betrayed the principles of solidarity
Apparently wanting movements or organisations to be actually competent is not acting in their interests. Best never challenge the poor dears. If only some of the tunnel-vision tosspots could see how patronising that is - and really very unsupportive in a more mature sense.
Stuff article on Teh internets law, I would normally embed the URL but...
Not much of an article but the url says it all.
The discovery that any Stuff url could be hacked by appending your choice of text was one of the pleasant diversions on Twitter during the parliamentary 'debate'.
"What I don't think people understand is exshully that ... it's illegal to fileshare?"
Watching that Katrina Shanks video on the other thread actually makes me incredibly pissed off when I think about the days I spent crafting an extensive, thoughtful, nuanced argument -- from the point of view of a filmmaker whose work has been pirated -- against this bill ... Only to see that they've clearly absorbed so very little of the information that they must have been dealing with -- let alone arguments and information that might take a little thinking about.
Me too. I don't even recall her being there when I made my oral submission. I'm sure she didn't say anything.
Oh yes. Melissa Lee makes our nation famous on the world stage (in tech publication terms).
Apart from anything else, that is plenty of legitimately-shared content on P2P networks, Blizzard and other game companies use the same protocols to legitimately serve their updates, etc. OTOH, the ignorant blatherings of Lee,Shanks and Young are hardly cause for confidence.
Well if I ever saw a law that had protocol descriptions I'd probably faint! You are right about the protocols being used for a lot more than dodgy filesharing, however I don't think the lobbyists will be trumpeting the distinctions. In a less paranoid frame of mind one could also imagine a deliberately badly worded law that would allow an ISP to be sued by an interested party if they felt they needed to. Maybe just the chilling effect of one or two suits would be enough to turn ISPs towards more throttling or denial of service to avoid the performance. Time to take off the tinfoil hat now, but sometimes those legislators seem to make anything possible.
anyone notice the URL from stuff.co.nz
doh!............damn it....i guess you did.......i'm going bed.
Absolute comedy gold from Liam Dann in Granny this morning:
Shanks backed up her case by saying she was pretty savvy on computers. That's like saying that because you are savvy at existing within the dimensions of space/time you're qualified to wade into debates about quantum physics.
Has Labour said why they didn't support his amendment?
Check their own blog and tell us what you think they're saying. I'm unclear beyond some general mumble about compromise.
A sell-out. Clare Curran can spin it how she likes, but it doesn't work for me. Apologists for them are saying it was the best deal under the circumstances, because if they hadn't worked with the Nats it would have been termination for anyone caught. It doesn't ring true. Yellow-bellied, to my mind. I'm disappointed.
Hilarious. There is hope for journalism in this country yet.
A sell-out. Clare Curran can spin it how she likes, but it doesn’t work for me. Apologists for them are saying it was the best deal under the circumstances, because if they hadn’t worked with the Nats it would have been termination for anyone caught. It doesn’t ring true. Yellow-bellied, to my mind. I’m disappointed.
I'm in danger of getting grumpy about this. Gareth gave a stirring speech, but there's more to it than that. There's a reason that people like Jordan Carter and David Farrar weren't screaming blue murder about the final bill -- it's because they've been working on it for some time, they knew what was coming and they know they've got most of what they wanted.
Clare Curran has also been on this pretty much since the election, starting with winning the argument within the caucus about support for 92A. People might not agree with the decision she made to get a reasonably significant last-minute change to a bill that would have passed anyway, but I just don't think "yellow-bellied" is a fair or reasonable way to describe Curran.
To clarify - using this description is more for the party as a whole. I've been a Labour voter all my life, apart from a very early foray into Social Credit. Everything lately has made me feel scared for the country, and I'd feel a hell of a lot better if there was some true "feistiness" coming back - I thought Hughes made a few good points which should have had the support of more than just Harawira and Carter from other parties. That Labour voted against the Hughes amendment needs some explaining.
Apologists for them are saying it was the best deal under the circumstances, because if they hadn’t worked with the Nats it would have been termination for anyone caught. It doesn’t ring true.
You may not like it, or believe it, but that's what Labour said in the House on the night . Call it apologism or whatever else you want, but at about 7 minutes into Jacinda Ardern's speech she said exactly what these "apologists" are saying - that Labour's choice was the compromise to have the current Act, or to have the Act with account revocation in immediate effect rather than pending an Order-in-Council.
Labour’s choice was the compromise to have the current Act, or to have the Act with account revocation in immediate effect rather than pending an Order-in-Council.
Thanks for pointing it out - it's something I should have known, but didn't.
I don't watch Parliament - you probably guessed that - but maybe will from now on - especially anything being pushed through under urgency. Perhaps I will also have to learn how to tweet, so I can communicate more readily? With those people who are making laws in seeming vacuums?
The apologism sounds more like cold feet to me, since a lot of them would likely have personally supported the Hughes amendment if it was put to a conscience vote.
And as Liam Dann wrote in his article, it's a clash between the 'property rights' old economy and the 'weightless' new economy, which has exposed certain limits of traditional private property rights.
You’re getting the wrong end of the stick. The point I was trying to make is that there are cameras that will pick out who is at the wheel, regardless of who owns the car.
Not really Grant. The bill is sent to the car owner. If you can prove that your car was stolen you will get off. If it's your son/wife/friend driving, it's your responsibility to get them to pay the bill.
I never would have shelled out the very large amount of money for the Region-1-only Firefly DVDs if I hadn’t watched it through rather less legal means.
