Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 58 59 60 61 62 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
"Whaddya mean I can't nuke them? I've got the Football!"
-
And, if I were Chris Hocquard, I might sue you for mistaking me for, well, me
that's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect hocquard to say. you're scaring me now,
both prone to taking things out of context,
I've not seen that from mr stowell but if it helps you feel better bout you own completely "in context" arguments I say you go right ahead and think that.
-
did anyone attend the labour party workshop on copyright recently?
-
did anyone attend the labour party workshop on copyright recently?
Only a bunch of artist hating thieving techno pirates, apparently.
-
Only a bunch of artist hating thieving techno pirates, apparently.
you jest but I heard that it was 42 for the against copyright team and one for the 'for' team who got treated rudely, yelled at etc when he had the good courteousy (or stupidity) to attend what appeared to be a particularly heavily stacked debate.
was wondering what the chances of seeing a reasonably intelligent balanced (in numbers) debate happen somewhere sometime soon.
perhaps that media 7 one with chris hocquard and campbell smith verses the green dragon or something. -
you jest but I heard that it was 42 for the against copyright team and one for the 'for' team who got treated rudely, yelled at etc when he had the good courteousy (or stupidity) to attend what appeared to be a particularly heavily stacked debate.
Ok, I was there and I'll bite. However gave you that information is a liar on all the above fronts.
Par for the course I suppose but sad nonetheless.
On a related note, I wonder how much longer APRA can keep misrepresenting FAC goals to their NZ membership.
-
Too easy. Those poor victimised fellas representing the hard-working musos and artistes (not the gouging corporates who extort the fruits of their efforts, oh no). It's just so unfair that their flat-earthism isn't automatically respected.
-
s/However/Whoever
-
whoever gave you that information is a liar on all the above fronts.
really, hmm, can you give more details on how you aw the thing go down?
how did you see the numbers pan out and what was the general vibe of the meeting? -
On a related note, I wonder how much longer APRA can keep misrepresenting FAC goals to their NZ membership.
you forgot to include a link to the bit where apra was misrepresenting, supposedly recent article as you used the phrase 'can keep' implying they've done something again, recently.
as far as FAC goes I think they're still in the "dipping their toes in the water phase". they're relatively new, they fell they need to represent their people and they're looking for the best way to do that, ie a work in progress.
-
robbery
Well, for a start your informer cannot count. There were plenty musicians, writers artists and other Copyright holders in the room as well as Ant Healey and Roger Sheppard. I think that fact that not many of the musicians agreed with S92 may have offended your informant. Also there were reps of Internet NZ, they ISPs, CFF and so on.
There were lots of views expressed in the room. Most were constructive. Some people were forthright but not rude. The meeting was well controlled by Claire Curren. I think the only time folks may have been offended was when Ant tried to say there were no musicians or artists being represented - when clearly there were.
Most people in the room disagreed with S92. But that is not because the debate was 'heavily stacked', it is because the law is opposed by most people. Most people understand that the provisions are draconian and what is worse, will not achieve what they set out to achieve - getting more money into the hands of rights holders.
I am sorry your informant found it unpleasant to hear those views in person but as I said he or she is has lied about the meeting, or you have misunderstood what that person told you.
-
I think the only time folks may have been offended
ok so the liar comment above is unjustified then?
somebody may have been (and was) offended in your own wordsinformant
what's with you and your east german pre the wall coming down lingo?
are we not allowed to hear about these things outside of official information bulletins?somebody said there was a lot of people there on one side and not many on the other. a simple yes that was the case or no it wasn't like that would do. no need for the sci fi Apocalypse speak. draconian indeed. we'll be needing capes and masks next.
Both ant and campbell have expressed intent to work toward a viable solution openly, there's nothing draconian about their approach. They want something done though, not the continual side stepping.But that is not because the debate was 'heavily stacked', it is because the law is opposed by most people.
was it a s92a discussion or a broader copyright discussion?
-
And meanwhile ...
NEW YORK - A group representing the blind and other people with disabilities protested limitations to the new read-aloud feature on Amazon.com's latest Kindle electronic reader, arguing that the restrictions unfairly limit their access to e-books.
