Hard News: Save the King's Arms
217 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
I don't really see how it's anyone else's business if I want to buy a six pack or a bottle of wine at 10.05pm. Or at any other time of day for that matter.
Aside from your wife that is.
You need more forward planning. I always make sure I have enough booze at home to last at least 2 days.
-
Chris has kind of answered this above, but I think it depends on the zoning more than what's there.
When we first ran a club in High Street we had no problems with noise. There was virtually nothing in the way of residential in the inner city unless you went up to Brooklyn / Courtville on the hill.
Three years after we opened the first Hight St apts were sold, so we we went door to door and handed out VIP cards and talked. Universally we were told they'd moved into the area knowing what it was, and some, including architect Nigel Cook, said they thrived on the buzz and noise from the street.
A year or so later we had our first noise complaint.
It came from a caretaker in Queen Street on a roof and Auckland city tried to enforce a series of notices on us and a shutdown. We added all sorts of noise dampening but they came at us again and again. They were not even sure it was us, but we became their target. Our noise checks showed that the traffic in Q St had more volume.
Eventually we were able to, for want of a better word, win by getting our lawyer to point out that the relevant word in the act was "reasonable", and the city had no other applicable law or by-law. It was, we said, backed by letters from people like Nigel, reasonable for us to open a nightclub in High Street and that it was unreasonable for someone to move into the CBD and expect to have have the sort of quiet enjoyment they might have in the burbs. The council backed off.
I know the law has changed, but the word reasonable seems to be missing from the council focus here (indeed, in many things, it's a word missing from the ACC vocabulary).
To me, it's perfectly reasonable, regardless of the latter day council zoning, to expect the King's Arms to make a noise, given it's history and location. And it's ludicrously unreasonable to try and stomp on that given that history and location.
-
You need more forward planning. I always make sure I have enough booze at home to last at least 2 days.
And then those friends turn up..y'know...the ones who come bringing chocolate but stay for frigging hours having just one more....
-
There is a 12 noon, and a 12 midnight.
Graeme, you are a pedantic curmudgeon. I'm proud there is another like me who insists on writing 12 noon (or midday)
P.
-
Sounds like a good idea to me; gigs that are over by 11pm would mean you could get home at a reasonable hour in time for work the next day.
Ah, those were the days ...
-
photo of the King's Arms from the late 19th century
Awesome!
Although it always grates to see institutions imposing rights over images where the copyright has expired. They've decided that the images are protected by commercial license.
"This image is not to be reproduced in any form without permission of Auckland City Libraries"
New Zealand's copyright of the life of the author plus 50 years means that this item is almost certainly out of copyright (the author would have had to have been in their teens and lived at least another 65 years for this to still be copyrighted, even if dated to 1899.)
Grrrrr. 1860s photographs are not covered by copyright.
-
A commenter over at The Hand Mirror suggested recently that now we have the Evil Stepfather State.
I like that. I've been thinking, Bully State.
-
I always make sure I have enough booze at home to last at least 2 days.
But what will happen in a civil defence emergency? Y'know, earthquake, volcano, cyclone, running out of alcohol and the like?
Hey, serious thought, Iain Lees-Galloway over at Red Alert has a thread going on the second of several proposals from the Law Commission. This one on a minimum price for booze by volume of alcohol content. Do read the several caveats.
Some people may want to mosey on over.
-
To clarify, Auckland City Council is maintaining strict rights over 1860s photographs. The one upthread is late 19th C.
-
Although it always grates to see institutions imposing rights over images where the copyright has expired. They've decided that the images are protected by commercial license.
They hold copyright over the version that they've scanned and put on the web site.
You can use the photo, you just have to find your own original.
In much the same way that a photographer holds copyright over a photo taken of Mona Lisa. You can use another image of Mona Lisa for anything you want, but not the one that he took.
-
Simon, I would have thought that maintaining two days worth of anything other than Bintang would be difficult in Bali. You have my sympathy!
-
Oh shit@! I'm not going to start another copyright discussion. Sorry PAS'ers!
-
But has anyone else found themselves vowing never to return to the King's Arms after an international gig in the past year or two?
Yes. It is officially No Fun to be at when this happens. If you were a savvy promoter, you'd charge everyone $5 or $10 more, and say "limited capacity" so people know that they will actually be able to see the stage. There's been a number of gigs that I might have gone to if I'd known that I could actually see what's happening.
To be fair to the KA, it's not at all the only place in town that does this. I suspect that all these over-sold nights go a long way towards subsidising all the other nights where new bands can get up and play to twelve of their closest friends, who are all drinking water because they can't afford anything else. Maybe a cheeky lemonade if they're feeling decadent.
-
And re. 10pm (or 11pm, wow, really pushing the boat out there) closing - apart from the very real issues of encouraging beer barns etc. which others have already discussed, have we learnt nothing from the experience in the UK with one closing time for all licensed premises in one area?
As anyone who has had the misfortune to walk sober around an "entertainment precinct" in London 15 mins after closing time will know, this is hardly something we should try and replicate here.
At least at the moment our drunken brawls are spaced out throughout the evening.
-
I wonder if it's the Secret Vodafone Data Centre next to the King's Arms that's complaining? Perhaps the operators are being kept awake.
(Maybe Paul Brislen will pop up to deny..)
-
"This image is not to be reproduced in any form without permission of Auckland City Libraries"
Which is kinda dumb, because we all just copied and reproduced it on our computer screens.
@Kyle
You can use the photo, you just have to find your own original.
