If even the prospect of having an army going to war, without the permission of Parliament, without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, and hidden from Cabinet does not overly concern the PM or Leader of the Opposition, then they don’t deserve their fucking jobs.
It seems more likely to me that Key, Goff, the Cabinet and pretty much anyone else who cared knew at least roughly what was going on. If they were mislead then it was because they wanted to be. Their crimes are willful blindness and complicity in misleading the public rather than incompetence and gullibility. The response so far is in keeping with that.
Use of the NZ military and intelligence services seems to me to be one area where both major parties are in substantial agreement and largely at odds with the wider public.
Hey Craig, delurking briefly to say it is cool to see you on the PA front-page, and I'm looking forward to reading your stuff.
I live in the UK and got my ILR (equivalent to permanent residency in NZ) about a year ago. Going through UK border control is usually an unpleasant and slightly anxious experience.
The first time I went through after getting my ILR it was late, and I was tired and more nervous than usual. The immigration officer asked a couple of questions about my new status, then she gave back my passport and said, "welcome home, sir". I nearly cried.
I'll miss your stuff here, man. You've done good, in all senses.
I hope that you're moving on to something interesting, challenging and well-remunerated. And that you pop up with public comment again before too long.
If you ever need advice or assistance from a friendly linux geek, you've only to ask; also if you happen to visit London the drinks are on me.
I think drm is workable, and a viable solution, its just in draft stage at present. seems it can stop piracy for some, maybe not all
I think you miss the point. Once again, it isn't the downloader DRM needs to be effective against, it is the uploader.
Yes, DRM can make it slightly harder to rip music the first time you come across it. You have to go and hunt for the right piece of software to remove it. The sort of person who uploads their music to p2p sites is going to be fine with that, and will have the software installed already. Then everyone else just downloads the pre-ripped, DRM-stripped version.
I'm a professional software user with nasty copy protection on it. I'm reasonably good at computer noodling and some of the stuff I use seems impossible to work around illegally.
I'm a professional software developer who has used and implemented that nasty copy protection. While it makes it hard for regular users to crack the software it still doesn't prevent piracy. They just go and download a version someone else has cracked.
Anyway, we have hijacked this thread enough, so this will be my last post on this topic. If you would like to discuss the technical aspects of DRM and why it does not and cannot work feel free to drop me an email.
Accepting that trait in ourselves and doing the best to change our attitude then effective drm removes that last edge of temptation.
I agree 100%. Trouble is that little word, "effective". If you accept the simple fact that there is no such thing as "effective DRM" then this whole argument is just a waste of time. Remember, DRM is irrelevant to the person downloading the pirated tracks -- they are DRM free at that point. It is the person who uploads them that DRM needs to be effective against.
which would be a fine example of the attitude that needs to change.
Hang on. I go to a gig. I buy a t-shirt and a couple of CDs because I had a great time and want to support the artist. I get home and find that £12 has been wasted as the bloody CD has deliberate errors added explicitly to prevent me listening to it the only way I can. I can't access the music I just paid for. And I'm the one with the attitude problem?
Brother, tell me you're not in any sort of customer-facing role, because you aren't doing a good sales job here! ;)
why didn't you suggest that DRM on cd is fine so long as it is accompanied by access to downloadable versions of the tracks free of charge to a legitimate buyer.
Suggest to who? I've advocated that for a long time, but it doesn't seem like many industry types are listening.
If the CD liner had said, "go here to download the tracks" then I would have been happy. Or at least not angry; it still would have been stupid and pointless to cripple the CD. But, of course, it didn't. Ironically, the easiest way for me to get the music would have been to download it from a dodgy warez site.
All these hissy fit from consumers showing no understanding of the problems music makers face and focusing purely on their own personal inconvenience. That's no way to mediate a mutually agreeable solution.
I accept music makers are hurting. I'm sympathetic, honestly. But the solution you are advocating doesn't solve the problem! If DRM worked then sure, I'd be cool with it. But it doesn't. And not in a "buggy software" kinda way, but in a "perpetual motion machine" kinda way.
I'm going to keep on going to gigs, keep on buying the merchandise there, keep on seeking out and buying new music. Because I love it and I want to support the artists that make it.
Shouldn't that be enough?
speaking of which, ripping the Naked & Famous cd to my mp3 player was a pain in the butt - are music companies still putting "anti-copy" stuff on cds?
In the end, Nero did the job. but it pissed me off.
Man, I hope not. That is exactly the sort of thing that is so counter-productive about DRM.
Happened to me once. No doubt I could have found a utility to rip it properly but it pissed me off so much I binned the CD and vowed never to spend a thin dime on the artist again. I reconsidered shortly afterwards and modified the vow to never buying from the label, as the artist almost certainly didn't have anything to do with the decision.
Unfortunately Naked & Famous don't seem to be on emusic, otherwise I would have just bought a couple of songs, and then the rest of the album if I liked them.
I'll try and remember to check them out next time I'm in NZ. As long as I can find an uncrippled CD, that is...
They could stop it with a change of attitude and copy protection though.
You may as well say "They could stop it with a change in attitude" and leave it at that. DRM is useless if people are prepared to pirate music; it is pointless if they aren't.
Change people's attitudes towards piracy -- yes, absolutely. That would work. But DRM doesn't help that cause, it harms it. Like it or not, it is inconvenient. It makes you go and install crap software. It prevents you playing music you've paid for on your own devices. It actually, ludicrously, makes it quicker and easier to get music from pirate sites than to buy it legally.
Anyway, leave aside inconvenience -- let's pretend for a moment that there is none. DRM is still useless to the music industry because it doesn't work. Even if, somehow, unprotected formats such as CD and vinyl were completely eliminated it still wouldn't work. To play music a user's device must have access to the audio data. There is no technological way to prevent people from storing and replaying that data.
Media commentators like Russell are not to blame for pointing out DRM's shortcomings. The music industry is to blame for not accepting them.
Steam is doing pretty nicely for Valve.
Steam is not just a copy protection system. Also, from what I can see from a quick google, its copy protection has been cracked. Regardless, something like Steam just wouldn't work for music. With music the data is the same every time it is played and by definition it must all be processed by the user's computer. That isn't true for rich-content games such as HL2. Requiring an internet connection to play music is not going to fly, either.
...there are more than a few gaming studios simply abandoning the PC gaming business in part...or in full...and citing poor sale:piracy ratios for doing so.
That is precisely my point. They can't stop it with copy protection. They actually leave the industry instead. The same will happen in the music business. If your business model requires DRM then your business is going to fail.
Russell: Ah, thanks. I suppose anonymous opt-in usage is fine.
No Gmail account then? Google Docs? Well, they still have a whole bunch of your search data. An evil company could do plenty bad things with that.
Not to mention email sent to/from other people with gmail accounts. I'm not sure of the data they collect through AdSense but I'd imagine it would be considerable, too.