Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 60 61 62 63 64 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
His figures were completely wrong.
what figures are you referring to mark?
Most in the room were very well-behaved.
implying what? that some weren't?
When he repeated it a little later, I gave him a heated response about being arrogant in his claim, saying that the room was full of people who held copyrights (remind me again what copyrights he holds?) who wanted a just system in the face of massive change engendered by the Internet.
oh, so it was you. it did happen. there you go.
why did you and don try to polish over that. you were so proud of your comments to islander. why didn't you just say "yeah I had a go at him" instead of all this pretend nothing happened shit. respect for manning up and taking responsibility, minus points for not keeping your cool.
-
This is pretty much what I saw coming.
come on sam F.
you're better than that.
your derailing a convo over perceived numbers.
don can count higher than one but not high enough to make his own estimate. it took mark 2 days to pip in with his figures and the point remains true,
There were a lot of tech people present.
and some level of disrespect ensued, which mark has owned up to.marks list of who was in attendance.
APRA, Microsoft, Scoop, The Standard, Kiwiblog, InternetNZ, Telecommunications Carrier Forum, TUANZ, EPMU, ISPANZ , NZOSS, a publisher, several artists and musicians, and some others of no particular affiliations. And me.
bit vague on the no affiliations, artists and musicians numbers so hard to speak about them, but of the organisations represented that's quite a representation of tech I think you'll agree.
how did these people get to be invited? Sam F did you get your invite?
-
what figures are you referring to mark?
Why, the ones you gave to us. Or are you now saying it was you who tried to mislead us as to numbers, and not Ant? No, it seems that that is what Ant told you, by your understanding. And then you surmised that Ant's perceptions and therefore reportage, is controlled by his feelings, rather than facts, which may account for his belief that every hand in the room was against him.
implying what? that some weren't?
Implying nothing. Clear statement.
Ant's comments were regarded by more than me as arrogant, and I did speak forcefully, though I deny yelling at him, anymore than Tizard yelled at the people who made representation to her on 92A. I'm not particularly proud of the fact that I allowed his manner to anger me, but I also have no shame of the manner of my response.
respect for manning up and taking responsibility, minus points for not keeping your cool.
Don't waste your breath. Your opinions hold little value for me.
it took mark 2 days to pip in with his figures
It's been a busy week.
and the point remains true, There were a lot of tech people present.
Correction, there were a number of people present. Some of them have technical skills, as well as musicianship, artistry, writing skills, journalism, political skills etc. Most admitted to having one or more works under copyright, and that was the primary reason they were there. Many of them earn a living through use of the Internet. Some of them, myself included, helped build the New Zealand portion of the Internet or help to run it. All (bar, it seems, ANT) have a concern that the Internet could be crippled by bad copyright law. None were seeking to take copyright law backwards, or to remove rights that existed before the current piece of legislative activity.
Your understanding of the facts as they occurred is faulty. Either someone has misled you, or you were not clever enough to understand what they were telling you. Or both.
and some level of disrespect ensued,
That's correct - Healey was completely disrespectful of just about everyone else in the room, on at least 2 occasions. On one of those occasions, I protested angrily. You, perhaps like Ant, feel that this is the only disrespect that occurred. This feeling is not borne out by the facts.
how did these people get to be invited?
You'd have to address that question to Clare Curran, who called the meeting.
It occurs to me (as usual) that you don't actually want a discussion. You just want to start a fight, to nag people into responding to you angrily so that you can claim some victim status that you've been disrespected.
This is not the case, as the fact of engaging with you at all means people here have respect for your right to ask questions. But, as usual, you show no respect for those that attempt to engage with you and answer your questions. That is sad, for you as well as us.
Consequently, I've said all I'm going to say to you on this matter.
-
You'd have to address that question to Clare Curran, who called the meeting.
I think invitations went out very widely, and it is to Ant and Roger's credit that they were there. By the same token, it can hardly be the fault of the anti-92A group that so many of them cared enough to turn up.
