Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 59 60 61 62 63 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
Mmmm, bacon.
jesus igor, get a grip.
-
Banjo, perhaps..
-
@Sacha
It's like poking an anthill for you, eh?Didja bring ya magnifying glass, didja? ;-)
-
Don, I feel bound to warn you that you are entering the robbery death spiral. Nothing from now on will make sense.
-
That's a good warning.
Mark, more like most of the time I can ignore the little critters but every now and then the constant stupid biting gets to me and I reach for the spray..
-
Nothing from now on will make sense.
nice one russell, divert valid questions by pretending it was humourous, in some way not worthy. But the questions remain unanswered.
Sorry you can't make sense of them, I'll try and help you grasp them one more time and get there importance.what was the division of people there? (apparently there was a division cos don can count higher than one according to him, so we know it was more than one but less than everyone, cos someone or some people managed to make MR Healey feel set upon).
Ant said it felt heavily stacked. Don said that wasn't the case (that ant was a liar) fine, lets have the numbers don, lets have your estimate, or mark, or anyone who was there,
Can't bring yourself to do it cos it invalidates your claim that these meetings are a good environment for copyright debate? if not just plonk those numbers down. Spit em out, you'll feel better.and secondly Don states that there were serious income earning musicians present some of whom were arguing his points (CFF make the ame claims). that's an important claim to make. Who were they o we can respect their wisdom from their worldy experience? we know the names of Roger Shepherd and Ant Healey. surely Don's big earners with a stake in music media aren't wishing to remain anonymous?
playing a guitar in your bedroom doesn't instantly make you a professional musician who can speak with authority on how weakened copyright and its poor implementation impacts on your career. lets hear who these people are so we can respect their views.
-
It's like poking an anthill for you, eh?
come on mark, I expect sacha to be a dick and make snickering lame hyena comments from a safe distance but you're normally well above that
-
Ant said it felt heavily stacked. Don said that wasn't the case (that ant was a liar) fine, lets have the numbers don, lets have your estimate, or mark, or anyone who was there,
Can't bring yourself to do it cos it invalidates your claim that these meetings are a good environment for copyright debate? if not just plonk those numbers down. Spit em out, you'll feel better.Who were they o we can respect their wisdom from their worldy experience? ... playing a guitar in your bedroom doesn't instantly make you a professional musician who can speak with authority on how weakened copyright and its poor implementation impacts on your career. lets hear who these people are so we can respect their views.
Hi, hyena #2 (understudy) here.
I think the death spiral thing is very apt for this particular line (eddy?) of the great copyright argument.
Once Don has somehow remembered and provided an estimate headcount of both sides that you'll accept as accurate, he'll then have the fun of picking over, with you, each attendee he names, so as to determine their industry "stake" and thus their entitlement to be listened to on copyright matters.
I'd end by wishing you both the best but I wouldn't want people to actually mistake this stupid, point-scoring diversion (one of many at that) for serious productive debate on copyright issues. Ciao!
-
I'd end by wishing you both the best but I wouldn't want people to actually mistake this stupid, point-scoring diversion (one of many at that) for serious productive debate on copyright issues.
Just realised that this could also refer to my own post; this is just to tick the self-reflexive box for all you postmodernists out there. Absurdists are already well catered for in this thread.
-
I'd end by wishing you ......Ciao!
c minus, must try harder, although bonus points for referencing previous departers, I particularly liked the way you pop back for a further comment.
assessing credibility is a standard part of court cases, but I get your point that it has absolutely nothing to do with making random comments on the internet.
I get the credibility of Roger, Ant, Simon etc ,even Campbell because they have a history of involvement, I can't gauge the credibility of Don's big earners without knowing who they are before I lemming like follow them off the cliff. is that not reasonable? -
It *sounds* very reasonable - it's just that the pattern of the rest of the thread led me to wonder if any number of names Don came up with would sway your opinion. After all, for all their talk at the meeting they might well just be false-flag novelty lossleading marketers like those Radiohead chaps, innit?
