest it is largely due to the CFF efforts in getting the issue noticed by a wider audience.
either way it's welcome.
The funny thing is that I'm going to stand up tomorrow morning in front of a hall full of webby people and say, don't write these music people off and don't be polarised.
The thing is. many of these so called industry stalwarts quietly agree with your position but are tethered by corporate policy dictated from afar. And that policy of course dictates RIANZ's stance. They are paid (very well) to argue a certain way. I doubt many folks at Universal listen to Hip Hop Hits Vol 23 but they'll swear to you it's all pure genius.
And I think that, as Samuel Scott is evidence, the support for S92(A) amongst musicians is at the very best mixed. Mikey was having trouble agreeing with Chris in that sound clip.
-
But what's you personal stance
I've stated my personal stance at length.
But I'm not trying to be a high level spokesperson on this and I'm not trying to stir up a movement of people to fight against a law that doesn't even have a finished code of practice yet.and for someone who accused me of being obtuse and avoiding answering direct questions I notice you answered none of mine.
here's one again
what do you think is going to happen next week. paint us a picture of how you see next week going down, or the week after that
I want to hear this from the perspective of someone who on Radio New Zealand fanned hysteria by saying it was quite possible you could be disconnected for watching a video on youtube.
A reasonable person might imagine that the content owners would approach youtube with a take down notice but you suggested to the eager panicked ear that the media owner would much rather pursue each individual viewer using 92a to get that viewer cut off for accidentally watching said youtube video. Is that cos they've got nothing better to do with their time?
Do you not see the ridiculousness in that line of thinking and the irresponsible nature of saying something like that to an audience of people who mostly don't know any different from what you might tell them? That's just plain stirring,So I want to hear what you really think, in your calm and collected mind, is going to play out in the next few weeks when this law is active but with no code of practice, and if you really truly believe that people like ant healey or cam at rianz are going to push for actions that are going to harm innocent people?
Should I really have to write to every band I think might be good?
it would be the polite thing to do, but my point was you know these people, and your flipancy regarding this sets a bad example to a reading audience that thinks if Russell does it then its ok.
You're treading treacherous water if you want to be a media spokes person with a foot in both camps, as you say you are.
You appear to me to not have any real part of your body in the camp of the people like the terminals who are actually quite upset that people are taking their music for free when they are trying their best to get it made and out there. (yes I have spoken to them on exactly this issue regarding another download site that had their complete catalogue available)I'm not sure that makes me the bad guy.
no it makes you someone in a position of media power who is sending out mixed messages.
Gotcha isn't really an argument.
and dismissing my points as a gotcha doesn't make em any less valid.
The DVD you pointed to is Region 1
Not true. I gave a uk link as well which at the time took you to the correct page. in the original post its now a dead link.
My point was your flippant attitude to it once again as a media figure encourages similar behaviour in others. I don't know why you think this doesn't matter.you fan the flames of the situation in your public position and then cry fowl when media creators try to take measures to protect themselves. what do you expect to happen?
-
I'm also of the mind that it's not reasonable that 92A mandates a penalty -- disconnect from the internet -- that no court or tribunal would.
I've heard you say this a bit Russell, including with Chris, and I've got to say that out of all the arguments against s92A, this one seems to me like a bit of a straw man, or maybe just irrelevant. Would s92A be better if the arbitary uncontestable penalty was a fine or imprisonment, or whatever else a judge currently has in his/her arsenal? No, it's still arbitrary and uncontestable. And to compare it with the penalties for child porn sounds like a variation on Godwin's Law - not to mention that as above, the penalties for child porn already include imprisonment and large fines - something I'm sure you would agree is harsher than having your broadband turned off...
Given that it's the ISPs who are being required to take this step, it's perhaps analogous with employment law, where an employer can be compelled to take back a wrongly-fired employee.
-
And Simon, interesting to hear you say you don't buy vinyl any more (I hate to think what you pay in storage fees for your collection as it is) - it's the fact I can still get new LPs (and good reissues) on vinyl that keeps me pumping money into the music industry. I know it's a flawed, emotional way of thinking, but the reality is that if I"m faced with paying $35 for a CD more or less indistinguishable from the ones that litter the floor of my office, I'd rather download the shit illegally. But if it's on vinyl, well...
-
A reasonable person might imagine that the content owners would approach youtube with a take down notice but you suggested to the eager panicked ear that the media owner would much rather pursue each individual viewer using 92a to get that viewer cut off for accidentally watching said youtube video. Is that cos they've got nothing better to do with their time?
