Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
the decision to publish it by the Dominion Post (the Wellington newspaper which broke the story) was made by senior executive level, not by journalists," he said.
What's Grieve saying here. Decisions on what gets published are never made by journalists, they're made by editors. If he thinks otherwise, he's not nearly so learned as he is purported to be.
Is he trying to intimate that journalists were really on Veitch's side, and that the story is the result of some executive vendetta? His client pled fucking guilty to a serious crime. IIRC, the decision to prosecute does not rest with a journalist, or editor, or even the victim.
These people should just shut up and go away.
-
And the final paragraph from Susan Devoy's reference, referring specifically to a passport application, was deleted from the document presented to the court.
Seems to me that that is misleading the court, if the judge is so inclined (I would be, but that's me). Also, IMHO, Dame Susan would be justified in taking Grieve to the Law Society for "conduct unbecoming". Graeme?
Remember how Veitch's team hired a private investigator to dig up things about Dunne-Powell that could be used in the forthcoming trial?
Imagine if that information was somehow "leaked" to the Sunday papers, in the most unflattering way possible.
And imagine this in a context where Veitch and his lawyers are simultaneously issuing threats against media planning to tell the victim's story.
Given that only Team Veitch would have had access to the material, one wonders how it could have been "leaked" without their direct involvement.
And what's the pretext that Veitch could base his threats on? Surely not concern for Kristin Dunne-Powell's welfare? Bit late for that.
-
Perhaps someone's being sued for damage to his toe
-
You can hardly call them "persons of stature"!
-
I am of the mind that a judge who has heard the evidence, considered mitigating and aggravating factors and eyeballed the defendant is the person we want to pass a sentence
Surely the judge hasn't heard the evidence if they were only now gearing up for depositions. I thought the whole (to me, only) point of the decision to plead guilty was to avoid having the evidence presented to the court.
-
Too angry to write about Veitch
What I loved about the Susan Boyle vid was her reaction to 3 yes's: gold. Who cares if the thing was setup? The hairs went up on the back of my neck. That is A Voice.
-
hurm
-
I don’t think they should have to "accept" that trading/copying files is the social norm so nothing should be done about it
Okay, Mark, what do you think can actually be done about it?
Personally, I don't think it's technically possible to prevent it, without breaking both the product and the medium. Culturally, that it happens as much as it does (and I suspect we would disagree about the actual amount) is partly due to the inept manner that the major labels have a) responded to the "threat" and b) not responded to the demand. And I don't think the majors are alone in b). Artists can't earn anything from digital music if they don't have any of their product online. And if they're back-catalog bands whose work is no longer in stores, then you can't really claim that unauthorized downloads are "lost sales", can you?
I'd also still like to see some reliable figures as to how bad the situation is, along with the analysis used to arrive at those figures. To save time, I don't regard anything out of the IFPI or the RIAA as "reliable". What are the NZ figures? Which bands have lost money due to downloading? I've asked before, of various individuals, and I've done what research I could, but all I get is "it's really bad, the industry is being decimated", so if you have anything to share, I'd appreciate it.
It's possible that the potential audience has been politicized to the point where they share because they can, in spite as much as a desire for new music. If that's the case, I can't see any sort of education or cultural reprogramming having any impact at all.
So, what to do? I'd honestly be interested in your suggestions and discussion.
-
It is interesting, though, because I would have thought to commit defamation a person's good name would have to be harmed.
Ah, but how many bloggers can afford that level of lawyer to fight him?
-
Perhaps we should all descend anonymously on Kiwiblog...