As for Ant's demeanour, I wasn't there, but he came across a bit grumpy on Media7 too. I would certainly understand that he feels exposed.
It occurs to me (as usual) that you don't actually want a discussion. You just want to start a fight, to nag people into responding to you angrily so that you can claim some victim status that you've been disrespected.
I let it run because it can sometimes generate something interesting -- I found your summary of the meeting useful, for example -- but it really does get repetitive.
-
I would certainly understand that he feels exposed.
I think he's exposed himself, personally.
I found your summary of the meeting useful, for example
Thanks. I would have written about it before, but I was hoping to receive the minutes/notes that Clare's staffer was taking. I've emailed her about them, so maybe next week.
Disclosure: I was once related to Clare Curran, by a marriage that is long over, and know the family quite well. I mention it solely because someone may bring it up in an attempt to discredit me, because that's how some people think.
-
what figures are you referring to mark?
Why, the ones you gave to us.
Figures meaning an inaccurate head count then, not anything like say sales projections. just the way you said "figures" I thought you were referring to something like a published document not some discussion on how many were at a meeting......
....oh, right so you're judging Ant (not that you haven't already pre judged him already) on my comment and turning that into extra fuel for your fire. how consistent of you.
my 2 main concerns were
1) rudeness from your camp, which comes as no surprise since you and don are both hot head rude buggers on here so why should you be any different at official meetings. There is also the pre existing legacy of alleged rude behaviour from your camp which you counter with "it wasn't us it was them". Judging from responses to you behaviour on here from a few people I'm seeing it as definitely you and you're going to have to provide video footage of you sitting politely and speaking calmly with a warm smile to convince me otherwise.
But What's the point of establishing that?
Well I've said it above, how are you going to get intelligent discourse on any of this if you come in with fists flailing. You hijack these talks, angrily reprimand people with different view points to yours and then plead innocent.
You accuse me of being here to pick fights??? That insults my motives. I'll stand up to you but I can see why others would prefer to stay well clear.2)The balance of panels at these things. Russell managed to load his panel with himself and 2 anti 92a people against one Ant Healey. hardly fair, 3 against 1. I'd like to see that reversed for fairness.
The labour party thing had by your account
1) APRA - ant Healey
2) Roger Shepherd - Muisic industry
3) anonymous - Microsoft - software *
4) anonymous - Scoop (internet media)
5) anonymous - The Standard (internet media) *
6) anonymous - Kiwiblog (internet media) *
7) anonymous - InternetNZ (internet in nz) *
8) anonymous - Telecommunications Carrier Forum (Telecommunications standards) *?
9) anonymous - TUANZ (not-for-profit organisation that for promoting the needs of end-users of telecommunications in New Zealand) *
10) anonymous - EPMU (union representing telecomunications workers) *
11) anonymous - ISPANZ (Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand) *
12) Don Christie - NZOSS (New Zealand Open Source Society) *!!
13) anonymous - a publisher
14) Mark Harris - (reduced copyright length advocate, anti 92a)*!!!
15) anonymous
16) anonymous
17) anonymous
18) anonymous
19) anonymous
20) anonymous
21) anonymous
22) anonymousof the 14 people we know were there at a discussion on copyright
2 were specifically connected to the promotion of stronger measures for artists
9 had specific links to internet interests and or reduced copyright strength.
2 were unknown. (scoop carry a variety of articles) and I don't know who the publisher was or their interests.
the remaining 8 people you gave me no information on.Maybe its just me but if I was wanting to get a clear and balanced view on the implications of copyright I might have tried for a few more people who were invested in the system, and by invested I mean receive a reasonable proportion of their income from it. Neil Finn, Dave Dobbyn, Runga's Mr Luck, S Carter, Fat Freddies Drop, some Rianz people, some entertainment lawyers, all would have been a good start and an indication that you were interested in hearing the views of people bearing the brunt of changes caused by internet. It would have shown they were being heard an maybe then ant wouldn't have felt set up.