I'm the same. I ended up buying the complete set of The Wire end of last year after torrenting it down on people's recommendations here.
I'll also buy the entire set of Friday Night Lights once the distributors actually bring it into the country, until then I'll keep my torrented versions on my hard drive.
I heard him on bFM about an hour ago. He’s very clear, very forthright, and I believe, will some day be PM.
Maybe if he switches parties. Despite the world moving substantially over the past 20 years to adopt green ideas, the Greens aren't gaining substantial support, probably because they've been successful enough to have the major parties adopt their "radical" ideas 10 - 30 years after they have them.
Of course there is the youtube of him floating about wherein he promises to resign from Parliament if he doesn’t get the student loan scheme cancelled. So he may be a tad tender about the intertubes…
Student fees. He introduced the student loan scheme so promising to abolish it would be bizarre even for him, but campaigned on "abolishing the $1250 fee" that Labour put in place in 1990. Of course he did abolish the fee - by allowing the universities to set their own fees, and then he hacked their funding every year.
Dave Cunliffe is a Fulbright Scholar with a Masters from Harvard. And Dave Parker has a background in bio-tech.
Nick Smith has a 1st class engineering honours degree, an AFS Scholar to the US, and holds a PhD on NZ landslides. There's no shortage of people who have done well academically in parliament, or indeed done well in business, there's some structural problems beyond who is there.
Why should academic qualifications correlate with a rational attitude to public policy? Edward Teller.
Labour's attitude to this bill illustrates what's wrong with their attitude to being in opposition. They almost appear to consider that National are pretty much on the right track, and if they can persuade them to make a few tweaks, they'll enact good policy.
The fact is that any changes made to this bill are symbolic. It's largely ineffective anyway, as previously discussed. Labour would have done better to propose amendments and vote against the bill when they weren't adopted.
With a few exceptions, I didn't see the National party supporting Labour policies when they were in opposition. They opposed, and that helped them create a political distinction.
at about 7 minutes into Jacinda Ardern's speech
That was admirably clear about the politics, and she's one of the few who impressed me.
However, Ardern still minimised the 'guilt on accusation' aspects (note the use of "infringers" rather than "accused"). She also had an overwhelming focus on the interests of rights-holders, not challenging the handy industry lie that it is individual artists/creators rather than corporations who will benefit from this.
Serious question I haven't seen an answer to: was there an agreement between Labour and National not to vote for any supplementaries like Hughes's as part of securing suspension of the termination provision?
Sure, Labour have less freedom than smaller parties to be pure rather than pragmatic. However they need to be prepared in some situations to take a risk that some harm will happen and that they may need to wait to fix it - with their hands clean and their integrity turned into stronger support from voters and allies. As Russell noted, there are other issues right now to die in a ditch over. A few high-profile account terminations is not one of them, especially when informed commentators reckon the whole thing can't be properly implemented anyway.
The prime political management problem (again) is that no one made sure a coherent explanation of Labour's voting reasons was developed, agreed and consistently communicated.. Instead we have Curran waffling all over the show on the party's blog amidst many openly shifting their support elsewhere. And who can blame them?
The fact is that any changes made to this bill are symbolic. It’s largely ineffective anyway, as previously discussed. Labour would have done better to propose amendments and vote against the bill when they weren’t adopted.
And then, it appears, termination would have been available to the copyright tribunal as a remedy from day one, rather than the government having to buy a fight by specifically enacting it. You don't have to like what was passed to appreciate that it could have been considerably worse.
The structure in the act as it stands -- a low-cost tribunal, fines rather than termination or damages, ISPs not having to work for free for rights holders -- is largely what the likes of the Creative Freedom Foundation argued for in 2008. In other ways -- presumption, the potential for termination to be enacted -- it's wrong.
But the battle over this has been going on for a long time, and I'm not that impressed with people who only got fired up Wednesday night demeaning people who've been working for a result for a long time.
I think Curran is sometimes out of her depth in a highly technical policy area (eg, they need Cunliffe leading the charge on UFB), but she's been highly engaged here. You might not agree with the decision, but it's simply not fair to dismiss her as an idiot.
As Russell noted, there are other issues right now to die in a ditch over.
I actually got a bit annoyed with Twitter exploding with people who'd found their issue, at the same time as the legal aid changes will impact very vulnerable people. The Farmer case would not and could not, I think, have been pursued by a public defender, and that's deeply worrying.
Of course the ultimate solution might be for tech companies like Google simply to buy out the entire recorded music industry who are driving reactionary law like the one our parliament has just passed at their behest.
Rumours about Google's music service have been swirling for a while now, but they certainly seem to be reaching a new stage with stories like this:
The latest rumor to emerge from the Google campus is that the company's much anticipated music service is just about at the end of their rope with the major label licensing process. A source close to the negotiations characterizes the search giant as "disgusted" with the labels...
...how about if Google *did* buy the music industry? That would solve its licensing problems at a stroke. Of course, the anti-trust authorities around the world would definitely have something to say about this, so it might be necessary to tweak the idea a little.
How about if a consortium of leading Internet companies -- Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Baidu, Amazon etc. -- jointly bought the entire music industry, and promised to license its content to anyone on a non-discriminatory basis?
Of course the ultimate solution might be for tech companies like Google simply to buy out the entire recorded music industry who are driving reactonary law like the one our parliamant has just passed at their behest.
Yes, because Google is the Friend of the People, eh?