The feature, which reads text in a stiff-sounding electronic voice, is still available for all books on the new Kindle, which was unveiled in February.
But the Authors Guild has expressed concern that the feature will hurt sales of audio books, so Amazon plans to give publishers and authors the ability to silence the text-to-speech function for their books.
That is what prompted the newly formed Reading Rights Coalition, whose supporters include the National Federation of the Blind and the American Association of People with Disabilities, to stage what it called an "informational protest" outside the office of the Authors Guild in New York.
The protesters shouted "We want access sooner" and "Stop the greed, we want to read."
-
[sigh] I know I'll regret this but...
ok so the liar comment above is unjustified then?
When someone tells you something that is not true, and misrepresents the facts of a situation to you, what would you call it? I'd call it, at the very least, an untruth and, if their intention was to mislead you into taking a course of action beneficial to them, I'd probably call it a lie. Someone who utters a lie is a liar, by definition.
somebody may have been (and was) offended in your own words
Then somebody shouldn't have brazenly claimed he was the only "creative" in the room. Many of the writers, musicians and artists sitting around the somebody were offended by the arrogance of that.
what's with you and your east german pre the wall coming down lingo? are we not allowed to hear about these things outside of official information bulletins?
Someone who informs you of something is an informant. Your grasp on English seems a little shaky today. No German required.
somebody said there was a lot of people there on one side and not many on the other.
I'm not aware of anyone other than Ant Healey who thought there were sides to be on. The rest of us were there to discuss the nature of copyright with some Labour politicians. I can't speak as to why Ant was there.
draconian indeed. we'll be needing capes and masks next.
s92A, for example, has been described by many as "draconian", but you go ahead with the mask and cape - we'll be over here.
Both ant and campbell have expressed intent to work toward a viable solution openly, there's nothing draconian about their approach. They want something done though, not the continual side stepping.
Funny, that's not what they say on their websites, it's not what Ant was saying at the meeting, and it's certainly not what Arthur Baysting wrote in his email, as an APRA director.
was it a s92a discussion or a broader copyright discussion?
While s92A was touched on (it is the elephant in the room, after all), the meeting was not called to discuss it in particular but to get a sense of where we should be going with copyright in the digital world. Not a bad start, but nothing conclusive either. Hopefully, the minutes will issue forth at some stage.
-
Pigwrestling again I see, Mr Harris.
-
ok so the liar comment above is unjustified then?
No, it was quite accurate. You said:
I heard that it was 42 for the against copyright team
Not only was that a lie in terms of S92, it is an even bigger lie in terms of Copyright. No-one spoke against Copyright as far as I am aware everyone was strongly in favour of Copyright. Either your hearing is faulty or you were lied to on that point.
You also said:
the 'for' team who got treated rudely, yelled at etc when he had the good courteousy (or stupidity) to attend
Again, no-one got treated rudely or yelled at. It was a well moderated meeting that lasted over 2 hours. Lots of voices and opinions heard. As far as Ant's courteousy goes, well, I have already mentioned he caused some offence with what seemed to be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent people in the room. That was rude but he didn't yell and anyway, you specifically mentioned people on the 'pro' side (whatever that means) being badly treated.
This was in sharp contrast to folks like Roger Sheppard who was useful to hear and reasonable enough to consider other POVs, even if he disagreed.
-
When someone tells you ...blah blah blah..
so you're saying it wasn't a beat up?
sounds to me like it was a lot of pro copyright reformers and fuck all others, but it was a query, you're more than welcome to give your estimate of numbers. what do you think was the head count there mark. in your estimation how'd you see see the attendance represented?
roger shepherd and ant and who else?
see I just talked to a reasonable calm and nice guy about what went down and he said it was a beat up. not that I don't trust yours or mr christies opinion but you guys are a little prone to making excuses for your aggressive behaviour.Then somebody shouldn't have brazenly claimed he was the only "creative" in the room
right..... and who was it who said that? you lost me there, can't see it in the comment thread.
