When that bill's passed, it might stop evil trash from boasting on Facebook (and maybe drive them to a sleazy offshore site beyond NZ jurisdiction).
It would also allow much of this and other discussion to be suppressed. Currently, Russell has little to fear from e.g. a libel suit, as it's an expensive and complex process, and the cops are unlikely to bust anyone for incitement to assault the thugs (unless one of them gets murdered, in which case I suspect a few Facebook posters might get a knock on the door).
With the new law, one of the thugs, or their parents/lawyers only has to send a complaint to the hosting company, and they're faced with a choice of removing the content or risking future prosecution - and with little ability to determine the status of complaints, it's likely that any complaint will lead to a takedown.
Our cities and towns aren’t doing the subsidization
Which isn't to say that they wouldn't, almost all NZ mayoral candidates giving prominence in their platform to plans to run a half-arsed, beggar-my-neigbour "industrial policy". Fortunately it isn't a core council function and they have no budget.
You're not really discussing this in good faith.
Yes I am. I'm actually convinced that if we must have corporate welfare, it ought to go to companies that at least do minimal harm.
how much tax would be paid on the 50% of of screen production costs that would go to labour
For employees permanently resident in NZ, that's 25% or so of the labour cost *less* the amount those people would have earned in a different, unsubsidized industry.
For temporary overseas residents, it's their tax *less* the cost of services they consume while here. If Stephen Fry paid NZ tax on his fees, then that would be quite a lot. Bet he doesn't.
$36 million over seven years
That's the most convincing argument Russell - it's only $36 million, it keeps lots of people occupied and it doesn't fuck the planet up that much. So as corporate welfare goes, it has that advantage over Solid Energy's somewhat larger indents to employ somewhat fewer people.
If you spend $100 million dollars in NZ making your movie, we'll give you $30 million back
No more than if we gave 100 foreigners a subsidy to buy million dollar villas in Ponsonby. That'd be $100 million in "magic" foreign money.
The money isn't a gift. The studios get value for it - $100 million of movie making work for $70 million.
The economic value of the investment isn't the whole investment - it's the difference in production of the workforce with and without the investment, which is roughly the difference between what they would earn working on foreign blockbuster movies and doing something else. Say a set builder makes $40 grand a year on the Hobbit (ha ha), and could have made $35 a year on a building site. Then that's an economic input of $5k, not $40k. Multiply that out, and you get the real number.
Roughly, copyright law proscribes *any* form of copying (of content that claims to be copyright) and then creates technology and content type specific carveouts.
- it's illegal to make any copies of a file that isn't audio or a computer program
- it's illegal to have more copies of your audio file than you have playback devices
- this comment is copyright me. You may not copy it for any purpose including viewing. Hey, you, Russell and his hosting company (but not your ISP) just broke the law!
This is obviously completely out of kilter with most people's idea of what should be illegal. Only by highly selective enforcement can it be sustained (a bit like drug laws in that regard).
So why aren't we seeing press releases decrying [e.g. Google]
Google has a market cap of around $280 billion, 5% of the NASDAQ. That's big enough to give it immunity - if the FBI raided Google, there'd be a whole lot of California congressmen and senators on their case.
An outfit fronted by an offbeat German in an obscure and docile satellite state is a much easier target.
our investment class is risk averse
What about that jetpack thing?
This is not how capitalism is meant to work
It's exactly how it works. Investors everywhere are generally unwilling to take a punt on anything they consider risky (they may be convinced that the risk is less than generally thought, as in the jetpack guy). Typically, they look to offload risk onto suitable mug punters, such as 'Dumb and Mad' investors, or governments.
The encryption point is one I'd missed in passing, but that would also wreck de-duping, yes?
I assume that Mega have sacrificed the ability to save disk storage by de-duping for end-end encryption. I don't know if their disk usage limits allow for this.
Pead are the guys who do the free food, right?