Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
Mmmm, bacon.
jesus igor, get a grip.
-
That paragraph slammed
slammed?
What's your postal address don, I'm going to send you a better dictionary.so did anyone raise their voice? you neglected to answer that question.
you also managed to avoid giving us your tally of numbers.
what's you're count, 21/21? or 2 /40.Well robbery, it least I can count higher than 1.
cool, lets hear it, was it the massive figure of 2? I have no idea, I wasn't there, I'm relying on you for accuracy (god help us)
yes, and get paid for doing so.
cool, then tell us who these mystery people are. ie names please or they don't exist.
-
and by the way don, I wasn't there which is why I asked for clarification,
you could have calmly said "nah, it was sweet man, everyone was cool",
but no, we've got mr angry of wellington bashing in with fists flying which is why i'm more likely to believe that you and your crew were a little antsy, cos its been said before about that lot at previous meetings.where was the meeting anyway? Auckland?
did you really fly up specifically for this.
man you must have a bee in your bonnet, and it wasn't even a gop meeting, -
Again, no-one got treated rudely or yelled at.
you said
I think the only time folks may have been offended
so you're saying no one raised their voices?
No-one spoke against Copyright as far as I am aware everyone was strongly in favour of Copyright.
rolling back copyright from where it is now is against copyright.
by your argument people who are for 2 months of copyright protection and then let everything go free to who ever is being for copyright.
you know full well what I'm talking about.
there is a definite movement toward stripping back rights to content owners. from where we sit today that is not for copyright, ie extending the rights of media owners and creators.Not only was that a lie in terms of S92, it is an even bigger lie in terms of Copyright.
well get your story straight don,
you said above most people were against 92a, yet you've just said it was a lie to say the room was predominantly filled with opponents of the pro isp participation in copyright.
you can't have it both ways although I know you want to. either it was a good cross section or it was most people against. make your mind up. -
When someone tells you ...blah blah blah..
so you're saying it wasn't a beat up?
sounds to me like it was a lot of pro copyright reformers and fuck all others, but it was a query, you're more than welcome to give your estimate of numbers. what do you think was the head count there mark. in your estimation how'd you see see the attendance represented?
roger shepherd and ant and who else?
see I just talked to a reasonable calm and nice guy about what went down and he said it was a beat up. not that I don't trust yours or mr christies opinion but you guys are a little prone to making excuses for your aggressive behaviour.Then somebody shouldn't have brazenly claimed he was the only "creative" in the room
right..... and who was it who said that? you lost me there, can't see it in the comment thread.
I'm not aware of anyone other than Ant Healey who thought there were sides to be on.
oh right cos we haven't seen in our little thread a clear division of views, dream on, there's a clear fence for most of the discussion in here and peoples agendas are well visible, they don't have much grey area at all.
has been described by many as "draconian",
yeah, I've seen that repeated ad nausea but what I haven't seen is people in snazy military uniforms clubbing down the people man. its an inflated comment at best and at worse its inflammatory.
draconian conjures up visions of evil might and that's just so not the case. its nz and there's like a hand full of people working for artist rights and an army of arm chair opinionates.Funny, that's not what they say on their websites, it's not what Ant was saying at the meeting, and it's certainly not what Arthur Baysting wrote in his email, as an APRA director.
funny cos that's exactly what I read in reported comments from Campbell and Ant.
While s92A was touched on (it is the elephant in the room, after all), the meeting was not called to discuss it in particular but to get a sense of where we should be going with copyright in the digital world.
that's what I wanted to hear,
So it looks like mr christie (along with others) hijacked a cause and tagging his own adgenda on it which is what we saw with cff who used the guilty on accusation issue to pull people into their fold and then said a bunch of other things on behalf of them that weren't specifically about that and many weren't happy about going along with. Islander commented as much.I objected to the guilty upon accusation aspect but then ant and campbell have acknowledged that too. what I don't agree with is all the other stuff being pushed through in the same argument.
they are different issues and just cos someone doesn't agree with the guilty upon accusation aspect doesn't mean they think some sort of control at isp level is bad. -
I think the only time folks may have been offended
ok so the liar comment above is unjustified then?
somebody may have been (and was) offended in your own wordsinformant
what's with you and your east german pre the wall coming down lingo?
are we not allowed to hear about these things outside of official information bulletins?somebody said there was a lot of people there on one side and not many on the other. a simple yes that was the case or no it wasn't like that would do. no need for the sci fi Apocalypse speak. draconian indeed. we'll be needing capes and masks next.
Both ant and campbell have expressed intent to work toward a viable solution openly, there's nothing draconian about their approach. They want something done though, not the continual side stepping.But that is not because the debate was 'heavily stacked', it is because the law is opposed by most people.
was it a s92a discussion or a broader copyright discussion?
-
On a related note, I wonder how much longer APRA can keep misrepresenting FAC goals to their NZ membership.
you forgot to include a link to the bit where apra was misrepresenting, supposedly recent article as you used the phrase 'can keep' implying they've done something again, recently.
as far as FAC goes I think they're still in the "dipping their toes in the water phase". they're relatively new, they fell they need to represent their people and they're looking for the best way to do that, ie a work in progress.
-
whoever gave you that information is a liar on all the above fronts.
really, hmm, can you give more details on how you aw the thing go down?
how did you see the numbers pan out and what was the general vibe of the meeting? -
Only a bunch of artist hating thieving techno pirates, apparently.
you jest but I heard that it was 42 for the against copyright team and one for the 'for' team who got treated rudely, yelled at etc when he had the good courteousy (or stupidity) to attend what appeared to be a particularly heavily stacked debate.
was wondering what the chances of seeing a reasonably intelligent balanced (in numbers) debate happen somewhere sometime soon.
perhaps that media 7 one with chris hocquard and campbell smith verses the green dragon or something.