Hard News: High Noon
203 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
It looked like a pretty good number to me, given the short notice and the previous absence of public debate. Somebody needs to come up with some better slogans, though.
-
images + speech audio
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0902/S00338.htmclare curran's proposed bill
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0902/S00339.htm -
there's also a transcript of yesterday's Parliament question and Blogger Russell Brown vs entertainment lawyer Chris Hocquard. I haven't listened to the latter but it led the law student in the office to remark it's a bad idea to argue with barristers.
-
to remark it's a bad idea to argue with barristers.
You think? I am 30 seconds into the interview and the guy has just told Russell to shut up. Is that what barristers do in court? He sounds like a complete tit and a bully. Which is how, the on the whole, RIANZ and their proxies come across.
-
Oh. And here we go again. This is the line that RIANZ are taking. The CoD is the problem not the law. Again, this guy Chris blamed the ISPs for not getting it right.
That is a bullshit argument and position and trying to change the ground game. repeat after me, the law is wrong.
-
You think?
Admittedly, I wasn't sure if the lad was referring to the quality of baristers' arguments or just implying they were practised rhetorical bullies.
-
Interestingly Clare Curran tried to add a line to 92A through a Private Members Bill along the lines of "there has to be a working code of practice in place asnd the Minister has to agree to it".
But the Government blocked it... -
Oh, and very sorry to hear that about Bob, shame to lose a valuable voice.
-
Which is how, the on the whole, RIANZ and their proxies come across.
Please, can we not make these blanket swings. Chris is nobody's proxy, and more than almost anyone I know is an advocate who has taken on the members of the RIANZ over artist related copyright issues.
Just because he may disagree with you doesn't make him anyone's lackey or proxy.
-
entertainment lawyer Chris Hocquard
Simon, right. Thanks for the clarification. I stand by my comment though. In that interview he comes across as a bully and this is similar to the tone RIANZ and their supporters have taken. It had *nothing* to do with the fact he disagreed with me, or Russell.
-
Maybe it's just me (using Netscape 6.2), but I'm seeing everything on this thread in strikethrough after the point where Russell seems to give contact details (but those don't appear) for Simon Power. Or is it intended, as a "blackout" motif?
-
entertainment lawyer Chris Hocquard
This man is our Lawyer.He is good. Does know what he is talking about.I imagine the debate got juicy.
In that interview he comes across as a bully
Ohh, Chris just sounds like that. Lackey, he certainly is not. :) I'll go listen now........
-
In that interview he comes across as a bully and this is similar to the tone RIANZ and their supporters have taken.
Well, I mightn't agree with much of what Chris said but to my ears he's certainly not any more strident or aggressive in tone than many of the opinions I've heard expressed on the other side, including here.
Chris is by nature confident and vocal on much of what he believes, especially when it comes to the law, and I think tossing words like proxy into the mix help nobody.
-
Does know what he is talking about.
Well, his comments about it all being the fault of those drawing up codes of practice (the ISPs) seemed to suggest the opposite...in this case anyway.
He's not the only barrister in the debate and there are others who have reached a very different conclusion. He also displayed a distressing lack of insight into how the Internet might actually help artists. According to him the only way for musicians to survive in the modern era is through the application S92. This is demonstrably not the case.
Simon, just to clarify by proxies I was not meaning "anyone who disagrees with me". I had in mind APRA and the like.
-
He also displayed a distressing lack of insight into how the Internet might actually help artists
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.
I think he well understands how the internet can help artists, certainly more than many of those in established record companies. His brief is to zealously defend artist rights and I think he feels he's doing exactly that.
-
Simon, that's more depressing then. He does know better. That conversation with Russell was simply bizarre. His claim that all this recent fuss was Telecom's doing was another whopping mistake. Again, I suspect he knows this, but he also knows the NZ public like to hate Telecom, right?
Chris Hocquard, if those who invented and sustain the Internet were to take a similar attitude Amplify wouldn't exist.
-
I think he well understands how the internet can help artists,
Thanks Simon, took the words right out of my post, of which I just erased.
-
Sofie - so Chris is a great guy, salt of the Earth. I stand corrected.
But come on, that radio discussion was appalling. He might want to do what one occasionally does on PA. Apologise :-)
-
His claim that all this recent fuss was Telecom's doing was another whopping mistake
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. If so, I'm not sure that I'd disagree that a bit of firm pressure from a multi billion dollar company might have more immediate results than all the people power and black gravatars on the planet would on a National government.
Historically they ain't known for listening or really caring what we think
-
Sofie - so Chris is a great guy, salt of the Earth. I stand corrected.
He might want to do what one occasionally does on PA. Apologise :-):) Oh I doubt it, he's a lawyer! Actually, come to think of it, I have heard him apologize.Intellectual property is his expertise so I could see why he may be rather passionate about copyright.It is his living afterall.
-
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.
-
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.
Which would beg the question, why have Telecom, the TCF and others been so unsuccessful with lobbying *all* parties right up until this point? Again, I think Chris was trying to bring in another bogeyman to the conversation, along with blaming ISPs for not developing a CoP.
Certainly when I spoke to Ministers, opposition spokespersons and civil servants last year they did not seem at all worried about what the local telcos, ISPs and IT businesses were saying.
-
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. ;-)
-
I thought both protagonists were strong in their views but Chris was unecessarily rude and that didn't enhance his credbility.
Upholding the rights of artists, protecting a revenue stream, policing piracy, I get all this. What I still don't get is whether the issue is about the adequacy of the law or its enforcement (particularly since the the officials' advice Russell cited says the laws are adequate).
The protest seems to be about the fact that ISPs are being made to do something the courts can't currently do and without the usual protections (and I was surprised to hear a lawyer so quickly elide over issues of process). Perhaps I've misunderstood?
I remain of the view that part of the problem seems to be the reluctance of suppliers, though not necessarily creators, to re-examine how they take product to the market.
-
... and I'd like to also add my condolences to Bob's family. I too enjoyed his views and am sorry he's passed. PAS is a fantastic community and is diminished by his passing.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.