Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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. 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.
-
Maybe I'll just go off and gorge on easter eggs.
Not till Sunday, young man, or Jebus will beat you.
-
Myself, I believe that Key, Hide and others simply do not understand governance and citizenship.
I disagree. I think they understand them perfectly well. They just don't like them because they get in the way.
-
This is pretty much what I saw coming.
Oh, true, Sam, but better to have the facts out instead of the misinformation that Ant Healey appears to have been feeding robbery. If what Ant says and does is governed by his feelings about things, rather than verifiable facts, it diminishes the credibility of his testimony somewhat.
-
maybe it felt like 40 plus from his position,
you can lose the lying accusations though, its not called for.
what did you see re intensity levels?No, I won't. He told you an untruth. How many other untruths has he told in the process of this business? His figures were completely wrong. How many other figures that he has promulgated that are also wrong.
Most in the room were very well-behaved. The discussion was reasoned and intelligent. I recall that Ant tried to play the victim card twice about being the only creative in a room full of technologists (funny, I don't recall any songs that he has written - could you enlighten me?). I let it go the first time he said it, though it obviously put a few backs up. 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.
That's about as intense as it got.
-
French lawmakers reject Internet piracy bill!!
Le "three strikes", it is out!
Which leaves South Korea, that bastion of democracy, as the only country currently considering a legal proposal at the moment.
-
1. There were 22 participants at the meeting, plus six Labour members and staffer (who was apparently taking minutes, but they haven't shown up yet). It appears that a few others who were invited did not show, as there were some unclaimed name stickers. I don't know how many were invited in total. Anyone claiming 42 participants is either lying or completely unable to count.
2. I don't have permission from the individuals to name names, so I won't, but there were representatives from 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.
3. Many of the participants owned to wearing more than one hat (e.g. a fine Irish musician who is incidentally an internationally regarded Internet mover and shaker and seriously clever man). Most also owned to holding at least one work under copyright, and a number to more than one.
4. I believe there were no lawyers, which must be a first for any discussion on copyright and may be a significant factor in it going as well as it did. One or two of the participants are known to me to have had *some* legal training.
5. Everyone in the room agreed that copyright was important. I don't recall anyone saying we should abolish copyright (Don? Do I misremember?).
6. Most people in the room agreed that the Internet is a disruptive technology that current legal systems struggle to cope with.
7. Most people in the room agreed that the genie is out of the bottle and it's not likely that the internet can be constrained to legal and business models that existed before it, as it is not possible to enforce that, in many areas other than copyright as well (e.g. court suppression orders).
8. Most people in the room agreed that the Internet changes value chains, and that business models have to take this into account. Business models that don't do this are probably going to fail. There was no consensus on whether this was a good or bad thing, just that it was a thing.
9. Most people agreed that there was a balance that needed to be struck between the rights of creators and the rights of society.
10. There was significant discussion about the value of "fair use" provisions in copyright regimes, and that NZ's "fair dealing" was not the same thing and did need to be upgraded.
11. The MPs were interested in finding out what people considered to be alternatives to s92A, but discussion soon veered to basic copyright issues in the digital age. There was broad consensus that a total review of copyright should be undertaken, rather than patch up patches to a 300 year old statute (my words, not necessarily the meeting's).
12. Definite agreement that music was only a part of the copyright debate; writers and artists also face issues.
13. It's fair to say there was not unanimous agreement on any individual point, and it was not always Ant Healey who was the disagreer (I wasn't sure spell check would let me use that word, but there we go).
14. There was general agreement that this should be the beginning of consultation and discussion, rather than the end.
15. There was Hell pizza and non-alcoholic beverages
-
@Sacha
It's like poking an anthill for you, eh?Didja bring ya magnifying glass, didja? ;-)
-
[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.