I'm not aware of anyone other than Ant Healey who thought there were sides to be on.
oh right cos we haven't seen in our little thread a clear division of views, dream on, there's a clear fence for most of the discussion in here and peoples agendas are well visible, they don't have much grey area at all.
has been described by many as "draconian",
yeah, I've seen that repeated ad nausea but what I haven't seen is people in snazy military uniforms clubbing down the people man. its an inflated comment at best and at worse its inflammatory.
draconian conjures up visions of evil might and that's just so not the case. its nz and there's like a hand full of people working for artist rights and an army of arm chair opinionates.Funny, that's not what they say on their websites, it's not what Ant was saying at the meeting, and it's certainly not what Arthur Baysting wrote in his email, as an APRA director.
funny cos that's exactly what I read in reported comments from Campbell and Ant.
While s92A was touched on (it is the elephant in the room, after all), the meeting was not called to discuss it in particular but to get a sense of where we should be going with copyright in the digital world.
that's what I wanted to hear,
So it looks like mr christie (along with others) hijacked a cause and tagging his own adgenda on it which is what we saw with cff who used the guilty on accusation issue to pull people into their fold and then said a bunch of other things on behalf of them that weren't specifically about that and many weren't happy about going along with. Islander commented as much.I objected to the guilty upon accusation aspect but then ant and campbell have acknowledged that too. what I don't agree with is all the other stuff being pushed through in the same argument.
they are different issues and just cos someone doesn't agree with the guilty upon accusation aspect doesn't mean they think some sort of control at isp level is bad. -
Again, no-one got treated rudely or yelled at.
you said
I think the only time folks may have been offended
so you're saying no one raised their voices?
No-one spoke against Copyright as far as I am aware everyone was strongly in favour of Copyright.
rolling back copyright from where it is now is against copyright.
by your argument people who are for 2 months of copyright protection and then let everything go free to who ever is being for copyright.
you know full well what I'm talking about.
there is a definite movement toward stripping back rights to content owners. from where we sit today that is not for copyright, ie extending the rights of media owners and creators.Not only was that a lie in terms of S92, it is an even bigger lie in terms of Copyright.
well get your story straight don,
you said above most people were against 92a, yet you've just said it was a lie to say the room was predominantly filled with opponents of the pro isp participation in copyright.
you can't have it both ways although I know you want to. either it was a good cross section or it was most people against. make your mind up. -
and by the way don, I wasn't there which is why I asked for clarification,
you could have calmly said "nah, it was sweet man, everyone was cool",
but no, we've got mr angry of wellington bashing in with fists flying which is why i'm more likely to believe that you and your crew were a little antsy, cos its been said before about that lot at previous meetings.where was the meeting anyway? Auckland?
did you really fly up specifically for this.
man you must have a bee in your bonnet, and it wasn't even a gop meeting, -
Mmmm, bacon.
-
well get your story straight don,
Well robbery, it least I can count higher than 1.
-
you could have calmly said "nah, it was sweet man, everyone was cool",
For sure.
I heard that it was 42 for the against copyright team and one for the 'for' team who got treated rudely, yelled at etc when he had the good courteousy (or stupidity) to attend what appeared to be a particularly heavily stacked debate.
You sure are able to teach us Wellington hot heads a thing or two about restraint. That paragraph slammed some of the most respected people in NZ in their fields of endeavour, whether it be politics, the arts, the law or even, gasp, technology.
-
But can any of them play guitar, Don?
-
But can any of them play guitar, Don?
I know you are joking, but in all seriousness and for the wider audience - yes, and get paid for doing so.
-
That paragraph slammed
slammed?
What's your postal address don, I'm going to send you a better dictionary.so did anyone raise their voice? you neglected to answer that question.
you also managed to avoid giving us your tally of numbers.
what's you're count, 21/21? or 2 /40.Well robbery, it least I can count higher than 1.
cool, lets hear it, was it the massive figure of 2? I have no idea, I wasn't there, I'm relying on you for accuracy (god help us)
yes, and get paid for doing so.
cool, then tell us who these mystery people are. ie names please or they don't exist.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.