Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Remind me not to have a dinner party ...
Nah, just make sure everything can be eaten through a straw (I was going to say "with a spoon" but do you know how much damage those puppies can do?) ;-)
But he did immediately jump down my throat, and what he said I took to be indicative of what the other side of this argument are telling themselves.
Yep. See post above. I'm mildly curious who's writing the songsheet.
The first thing he said was that I was just trying to clear the way for piracy without consequences, or something.
Classic Bush "for us or agin us" - if you get to define your opposition as "bad people who want to do bad things", they have to go on the defensive which makes it harder for them to get their message out.
He did claim that Telecom, "the biggest lobbying machine in the country" had been putting pressure on the government and that was why John Key was jammed into reverse in his conversation with Mikey. ... The idea that it's some black ops by Telecom is just plain wrong.
Diversionary tactic, makes it easier to claim that the problem with the CoP is all the ISPs' fault, engineered by Telecom, the company everyone loves to hate.
If I accept his contention that the law is fine but it relies on the TCF draft code of conduct, which needs fixing -- and agreement on that seems months rather than weeks away -- then in what sense can it possibly be wise to bring the law into force?
I accept his point that Judith Tizzard unfairly kicked for touch by not developing and implementing the necessary Regulations (which are specifically mentioned in the Act), and leaving it to the "industry" to sort out. But, in 6 months, the "industry" hasn't sorted it out, and don't look like doing so any time soon. Hence the new "education" mantra.
It's possibly the single strongest point. The law doesn't work without the code, and the code isn't there. So why would you enact the law next week?
It's pretty crazy, alright. I feel really sorry for the ISPs who are stuck in the middle.
I don't want much. I'll settle for a six-month delay on Section 92A so the idea can be properly assessed. In the circumstances, I think that's a very logical position.
Sounds reasonable
-
@Simon and Robbery
Yeah, I know this was on Bfm and it's his regular show. But it's not the first time he's made representations on this as "an entertainment lawyer" and never once mentioned any pecuniary interest that he might conceivably have due to ownership of Amplifier.And if Amplifier is not at least breaking even, he'd be a bad business man to keep it going.
I don't know the man personally but what I know of him, from him, is not encouraging. I appreciate that your (plural) relationships with him cause you to hold different opinions.
-
There's a post on Yahoo!Xtra about how the RIANZ wants to educate us about copyright
Recording Industry Association CEO Campbell Smith says they are making good progress with ISPs in their quest to create a code, which outlines a fair process parties must go through before any action is taken.
Which is a little at odds with what he was saying the other week.
Still, RIANZ and APRA have at least got their "it's about education" mantra straight, as Ant Healey showed this morning.
And speaking of spokespersons, what was Arthur Baysting on about on 3News tonight - "around the world wide net 80% of the music is being used illegally" (01:37)
Where did that figure come from?
-
He's pretty well known across the music industry and far further afield, as are his associations. He's also Chairman of the Bfm board. I'm sure Russell knew exactly who he was talking to ;)
I'm sure Russell did, but do other people who are not in the music business? That's why I wonder about disclosure. Would his words carry the same weight as "Owner of an online music site that stands to make money" as they do from an "entertainment lawyer". We're conditioned to respect the utterences of lawyers, but the reality is that if you put 4 lawyers in a room and ask a question, you'll get a minimum of 5 opinions. And they can be wrong too. That's why we have judges ;-)
I'm not doubting his ability as a lawyer, or his historic role in the NZ music industry. That's what makes the disclosure thing all the more puzzling to me.
-
Perhaps I've misunderstood?
No, I got that too.
-
Maybe I misheard him, but I got the idea that the Telecom thing was simply where he said the real pressure to revisit the bill was coming from..implying that the rest of the stuff..the things you see here and everywhere else.. was having little effect.
I guess that's an inverse indicator of how much effect it's having, i.e. if it was really having no effect, he wouldn't need to belittle it.
He said that Telecom had "got to" Key, and that Key was flip-flopping on that basis, which, I think, borders on the unwise for a lawyer, implying that the Prime Minister operates according to the dictates of a single corporation.
And he was very keen to put everything onto the Code of Conduct, deflecting from the quality of the law. Lots of lawyers have looked at this law and deemed it unworkable. Chris is the only one I'm hearing saying it's great.
Maybe it is just his manner, but I haven't heard him say anything that would make me take him on as my lawyer, for which he'd probably be quite pleased. ;-)
-
Except that he owns Amplifier which was the first site in NZ to take NZ acts online, almost a decade back. And he wrote many of the digital provisions of quite a few fairly established artist contracts.
It's curious that he's only showing up as an "entertainment lawyer" and not as "someone who has skin in this game". It means he's taken as someone neutral, as opposed to someone who has an agenda. I was unimpressed with him last time on Oliver Driver's morning show, and I remain unimpressed with him now, having listened to him.
He's also been involved in lobbying MP's by the sound of it, but I don't know that for sure. I think the fact that he doesn't disclose his interests Amplifier when he's interviewed (and I appreciate his Bfm show is based around his lawyer stuff) is misleading, and I wonder why he does that.
-
Mark, I have stuff in the works to get PAS t shirts done in NZ. I just need to have some conversations with people when they're not at Webstock or completely distracted by S92.
Cool!
-
Always sad when a voice disappears. My sympathies to Bob's family.
-
heh
I'd like to point out, before anyone asks, that all purchases are at CafePress cost price in USD (i.e. there is no profit margin for me as it didn't seem right)