Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sacha, you and me , we don't have dialog. lets leave it like that eh.
I've asked for clarification on points raised.
seems simple enough. -
This just in directly from Campbell Smith
the comment about bic runga and flipping burgers is an outright fabrication. i didn't say it and i responded as such to the nz herald, which they posted under holloway's piece on-line.
holloway piece check end for smiths rejection of holloways claim
* Campbell Smith reponds: "I did not tell the public or the Select Committee any such thing. I am on the record submitting to the Commerce Select Committee that 8 of the 11 artists represented by my management company had second jobs. I did not mention Bic Runga in this context (one might assume that the she was included in the company of the other 3 artists who didn't have second jobs) and I did not discuss "flipping burgers". I did not make, and have not made, any public remarks to that effect. Simply because it isnt true.
Holloway does the creative freedom foundation's cause no good by attacking Smiths credibility based on fabricated information.
I amend my criticism of Russell based on the flipping burgers statement as he did not say it was true in his article. It was Mark. Bad boy Mark. You're much better than that.
My apologies to Russell for this.I do object to your comments on Smith and his grip on reality. He seems an intelligent and thoughtful man as does Ant Healey and Chris Hocquard. None of these people deserve to be ridiculed for their views.
I'll have further comments to present from Smith soon.
simple as sending him an email. -
Mark if you'd put all your casino copyright debate in this thread you would have pipped it over the 53 pages set by veitch discussion, not that anyone's counting,
-
it was an interesting comment re gauging how 'piraters' 'feel' about things.
do we as a society gauge how burglars feel about police infringing on their rights to take stuff? Maybe we do, I wasn't at the meeting.
(I can't find the original comment which is understandable in that flash flood of a days writing but correct me if I've paraphrased you wrongly) -
but you don't purchase the process,
if only that were the case all items would be so much cheaper.
development of any product is built into the price. hence paintings don't sell for the cost of paint and man hours, and computers don't sell for the price of the raw materials, and you pay a lawyer a rate that reflects the years they took to get their qualification, all built in. -
I declare thursday the 12th of march mark harris day.
phew man, that was a mammoth effort.
If you don't mind though I might wait till the make it into a movie and then download it on bit torrent. -
My personal view is that he was unwise to say what he did.
you called him out on it without presenting the actual document or context which lead to others using it as a basis to discredit his word.
That's a little more than you think he's unwise.
-
Why don't you look it up for yourself?
you used it as a reference, you should link to it.
I can't find it, only your reference to it.
I haven't seen a direct quote, only hearsay, paraphrasing etc.
The article that does quote him on the subject clearly states 8 of 11 are in day jobs, no burger flipping and bic doing it mentioned.
if he did say that then there is also the possibility of the context of burger flipping to mean minimum wage work. So far I've seen no official documents to back the assertion therefore I must question it until the time you do provide said documents. you're the one building the case against him. back it with proof as you would ask RIANZ to do in a case against a copyright infringer. Sound fair?Why is this relevant? because it deflates the case against the ill informed and lying RIANZ you are using to attack their position on 92a and copyright in general.
I personally don't like being put in the position of arguing for the recording industry big wigs cos they're not my kind of people but if you would build your case based on confirmable facts then I could stand back and enjoy the show, like sam f ( you ok up there in the stalls mate?) -
Oh, and lovemusic is not part of the media - it's a RIANZ house organ.
The Q and A came from questions from geekzone readers apparently. it says it at the top of the article. I'm not offended by RIANZ directly addressing questions and issues. Much better than hyping and conjecture. Then you can directly pick apart actual statements made by them. He's pretty clear about the structure of it and debunks a number of myths.
He also makes a misstep. he should have said he didn't object to fines for wrongful accusation cos this would not happen. He'll have to burn in hell for that comment.
and PA is a house organ for Russell. do you discount his comments purely on that basis? Surely that should be done strictly on what is said.
-
C'mon, some hard evidence please.
nicely played :)
why did you post it in this thread then? what's its relevance.
surely you must fear the the terror of being accused of being a Troll