But I'm being naughty here in not assuming good faith, and I look forward to Don's return and hopefully being proven wrong by the resulting conversation.
-
wonder if any number of names Don came up with would sway your opinion
Why does my opinion need to be swayed? I'm merely asking for verification of don's claim. If its such a popular stand point why would he hesitate in dropping some well known names. somehow I don't think don's going to front with anything vaguely resembling an actual fact, but I'm open to the bitter sweet sting of being proved wrong by a sanctimonious rebuttal of fact.
But the reason I even raised this circular spiraling death point with the simple one line question
did anyone attend the labour party workshop on copyright recently?
was to question how certain parties approach discussion on this subject. notice how I didn't even mention beat ups or stacked discussion panels.
don replied was
Only a bunch of artist hating thieving techno pirates, apparently.
now come on, seriously, if there's no substance to Ant's concerns why say something like that?
That was followed by a bunch of "I ain't dun nuffin', they're lying" diatribe and we're away, yet apparently I'm the death spiral guy in this conversation.
I'm surprised Mark didn't chip in with some "it's not theft" rhetoric out of the blue just to try and derail it a little more.This is not the first time a discussion on Copyright / 92a has had some people commenting about the attitude and behaviour of the against team. Instead of denying it how bout addressing it.
But I'm being naughty
indeed, although usually it's a irony infused lateral barb, can I order a couple of those with a side of chips please, no salt.
-
Squeeel
-
Squeeel
Lewis, don't play games with these people!
-
robbery,
I haven't called Ant Healey a liar, you just did. If Ant has issues to discuss about the meeting he can do so directly with me rather than through a pseudonymous mouthpiece.
My email address is on the LHS and my contact details are very public. There are lots of people that would like to engage positively with APRA, these include the NZOSS and CFF.
Russell, the *only* reason I responded to robbery's original post on this topic was because he put forward an inaccurate 3rd hand report of quite an important meeting that a lot of people thought was worth attending and contributing to.
-
I haven't called Ant Healey a liar,
ah, don, you did,
you said the person who told me that the labour party meeting was heavily stacked and was unpleasant toward ant was a liar. The person that told me that was ant healey, directly.
Now maybe Ants too sensitive and you guys are a bouncy bunch of good time guys, but that's unlikely isn't it judging by other meetings where similar things have been said about anti isp accountability people.Russell, the *only* reason I responded to robbery's original post on this topic was because he put forward an inaccurate 3rd hand report
You're digging yourself a deep hole there don. you responded to my original comment
did anyone attend the labour party workshop on copyright recently?
with a slightly smug and almost bragging
Only a bunch of artist hating thieving techno pirates, apparently.
I didn't put forward any inaccurate 2nd or 3rd hand information in my original comment seeing how it was a question, and anything that followed that was not 3rd hand it was second hand ie from a conversation I had with ant who was discussing how difficult it was to discuss and inform on these issues because of situations just like the labour party meeting.
There are lots of people that would like to engage positively with APRA, these include the NZOSS and CFF.
Um.... in your rush to make your own death spiral discussion you've missed the point.
Why would they engage with either of these groups when you act in a way that puts them on the defensive. You and CFF have both shown insulting bad form towards these people. I wouldn't blame em for being hesitant to enter into an open discussion with you guys but Ant did turn up to this thing and gave you an opportunity to talk to him. so give him credit for that.but if you really are serious about having intelligent discourse with these people then a rethink of approach is probably in order.
-
1. There were 22 participants at the meeting, plus six Labour members and staffer (who was apparently taking minutes, but they haven't shown up yet). It appears that a few others who were invited did not show, as there were some unclaimed name stickers. I don't know how many were invited in total. Anyone claiming 42 participants is either lying or completely unable to count.
2. I don't have permission from the individuals to name names, so I won't, but there were representatives from APRA, Microsoft, Scoop, The Standard, Kiwiblog, InternetNZ, Telecommunications Carrier Forum, TUANZ, EPMU, ISPANZ , NZOSS, a publisher, several artists and musicians, and some others of no particular affiliations. And me.