You and Don can argue all you like about how fair and balanced you all are but looking at your list it looks decidedly skewed. Not your fault or your problem, but if we want our govt to make laws that represent the interests of the all people minorities included then maybe make a special effort to get to hear the voices of a few of the people who's work and income is directly effected. (yes the other people present are affected too, I acknowledge that, I'm just saying 9 (or more) to 2 isn't balanced).
Or are you now saying it was you who tried to mislead us as to numbers, and not Ant?
I'm saying you're trying to derail and distract from the intent of the comment.
Since it was me who said "I heard" then it's obviously my comment, not Ant's but don't let that stop you from maligning the guy, as if it would.
As for the allegations of intending to mislead, don't be such an dick. My first comment was a question, ie "did anyone attend"? Don and you did, yet Don couldn't or wouldn't provide details of attendance and kicked in with an almost bragging comment that reinforced my later observations, and as I said you took 2 days to kick in with your figures. Don could easily have said how many people attended, or maybe he felt the numbers were biggish, at least more than 2 backing up what I said I heard.On your account there were 28 people present, not 42 but not 5 either. ie not an insignificat imbalance, while not 1 against the world either, but closer to that than 50/50.
As I have stated a few times wasn't there.Ant said that he felt outnumbered, and he was. You're fixated on trying to infer Ant is a liar based on my discussion here which makes you in the wrong, and inferring that I'm trying to mislead is just bullshit and you know it, although I'm sure you'll continue to argue otherwise until the cows come home but that's just in keeping with that whole "hot head on a mission" agenda thing isn't it.Implying nothing. Clear statement.
a clear statement that there was no offense causing behaviour would have been
"all in the room were very well-behaved". By your choice of the word "most",... I can only assume that some weren't. You've already fessed up to some of that so it seems Ant wasn't lying about that, Don was.Most were constructive. Some people were forthright but not rude.
don, if not lying then at least downplaying your behaviour for effect.
in you own words
I gave him a heated response about being arrogant in his claim,
and
On one of those occasions, I protested angrily.
and
I'm not particularly proud of the fact that I allowed his manner to anger me,
so when Ant said he didn't know why he bothered to turn up to these things in good faith in order to try and shed some understanding on what its like to be a copyright work holder in the current climate, because people were abusive ....... he was telling the truth, a truth don tried to hide and say I was told wrong by my "informant". doesn't that feel a little embarrassing?
Ant's comments were regarded by more than me as arrogant, and I did speak forcefully, though I deny yelling at him,
semantics mate, hung by your own words.
On one of those occasions, I protested angrily.
but I also have no shame of the manner of my response.
yeah, i get that about you. I can understand it and allow for it but you should be able to understand how others do not.
Don't waste your breath. Your opinions hold little value for me.
that doesn't surprise me or probably anyone else who's been in discussion with you. you've made it quite clear that you value your own opinion above all else.
Correction, there were a number of people present. Some of them have technical skills, as well as musicianship, artistry, writing skills, journalism, political skills etc. Most admitted to having one or more works under copyright, and that was the primary reason they were there.
yet in a discussion on copyright where the key area of concern (not the only, but you must acknowledge music, film and tv software and video games are in the spotlight at the moment) there were a lot of people missing from this discussion, ie the people it hurts the most.
All (bar, it seems, ANT) have a concern that the Internet could be crippled by bad copyright law.
there you go making broad generalisations again. do you actually know what Ant (or campbell, or hocquard) thinks on that side of things? give him a call and ask him. he's very understanding of those aspects, and has to weigh that against the needs of the people he represents to protect their works. It's a very difficult position to be in, but doing nothing and being derailed time after time is not helping. to say Ant or campbell or hocquard are unconcerned about the many other aspects and angles involved in this shows just how one eyed blind you're being and why you managed to boil up this rage for these people. It's bollocks and you should sort it out. Who are you to tell anyone off at a public meeting? Say you side and keep it civil. If you can't handle that stay at home and do your anger management course.
