Jeremy, David is just trying to illustrate the twin goals of synergy and convergence with the restrictive artistic framework that is emo poetry.
David, that was beautiful. I feel depressed already, as no doubt do all your competitors. Surely no one can beat such a masterpiece?
Given that ‘emo’ ranked so highly on the word of the year poll, I challenge you all to keep yourself grounded this summer by composing at least two verses of the finest emo poetry and posting it in this thread.
If you are blessed with children or in laws this holiday season feel free to involve them in this exercise
Having read the full text of the speeches from the Minister, and other MPs I would definately agree that the formatshifting issue is the best way to approach MPs about this. They all seemed highly concerned with it, and the effect on consumers.
There is also the national interest argument - if we are serious about a FTA with the US we shouldn't give away a key bargaining position like this for free. I do not think the US Federal government has the power to make the concessions NZ would want in a FTA deal, over agriculture at least, so I don't think a FTA is a good idea for us, given the concessions we would need to make. Anyway, the IP changes are a big part of any US FTA and NZ will need all the bargaining chips it has, if it treats with the US.
Great to see at least one politician has made a stand on the side of the consumer.
Lets be clear on this: This is not an issue of right vs left, this is an example of an industry attempting to co-opt government to extend their commercial control over a market. It is rent seeking behaviour. Law needs to be written in such a way as to benefit all the people or groups covered by it's reach, not just the publishers. This is afterall, the Copyright Act, not the Music Industry Market Protecion Act.
You will probably fail at step 1 - since I suspect music publishers will start issuing TOS/EULA that prohibit form shifting, which they are allowed to do. Yes, you can contract out of form shifting.
It is not immediately obvious to most people that using the word Nzer as short hand for White, English-speaking Nzer could be racist. Sure, if you explain the logic, most people might see your point. But most people are not going to get into that discussion, they are just going to be offended that you called them racist for asserting an identity that they identify with. They will read headlines in North and South, listen to sound bites etc, and they will be upset. What will be the next thing they do, after being offended? I suspect they will even more strongly identify with this label. Then before you know it your opposition has ended up solidifying the ethnic identity in question.
A lot of cultural practices work like this. For every pronouncement of politicians in France and the UK about the headscarf wearing ‘issue’, I am sure more women of Muslim communities in those states feel the desire to wear such scarves.
So what am I saying? Be careful with how you approach this issue if you want to change the behaviour of the offending people. Labelling them as racist, even if carefully qualified, could easily be totally counter productive.
As stated before, there is no reason why NZer cannot become an ethnicity. Sure its a nationality as well, and that should always be its primary usage, but the two can merge to some degree. There are people that are citizens of this country that clearly identify with different national identities and that is perfectly fine, then there are those that do not, that share a common identification - why shouldn't they be able to make their own new ethnic group?
If NZer does become an ethnicity I'd hope that it would be an inclusive one that is not just shorthand for white and english speaking. But it may not.
I was reading through this again last night, after a discussion with a friend overseas, and I noted something that kind of worries me about the format shifting clause.
"81A Copying sound recording for private and domestic use
"(1) Copyright in a sound recording and in a literary or musical work
contained in it is not infringed by copying the sound recording, if the
following conditions are met:
There are then 7 conditions that must be met, all of which I find reasonable. However, subsection (2) is the kicker:
"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the sound recording is
bound by a contract that specifies the circumstances in which the sound
recording may be copied."
SO it is entirely possible that a person by purchasing the music originally may well contract out of all format shifting rights - I suspect that any publisher that introduces DRM/TDM measures would also have some sort of EULA/TOS/TOU/etc that forbade format shifting. Whether or not the aforementioned could be deemed to be contractually binding I'm not so sure. But worrying all the same.
I am but the Avatar of Institutionalised Humanist Advantage. Remember that next time you judge me