Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
what figures are you referring to mark?
Why, the ones you gave to us.
Figures meaning an inaccurate head count then, not anything like say sales projections. just the way you said "figures" I thought you were referring to something like a published document not some discussion on how many were at a meeting......
....oh, right so you're judging Ant (not that you haven't already pre judged him already) on my comment and turning that into extra fuel for your fire. how consistent of you.
my 2 main concerns were
1) rudeness from your camp, which comes as no surprise since you and don are both hot head rude buggers on here so why should you be any different at official meetings. There is also the pre existing legacy of alleged rude behaviour from your camp which you counter with "it wasn't us it was them". Judging from responses to you behaviour on here from a few people I'm seeing it as definitely you and you're going to have to provide video footage of you sitting politely and speaking calmly with a warm smile to convince me otherwise.
But What's the point of establishing that?
Well I've said it above, how are you going to get intelligent discourse on any of this if you come in with fists flailing. You hijack these talks, angrily reprimand people with different view points to yours and then plead innocent.
You accuse me of being here to pick fights??? That insults my motives. I'll stand up to you but I can see why others would prefer to stay well clear.2)The balance of panels at these things. Russell managed to load his panel with himself and 2 anti 92a people against one Ant Healey. hardly fair, 3 against 1. I'd like to see that reversed for fairness.
The labour party thing had by your account
1) APRA - ant Healey
2) Roger Shepherd - Muisic industry
3) anonymous - Microsoft - software *
4) anonymous - Scoop (internet media)
5) anonymous - The Standard (internet media) *
6) anonymous - Kiwiblog (internet media) *
7) anonymous - InternetNZ (internet in nz) *
8) anonymous - Telecommunications Carrier Forum (Telecommunications standards) *?
9) anonymous - TUANZ (not-for-profit organisation that for promoting the needs of end-users of telecommunications in New Zealand) *
10) anonymous - EPMU (union representing telecomunications workers) *
11) anonymous - ISPANZ (Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand) *
12) Don Christie - NZOSS (New Zealand Open Source Society) *!!
13) anonymous - a publisher
14) Mark Harris - (reduced copyright length advocate, anti 92a)*!!!
15) anonymous
16) anonymous
17) anonymous
18) anonymous
19) anonymous
20) anonymous
21) anonymous
22) anonymousof the 14 people we know were there at a discussion on copyright
2 were specifically connected to the promotion of stronger measures for artists
9 had specific links to internet interests and or reduced copyright strength.
2 were unknown. (scoop carry a variety of articles) and I don't know who the publisher was or their interests.
the remaining 8 people you gave me no information on.Maybe its just me but if I was wanting to get a clear and balanced view on the implications of copyright I might have tried for a few more people who were invested in the system, and by invested I mean receive a reasonable proportion of their income from it. Neil Finn, Dave Dobbyn, Runga's Mr Luck, S Carter, Fat Freddies Drop, some Rianz people, some entertainment lawyers, all would have been a good start and an indication that you were interested in hearing the views of people bearing the brunt of changes caused by internet. It would have shown they were being heard an maybe then ant wouldn't have felt set up.
You and Don can argue all you like about how fair and balanced you all are but looking at your list it looks decidedly skewed. Not your fault or your problem, but if we want our govt to make laws that represent the interests of the all people minorities included then maybe make a special effort to get to hear the voices of a few of the people who's work and income is directly effected. (yes the other people present are affected too, I acknowledge that, I'm just saying 9 (or more) to 2 isn't balanced).
Or are you now saying it was you who tried to mislead us as to numbers, and not Ant?
I'm saying you're trying to derail and distract from the intent of the comment.
Since it was me who said "I heard" then it's obviously my comment, not Ant's but don't let that stop you from maligning the guy, as if it would.
As for the allegations of intending to mislead, don't be such an dick. My first comment was a question, ie "did anyone attend"? Don and you did, yet Don couldn't or wouldn't provide details of attendance and kicked in with an almost bragging comment that reinforced my later observations, and as I said you took 2 days to kick in with your figures. Don could easily have said how many people attended, or maybe he felt the numbers were biggish, at least more than 2 backing up what I said I heard.On your account there were 28 people present, not 42 but not 5 either. ie not an insignificat imbalance, while not 1 against the world either, but closer to that than 50/50.
As I have stated a few times wasn't there.Ant said that he felt outnumbered, and he was. You're fixated on trying to infer Ant is a liar based on my discussion here which makes you in the wrong, and inferring that I'm trying to mislead is just bullshit and you know it, although I'm sure you'll continue to argue otherwise until the cows come home but that's just in keeping with that whole "hot head on a mission" agenda thing isn't it.Implying nothing. Clear statement.
a clear statement that there was no offense causing behaviour would have been
"all in the room were very well-behaved". By your choice of the word "most",... I can only assume that some weren't. You've already fessed up to some of that so it seems Ant wasn't lying about that, Don was.Most were constructive. Some people were forthright but not rude.
don, if not lying then at least downplaying your behaviour for effect.
in you own words
I gave him a heated response about being arrogant in his claim,
and
On one of those occasions, I protested angrily.
and
I'm not particularly proud of the fact that I allowed his manner to anger me,
so when Ant said he didn't know why he bothered to turn up to these things in good faith in order to try and shed some understanding on what its like to be a copyright work holder in the current climate, because people were abusive ....... he was telling the truth, a truth don tried to hide and say I was told wrong by my "informant". doesn't that feel a little embarrassing?
