Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But it's not the first time he's made representations on this as "an entertainment lawyer" and never once mentioned any pecuniary interest that he might conceivably have due to ownership of Amplifier.
Just as an aside his was quite clear in his role as owner of Amplifier when on Nat Radio discussing copyright last year. I think it's probably more relevant in underling that he does understand digital music rather than any potential massive conflict that needs disclosure.
Then again, the NZ industry is so small that not having substantive conflicts of interest is the exception. I'm not gonna go any further on that one.
-
Where did that figure come from?
I agree, and my feeling is that none of that sort of bluster helps anyone, least of all the labels and the musicians. Then again I think that none of what is happening in NZ right now is helpful at all in the bigger picture to the anti-stealing (or whatever it's called this week) lobby. It simply pisses people off more, makes people dislike record companies more than ever, and adds a weird haze of legitimacy to piracy in the minds of many.
They really are their own worst enemies.
-
And if Amplifier is not at least breaking even, he'd be a bad business man to keep it going.
Sometimes Mark, esp. in the music industry, we do things for other reasons than making money. Amplifier is such a project. It's long been subsidised by Chris' work as a lawyer.
I released countless records over the years before making a cent, quite the opposite. I know why we do it, but it ain't good business.
The first thing he said was that I was just trying to clear the way for piracy without consequences, or something. It was a silly and unhelpful thing to say.
But no more unhelpful than the oft repeated line that all copyright owners expect to make a living from their work. Few do. But agreed, it was a silly slap and I imagine he regretted it the moment he spoke.
-
you got me that time Rob!
-
I'm not doubting his ability as a lawyer, or his historic role in the NZ music industry. That's what makes the disclosure thing all the more puzzling to me.
This was on Bfm, where Chris is a weekly show guest and has been for many years. This was a call in to that show I think. If so, I'd argue that just about every regular Bfm listener knew exactly who Chris was. It was unnecessary for him to stop and make a short speech as to his business interests or shareholdings.
Mikey Havoc was on too..should he have to disclose the fact that he used to be in Push Push who have tracks available for sale online? No, of course not. It's not needed.
As to making money, I don't think Chris has ever made a profit from Amplifier, and it operates at arms length from his radio and legal jobs.
-
Maybe it is just his manner, but I haven't heard him say anything that would make me take him on as my lawyer
well, when it comes to Music Law he's pretty much top of the pile in NZ. I used him for years (that's my disclosure) but not for a while, and he knows his stuff. He gets things done. And he's often brusque in his manner. Perhaps that's rude but I've never had an issue with it.
That's not to say I'm agreeing with him here, just, if you will, defending his virtue or something to that effect and noting that, as always, he's speaking his own mind, nobody else's.
-
Which would beg the question, why have Telecom, the TCF and others been so unsuccessful with lobbying *all* parties right up until this point?
I can't answer that question, I'm just trying to work out exactly what Chris was saying which I think was pretty much what I said above. A lot has changed in NZ politics since last year too. Maybe, given NZ's rather precarious economic state right now, the voice of one of the nation's biggest taxpayers and employers might have some traction. To be honest Don, I don't know and I'm too far away to ring up Chris to find out. But my experience of the man (and it's extensive) is that he's brutally honest and I'd be surprised if deviously tossing another bogeyman into the mix is in character. He speaks his mind.
@Mark: I'm really not sure what he's failed to disclose. He's pretty well known across the music industry and far further afield, as are his associations. He's also Chairman of the Bfm board. I'm sure Russell knew exactly who he was talking to ;) -
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
-
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.
-
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.