None were seeking to take copyright law backwards,
ummm not that its in my nature to do it but can I call liar on that since it's all the rage at the moment. you personally want shorter terms, so that's at least one, and don's been pretty open on how he feels about the struggle of media control on the net.
Your understanding of the facts as they occurred is faulty. Either someone has misled you, or you were not clever enough to understand what they were telling you. Or both.
whatever mr angry. my understanding of the exact technical number was incorrect but the implications were on the money. you personally were offensive by your own admission and the numbers in so far show a heave bias toward tech interests. that may change if you bother to provide names that prove otherwise but for now that's how it is, no matter how angrily you deny it. And its not as if the numbers thing really matters, its that one person felt set upon and you played an important part in that. But you keep arguing over the exact numbers, it'll make it more easy for you to swallow that way.
This feeling is not borne out by the facts.
in you obviously bias view.
Ant did have cause to question the representation of media owners, you think he didn't but the known figures provided so far from your role call say otherwise until you feel you can bring yourself to name the remaining people. otherwise its just conjecture.it occurs to me (as usual) that you don't actually want a discussion. You just want to start a fight,
bollocks. I clearly had a point here and you can ignore it and probably will, its in character, but its totally relevant to copyright debate in this country. If we can't get fair representation on these discussion things and we can't get a fair and balance discussion going cos hot heads feel they have the right to reprimand others in a public debate then we're fucked aren't we, well your not but don't kid yourself that its a balanced discussion.
This is not the case, as the fact of engaging with you at all means people here have respect for your right to ask questions. But, as usual, you show no respect for those that attempt to engage with you and answer your questions. That is sad, for you as well as us.
actually mark, you're the one coming up with the smears on integrity and intellect (and don). where I come from that's called "showing lack of respect". I've shown you a lot more respect than your attitude and approach deserve, and will continue to do so. but kettle and pop black spring to mind.
(circular enough for everyone now?)
-
Two of the three people discussing this meeting were there.
-
@Sam:
Once Don has somehow remembered and provided an estimate headcount of both sides that you'll accept as accurate, he'll then have the fun of picking over, with you, each attendee he names, so as to determine their industry "stake" and thus their entitlement to be listened to on copyright matters.
Damn. You're good.
-
I'd be more impressed if it weren't for the depressingly turgid and paranoid predictability.
-
I think it's probably time for everyone to back off on this one. I think we've got all the actual information out of it that we're going to.
-
I've already said I won't engage with him further, though his response is full enough of mis-characterizations to warrant correction, just as I've already said his prolixity is inversely relational to his content, which I think is proven here.
-
Russell, I totally agree and I'd be happy enough if you just closed off the thread. If that's possible?
-
It doesn't matter whether we close off the thread (and incidentally, I think it's still a discussion worth having), we're going to run into this anywhere we discuss copyright on PAS, however tangentially.
I'd rather we just stopped allowing a legitimate discussion to be regularly derailed because one person cannot bring himself to behave in good faith.
I'm not asking you to boot him, Russell - that would play right into his victim complex. I, however, am going to ignore him and I'd suggest everyone else do the same.
-
10) anonymous - EPMU (union representing telecomunications workers) *
Factual point, EPMU also represents journalists and such (i.e. people who make money off the sale of copyrights.)
-
EPMU also represents journalists and such (i.e. people who make money off the sale of copyrights.)
interesting position to be in. on one hand they represent workers who don't want to be doing the extra effort to address copyright infringement at isp level and on the other hand they represent copyright material creators.
In a journalists case is the copyright material owned by the company they work for, and does EPMU represent that company?
Also do freelance journalists (who would represent their own copyrights) belong to EMPU?what does the EMPU rep see as the central or over riding concern for their client base?
-
last!
-
You and Don can argue all you like about how fair and balanced you all are but looking at your list it looks decidedly skewed.
Still channelling Ant, robbery? Let him speak for himself will you, he does a far better job of it.
This wasn't a media show where flat earthers are invited to balance the views of those who believe we live on a sphere.