If this is what is reasonable, then this is what needs to be in the act. Selective enforcement is not especially good for a society. Drafting a bill that you KNOW is going to require selective enforcement is just stupid.
[FWIW: number of illegally downloaded songs/videos on my iPod: 0. Amount of illegal software on my computer: 0. Amount of my income that depends on creative works by me or my coworkers: all of it.]
-
I've stated my personal stance at length.
Yes, you've repeatedly taken a maximalist copyright position, while occasionally admitting that you personally make illicit downloads of copyright material. And on this basis, you've attacked me personally as a hypocrite.
Go figure.
But I'm not trying to be a high level spokesperson on this and I'm not trying to stir up a movement of people to fight against a law that doesn't even have a finished code of practice yet.
I'm not "trying" to be anything. I was asked to help out, and I've done so on the basis of principle. It would be easier not to: it's quite a stressful week as it is.
But one thing I've consistently tried not to do is personalise the issue. I've repeatedly spoken up for people on the other side of the argument, and pulled up people here when they've personally attacked them.
I want to hear this from the perspective of someone who on Radio New Zealand fanned hysteria by saying it was quite possible you could be disconnected for watching a video on youtube.
Sigh ... Kathryn Ryan asked me about watching an infringing clip on YouTube and I said that that was, in principle, an infringement too. I didn't say you would be disconnected for watching it, although technically, you would be a repeat infringer. It may comfort you to think that the clip you watch on YouTube isn't an infringing copy, but it is.
Frankly Rob, this is more about your hangup with me than anything else. I'm not going to read any more of your emails. You've complained about being personally attacked but you're happy enough to dish it out from behind your pseudonym. Please, just stop it.
-
interlocutor
Top use of vocabulary, that man.
-
I've heard you say this a bit Russell, including with Chris, and I've got to say that out of all the arguments against s92A, this one seems to me like a bit of a straw man, or maybe just irrelevant.
Russ can speak for himself but I don't think this is a strawman, Damian. It's part and parcel of the unfairness of the act, that it allows penalties to be enforced, without proof of guilt, that go beyond those a court could impose.
Would s92A be betterif the arbitary uncontestable penalty was a fine or imprisonment, or whatever else a judge currently has in his/her arsenal? No, it's still arbitrary and uncontestable.
I agree completely, but Russell's comment explores the scope of how bad the law is, looking at the context of surrounding process. Either the arbitrariness or the overkill in penalties should be enough by themselves to blow this law out of the legislative water. That neither is being considered enough by the government is a bit tragic.
And to compare it with the penalties for child porn sounds like a variation on Godwin's Law - not to mention that as above, the penalties for child porn already include imprisonment and large fines - something I'm sure you would agree is harsher than having your broadband turned off...
Well, Tizzard herself raised that particular spectre while Minister, so it's not unfair to wave it around, really. Still, It's not an argument I favour myself. As you say, there are significant penalties for such activities and the court can order your equipment seized:
The penalties relating to child pornography vary due to the different types of offences that fall within this category of offending. Depending on the type of offending, a term of 1, 5 or 10 year(s) maximum imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $20,000, $50,000, $100,000 or $200,000 are available. Some of the offences, in this category, have different penalties for individuals and body corporates
http://www.safetravel.govt.nz/children/sexcrimes.shtml
However actual sentences range from community service and home detention to imprisonment. I don't think that's comparable with s92A, really.
Given that it's the ISPs who are being required to take this step, it's perhaps analogous with employment law, where an employer can be compelled to take back a wrongly-fired employee.
Umm, I feel I should disagree with this, but I'm not sure what it says.
-
However, it's a fair point for Russ to point out that s92A allows a harsher punishment than a court has handed out for copyright infringement, which I think is what he meant when talking the Hocquard.
-
However, it's a fair point for Russ to point out that s92A allows a harsher punishment than a court has handed out for copyright infringement, which I think is what he meant when talking the Hocquard.
Yes that was my point. Obviously the child-porn comparison got misunderstood and was therefore probably unwise, but the point was that not only would a court not hand down such a punishment for copyright infringement, a criminal court almost never would.
Damian, people on the web side of the argument feel very strongly about that point. Sad gits or not, they tend to regard connectivity as the stuff of life.
-
Sad gits or not, they tend to regard connectivity as the stuff of life.
Well, nowadays this is more and more true. Much of our comms infrastructure is based on IP. There are even power co.'s that will give you internet connectivity down the power line. Things do get interesting when one realises we are not simply talking about browsing youtube and cutting off spam.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.