So I can't go in and scan a copy myself? Surely, if the original is out of copyright that wouldn't be a problem ...
I frankly don't have a lot of patience with public archives getting pernickety over what happens to low-resolution images on websites. It's silly.
-
3410,
In much the same way that a photographer holds copyright over a photo taken of Mona Lisa.
But that would be a creative work. Don't know if just scanning something should really be considered as being in the same category.
-
Yes. It is officially No Fun to be at when this happens. If you were a savvy promoter, you'd charge everyone $5 or $10 more, and say "limited capacity" so people know that they will actually be able to see the stage.
They actually did this well at the MGMT shows at the Power Station -- it helped that they had three nights to play with. Shame the band weren't very good though ...
And I think this is the point -- it's the promoters doing this, taking advantage of the out-of-whack official capacity of the King's Arms, and not really the venue owners. Although to judge by the comments here, it's something that the owners need to think about before people stop coming to big shows there.
-
Steven Malkmus was moved from The Studio to the KA. Slow ticket sales maybe? Yeah - too packed, couldn't get to bar or loo. Stuck doen the back. Luckily I'm taller than most so could see the show, but it wasn't much fun anyway. Punters pushing past constantly to try to get to the bar/loo.
-
taking advantage of the out-of-whack official capacity of the King's Arms
Has anyone considered, you know, complaining to the bodies that actually set the capacity? Like the Council and/or the Fire Service?
What's been described previously sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, which is the whole point of restricting capacity in the first place. If people can barely move, that's a venue that's a panicked shout of "Fire" away from deaths by crushing/asphyxiation. -
Kyle, I know that international jurisprudence tends to require that there be at least a small degree of artistic intent in a reproduction for it to generate new copyright.
I'm not a lawyer, so I may be wrong, but Section 14 of the Act (don't you love legislation.govt.nz?) would seem pretty clearly to apply only to original works, and to exclude copies.
It's dickish behaviour all the same.
So is writing silly rules to shut down pubs and bars after an arbitrary limit. There are already rules about licensing, noise, behaviour of patrons, public drunkenness, rowdiness. To the extent that they are problems, they should be dealt with directly, and the powers that already exist should be used. This is a banhammer approach, rather than one that allows a middle ground. Luckily, there is time for it to be stopped.
-
What's been described previously sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, which is the whole point of restricting capacity in the first place. If people can barely move, that's a venue that's a panicked shout of "Fire" away from deaths by crushing/asphyxiation.
That's an issue of concern.
The difference between NZ and most of Australia is pretty significant in this respect. Here, the pubs and bars are often half entry and they're not letting more people in.
-
your friendly local elected representative back again...
Has anyone considered, you know, complaining to the bodies that actually set the capacity? Like the Council and/or the Fire Service?
What's been described previously sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, which is the whole point of restricting capacity in the first place. If people can barely move, that's a venue that's a panicked shout of "Fire" away from deaths by crushing/asphyxiation.There is something you can do. Some years back in response to just this very issue, pubs and the like were required to display publicly the maximum number of patrons allowed on the premises. If you have a look around venues, you should see something, usually next to the liquor licence.
If you think that there are more patrons than permitted then ring the fire service or police. Just ring. Tis better to be safe than sorry.
The only downside is that the show will be stopped while the situation is sorted. But on the upside, do that a few times and the venue will get the message and save everyone the bother by restricting patrons.
Mind, they need the money to pay the rent. So if they restrict, you could be paying a few bucks more for that beer. Grin and bear it. At least you are safe.
Whipping off hat...
-
They hold copyright over the version that they've scanned and put on the web site.
Kyle, I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.
Your interpretation would apply to, for example, a piece of music (a cover version, for example), because you are producing a work that has some originality - you've added originality to the existing work.
If the London Symphony Orchestra and the NY Symphony Orchestra both recorded separate versions of the collected works of Beethoven, both of those recordings would be copyright, despite the fact the copyright on the original sheet music expired several hundred years ago. So you couldn't copy the recordings without infringing copyright, but you could record your own version.
However, as has been pointed out, S14(2)(a) states: "a work is not original if it is...a copy of another work".
If it is a direct COPY (a scan), the amount of originality is zero.
On the other hand, a photograph of the photograph would have some originality - composition, lighting, etc - so it would be a copyright work in it's own right
-
So I can't go in and scan a copy myself? Surely, if the original is out of copyright that wouldn't be a problem ...
I frankly don't have a lot of patience with public archives getting pernickety over what happens to low-resolution images on websites. It's silly.
You can go in and scan a copy of the photo and then you hold copyright over that scan. You can then put it up on a web site and do what you like with it (as long as the original photo has no copyright over it).
But of course if the library holds the only copy of that photo, they're likely to put limits on what you can scan it for, so you'll have to pay a fee if you want it scanned for publishing purposes.
I'm not a lawyer, so I may be wrong, but Section 14 of the Act (don't you love legislation.govt.nz?) would seem pretty clearly to apply only to original works, and to exclude copies.
It's not a copy. The original is a photo. The image on the web site is published and therefore a new original. By scanning it and republishing it you have ownership of the derivative copyright.
In much the same way that you are on legally shaky ground if you scan a reproduction of the Mona Lisa and then try and sell it. the reproduction has a photographer and possibly publisher who have copyright over it. If you want to sell photos of the Mona Lisa, you need to take your own one.
But yes to Russell's gripe. It's often silly how restrictive these things are, particularly when the only copyright on the image is the one currently being applied by the library. The copyright on the original has now lapsed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.