Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
what they did with the Eno / Byrne collaboration.
cleverly side step actually giving it away cos you pay for your streaming intenet broad band, and the bandwidth to stream it, and you can listen to it as much as you like so long as you only want to listen to it from a place that has broad band access.
and from your blog
that from Radiohead’s point of view, which really was the only one that mattered
a touch on the naive side simon.
when discussing radioheads free download model radiohead are not the center of the universe, and other points of view that mattered were the people that came after radiohead, the precedent it set and the longevity of the model.
nice that radiohead got richer and more famous of it but that was hardly the interesting aspect of the case." band gets rich" is hardly a new story. "new model tried, here are the results and the prognosis of the stability of the model" is a much more important angle. -
The Guardian has an article today on the subject of copyright infringement and the heavy-handed tactics that seem to follow
seems if you ignore Getty they go away.
And why are these people using uncleared pictures in their bought and paid for commercial work?
I didn't know it wasn't free doesn't really stand up as an argument. You know where you get your images from. -
I'm a perfectly sane and reasonable person,
sorry craig, I didn't mean to infer that you weren't.
crossing ghostbuster beams there.In the US election (bush part one) the argument that it was best not to upset the voters by extensive recounts was used successfully to stop recounts in progress. There's a good tv film about it called recount which I linked to above.
I'd hate to see that level of tactical politicking used here, and it most likely isn't but in the discussed case it was a margin of error thing so a recount at the single electorate level could have been worth it, not that it would have changed the balance of power.
and speaking of balance of power, why in a mmp system do we still have this war of opposing forces thing going on. why must labour and national never agree but every other party can team up as they see fit. Why don't we see the best person for the job fill the cabinet minister seat. or do thy have to keep up the pretense of conflict and competition for some reason.
National rigged the election,
not this one, but they did manage to pull of some serious magic with little to back it up. I'm more worried about the level of mentality of people who vote for a change without finding out what that change is going to be. members of my own family did it so its not like its some bunch of strangers who live across the field.
I don't mind that national got in, I mind that they did it for no apparent reason other than they put themselves up as the alternative without stating clearly how they were actually going to be better. -
I suspect that most NZers, like me, are confident that's already happened once, and think our system is fairly trustworthy, and doesn't need to be done again.
true, but in this instance wasn't it the margin of error aspect of it.
surely if a bank can manage to make sure they never ever accidentally slip some extra cash into my account, we can have an election system that is accurate to the same level, and go out of our way to check it is so.with the out going govt I think they had a level of trust going for them, the incoming one, well, .... we'll wait and see, can't say I'm overwhelmed with feelings of confidence .....
with american politics, take your pick of reasons to doubt the fairness and accuracy of their system.
-
the US is long bankrupt.
That's an interesting concept.
The country as in govt is in deep shit but in funding the wars they took govt money and paid it to american war mongers, so while many american's are broke, some american's are loaded.
a bit of income redistribution through criminal charges might make the problem not quite as bad. -
People who vote not really wanting the votes counted in full? Surely that's just nonsense.
to a sane and reasonable person you'd think so. but that didn't stop people using it as an excuse to put Bush into power for his first
Term, and it worked. "Don't upset the voters by insisting their votes be seen to be counted accurately". What a brilliant manipulation. -
sometimes lessig is not more, it's actually less (cymbal crash, original recording, not sampled)
sorry, I'll get my coat.....
-
But practically, do you really think Labour really wants to expend the considerable time and money required (and risk a public backlash)
not unless there's evidence of a flaw in our system, and if it actually got someone into parliament.
it's the public backlash part I have a problem with. If there's reasonable cause the public should embrace it and if it proves to be erroneous then the public should rejoice in the knowledge that they have a solid system that gives accurate results.
We spend heaps of money on far less important things than an accurate election. -
and would Labour really want to get stuck with the perception (probably unfair) that they're casting aspersions on the competence of the electoral officials,
I don't like that 'keep your mouth shut' line of argument.
look at America. they used that line successfully in two very dubious elections, and there was very apparent and good cause to question the legitimacy of what was going on. Not saying that that level of shadowy dealings is anywhere near going on in NZ but "please don't check the system cos it'll make people feel bad" is no good reason at all.
If your "process" can't hold its head up to open questioning (and dispel all questions put to it), and operate in a completely transparent way then its time to change the "process", not that that's what's going on in nz of course. -
hmmm...perhaps what you read, is different from what I wrote
No, I read what you wrote correctly and countered with the argument not everyone owns a house but land ownership rights stand for everyone at societies cost. Are you suggesting land owners should have to pay costs of upholding their ownership rights, or that wide screen 42 inch lcd screen owners should have to pay for ownership rights and protection from the police in case of theft?
why is this any different from protecting the rights of IP owners.
society benefits from a stable landscape across all boundaries, equally.
It's in society as a whole's interest that property rights exist and are enforced. We're seeing this back lash against it because some people are thinking what's in it for them individually, ie "if I take property rights away from media creators I can have free movies".