Ant's comments were regarded by more than me as arrogant, and I did speak forcefully, though I deny yelling at him,
semantics mate, hung by your own words.
On one of those occasions, I protested angrily.
but I also have no shame of the manner of my response.
yeah, i get that about you. I can understand it and allow for it but you should be able to understand how others do not.
Don't waste your breath. Your opinions hold little value for me.
that doesn't surprise me or probably anyone else who's been in discussion with you. you've made it quite clear that you value your own opinion above all else.
Correction, there were a number of people present. Some of them have technical skills, as well as musicianship, artistry, writing skills, journalism, political skills etc. Most admitted to having one or more works under copyright, and that was the primary reason they were there.
yet in a discussion on copyright where the key area of concern (not the only, but you must acknowledge music, film and tv software and video games are in the spotlight at the moment) there were a lot of people missing from this discussion, ie the people it hurts the most.
All (bar, it seems, ANT) have a concern that the Internet could be crippled by bad copyright law.
there you go making broad generalisations again. do you actually know what Ant (or campbell, or hocquard) thinks on that side of things? give him a call and ask him. he's very understanding of those aspects, and has to weigh that against the needs of the people he represents to protect their works. It's a very difficult position to be in, but doing nothing and being derailed time after time is not helping. to say Ant or campbell or hocquard are unconcerned about the many other aspects and angles involved in this shows just how one eyed blind you're being and why you managed to boil up this rage for these people. It's bollocks and you should sort it out. Who are you to tell anyone off at a public meeting? Say you side and keep it civil. If you can't handle that stay at home and do your anger management course.
None were seeking to take copyright law backwards,
ummm not that its in my nature to do it but can I call liar on that since it's all the rage at the moment. you personally want shorter terms, so that's at least one, and don's been pretty open on how he feels about the struggle of media control on the net.
Your understanding of the facts as they occurred is faulty. Either someone has misled you, or you were not clever enough to understand what they were telling you. Or both.
whatever mr angry. my understanding of the exact technical number was incorrect but the implications were on the money. you personally were offensive by your own admission and the numbers in so far show a heave bias toward tech interests. that may change if you bother to provide names that prove otherwise but for now that's how it is, no matter how angrily you deny it. And its not as if the numbers thing really matters, its that one person felt set upon and you played an important part in that. But you keep arguing over the exact numbers, it'll make it more easy for you to swallow that way.
This feeling is not borne out by the facts.
in you obviously bias view.
Ant did have cause to question the representation of media owners, you think he didn't but the known figures provided so far from your role call say otherwise until you feel you can bring yourself to name the remaining people. otherwise its just conjecture.it occurs to me (as usual) that you don't actually want a discussion. You just want to start a fight,
bollocks. I clearly had a point here and you can ignore it and probably will, its in character, but its totally relevant to copyright debate in this country. If we can't get fair representation on these discussion things and we can't get a fair and balance discussion going cos hot heads feel they have the right to reprimand others in a public debate then we're fucked aren't we, well your not but don't kid yourself that its a balanced discussion.
This is not the case, as the fact of engaging with you at all means people here have respect for your right to ask questions. But, as usual, you show no respect for those that attempt to engage with you and answer your questions. That is sad, for you as well as us.
actually mark, you're the one coming up with the smears on integrity and intellect (and don). where I come from that's called "showing lack of respect". I've shown you a lot more respect than your attitude and approach deserve, and will continue to do so. but kettle and pop black spring to mind.
(circular enough for everyone now?)
-
This is pretty much what I saw coming.
come on sam F.
you're better than that.
your derailing a convo over perceived numbers.
don can count higher than one but not high enough to make his own estimate. it took mark 2 days to pip in with his figures and the point remains true,
There were a lot of tech people present.
and some level of disrespect ensued, which mark has owned up to.marks list of who was in attendance.
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.
bit vague on the no affiliations, artists and musicians numbers so hard to speak about them, but of the organisations represented that's quite a representation of tech I think you'll agree.
how did these people get to be invited? Sam F did you get your invite?
-
His figures were completely wrong.
what figures are you referring to mark?
Most in the room were very well-behaved.
implying what? that some weren't?
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.
oh, so it was you. it did happen. there you go.
why did you and don try to polish over that. you were so proud of your comments to islander. why didn't you just say "yeah I had a go at him" instead of all this pretend nothing happened shit. respect for manning up and taking responsibility, minus points for not keeping your cool.
-
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? -
of sorts
-
thanks mark, it was like pulling teeth to get a straight answer but you came through in the end.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'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