It was a discussion about Copyright. There were lots of sides. Things are far more nuanced than you seem to understand and many views to reconcile. Which means that all attendees will be, at some stage or another, in a minority. However, no-one was in a minority of 1.
-
Damn you, Christie, we were so close. :)
-
Interesting article on Portfilio.com
The Future of Music: Record Labels Get Real
by Sara ClemenceAfter years of blaming the internet for their woes, the major labels are starting to face the music— and see the problem as one they made themselves.
To be sure, the death of the album does not mean that the music industry itself is over. Parts of it are actually thriving. “The financing of artists with the intent of making money off their music?" predicts Dave Goldberg, a former Capital Records executive and founder of the company that became Yahoo Music. "That’s going to do quite well.” Goldberg is now a VC at Benchmark Capital in Menlo Park, California. Steven Masur, the managing director of Masur Law, a law firm that specializes in new media issues, notes that “there’s not a problem with the live industry. Live is doing great.” Publishers are also getting rich, monetizing music by placing it in television commercials, on mobile phones, and in movies. The money is there, it’s just not coming from the individual consumer...
-
Let him speak for himself will you,
if you want to hear that you should give him a call don,
I don't think he hands out on blog discussion forums. -
From that article:
There will never be another 100-million-selling album, there may not ever be another 20-million-selling album.
The biggest selling album in the US this year is U2's which is just over 700,000 copies and may never get to platinum (1,000,000) but the simple fact is the unit sales of music are up, and up quite a bit. Dollar value is down because album sales are have tanked. But people are still buying music units at a healthy rate but no longer buying albums. I rarely buy whole albums unless it's an act I really like, but I buy dozens of tracks.
What the record companies are fighting is the collapse of this dollar value as it kills their bottom line which relies on selling albums of hit artists rather than singles or the 'good' tracks that are sometimes sparse on albums. The performing rights associations and publishers are actually doing rather well at the moment because they don't rely on the album bloat to survive, and it could be reasonably argued that it's in their members and writers best interests, at least for the vast mass who never really make money from the 'hit album' syndrome of the past, that the old system never returns.
I had a fairly substantial NZ writer email me and ask, after receiving the APRA newsletter, when APRA became the agents of U2 rather than the 99% of it's members who do benefit from a more wide ranging unit sales based playing field.
-
And this is even more relevant:
Online Listening Replacing Music AqusitionThe downturn in paid acquisition was also matched by a downturn in the number of tracks downloaded from P2P networks which also fell 6% in 2008. The number of teens borrowing music, either to rip to a computer or burn to a CD, fell by 28%
The industry just has to find a way to adjust itself to the way people want to consume and if they don't they die. They haven't begun to come to terms with it yet.
-
He's going to hate me for this, but hey, who cares: the thread that keeps on giving gets its first official review care of Jake.
-
He's going to hate me for this, but hey, who cares: the thread that keeps on giving gets its first official review care of Jake.
I rather enjoyed that.
Grigg, for his part, recognises the use of copyright, but consistently argues for a need to face reality and recognise the need for changing business models. He doesn't believe that the industry will deserve to 'go the way of the dinosaur' if it can't reconstruct its practices, but he is generally thoughtful and realistic about the future. He also can handle about two pages of circular arguments, pointless nit-picking, and low-level abuse from Robbery before declaring that he's walking away from the thread, only to come back for another round a few days later.
The real star of the show, and the reason for its tremendous run, is Robbery. I won't attempt to describe Robbery's inimitable style, but I suggest you have a look at his latest coup. First, he describes an event he didn't attend to people who were there, baits them into re-describing it, accuses them of wanting to cover up their bad behaviour, insists that there are only two possible 'sides' one can be on in the debate, claims victim status for being outnumbered, and then, as the estimable Sam F predicts, proceeds to question the credentials of those who were there. Truly, he is a master of arguing on the Internet.
Jake should try moderating this stuff ...
-
He's going to hate me for this, but hey, who cares: the thread that keeps on giving gets its first official review care of Jake.
Heh. Nice summation.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.