3. Many of the participants owned to wearing more than one hat (e.g. a fine Irish musician who is incidentally an internationally regarded Internet mover and shaker and seriously clever man). Most also owned to holding at least one work under copyright, and a number to more than one.
4. I believe there were no lawyers, which must be a first for any discussion on copyright and may be a significant factor in it going as well as it did. One or two of the participants are known to me to have had *some* legal training.
5. Everyone in the room agreed that copyright was important. I don't recall anyone saying we should abolish copyright (Don? Do I misremember?).
6. Most people in the room agreed that the Internet is a disruptive technology that current legal systems struggle to cope with.
7. Most people in the room agreed that the genie is out of the bottle and it's not likely that the internet can be constrained to legal and business models that existed before it, as it is not possible to enforce that, in many areas other than copyright as well (e.g. court suppression orders).
8. Most people in the room agreed that the Internet changes value chains, and that business models have to take this into account. Business models that don't do this are probably going to fail. There was no consensus on whether this was a good or bad thing, just that it was a thing.
9. Most people agreed that there was a balance that needed to be struck between the rights of creators and the rights of society.
10. There was significant discussion about the value of "fair use" provisions in copyright regimes, and that NZ's "fair dealing" was not the same thing and did need to be upgraded.
11. The MPs were interested in finding out what people considered to be alternatives to s92A, but discussion soon veered to basic copyright issues in the digital age. There was broad consensus that a total review of copyright should be undertaken, rather than patch up patches to a 300 year old statute (my words, not necessarily the meeting's).
12. Definite agreement that music was only a part of the copyright debate; writers and artists also face issues.
13. It's fair to say there was not unanimous agreement on any individual point, and it was not always Ant Healey who was the disagreer (I wasn't sure spell check would let me use that word, but there we go).
14. There was general agreement that this should be the beginning of consultation and discussion, rather than the end.
15. There was Hell pizza and non-alcoholic beverages
-
thanks mark, it was like pulling teeth to get a straight answer but you came through in the end.
-
of sorts
-
Anyone claiming 42 participants is either lying or completely unable to count.
maybe it felt like 40 plus from his position,
you can lose the lying accusations though, its not called for.
what did you see re intensity levels? -
French lawmakers reject Internet piracy bill!!
Le "three strikes", it is out!
Which leaves South Korea, that bastion of democracy, as the only country currently considering a legal proposal at the moment.
-
maybe it felt like 40 plus from his position,
you can lose the lying accusations though, its not called for.
what did you see re intensity levels?No, I won't. He told you an untruth. How many other untruths has he told in the process of this business? His figures were completely wrong. How many other figures that he has promulgated that are also wrong.
Most in the room were very well-behaved. The discussion was reasoned and intelligent. I recall that Ant tried to play the victim card twice about being the only creative in a room full of technologists (funny, I don't recall any songs that he has written - could you enlighten me?). I let it go the first time he said it, though it obviously put a few backs up. When he repeated it a little later, I gave him a heated response about being arrogant in his claim, saying that the room was full of people who held copyrights (remind me again what copyrights he holds?) who wanted a just system in the face of massive change engendered by the Internet.
That's about as intense as it got.
-
Loyalty is admirable, but willingness in its service to ignore all contrary evidence presented just makes someone a fool.
-
There were 22 participants at the meeting, plus six Labour members and staffer (who was apparently taking minutes, but they haven't shown up yet). It appears that a few others who were invited did not show, as there were some unclaimed name stickers. I don't know how many were invited in total. Anyone claiming 42 participants is either lying or completely unable to count.
thanks mark, it was like pulling teeth to get a straight answer but you came through in the end.
of sorts
maybe it felt like 40 plus from his position
This is pretty much what I saw coming.
-
This is pretty much what I saw coming.
Oh, true, Sam, but better to have the facts out instead of the misinformation that Ant Healey appears to have been feeding robbery. If what Ant says and does is governed by his feelings about things, rather than verifiable facts, it diminishes the credibility of his testimony somewhat.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.