Hard News: The file-sharing bill
340 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
but voting for it’s passage and/or adding insult to injury by getting rather coy about committing to repeal. Can’t have it both ways, sweeties.
To be fair, Curran has already said she'd recommend a repeal bill to her caucus if the government enacts the termination provisions.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Curran has already said she'd recommend a repeal bill to her caucus
I've seen that quoted in one article. One. Not said anywhere on her own thread on Labour's own blog despite repeated invitation to do so. And Curran supposedly has a comms background? Pffft
-
Sacha, in reply to
Is it? The distinction between bills that have been through the select committee process (the Copyright stuff) and bills that have been rammed through without (CERRA) seems important to me.
You're commenting about one theme of Dalziel's post (second sentence quoted below). I'm talking about the other (first sentence):
But don’t blame Labour for voting for an agreed compromise rather than letting the bill remain in the form it was in when introduced. And don’t use the fact that the remaining stages were passed under an urgency motion when it meant nothing more than extended siting hours.
I am certainly not holding Labour responsible for Natonal's use of urgency. What gets my goat are utterances like this:
I am mindful of the fact that Labour introduced the original s92A that required termination to be the end point of a negotiated protocol between the ISPs and the rights holders. The agreement wasn’t reached...
How hard is it to admit you got it wrong rather then distort matters so your hands seem clean? Integrity is an attractive quality.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
To be fair, Curran has already said she’d recommend a repeal bill to her caucus if the government enacts the termination provisions.
And I’m sure we’ll all be eagerly awaiting a clear, unambiguous statement of policy from Labour’s communications and IT spokeswoman before the election. Won’t we?
BTW, Russell, I do agree with you that this act is quite bad enough without the Orwellian hyperbole but believe me making a "recommendation" to caucus is a very long way from a solid policy commitment. And Curran knows it.
-
SHG,
Right-wing mouthpiece Idiot/Savant had this to say about Curran's "commitment":
'Forgive my suspicion, but we all know that “we’ll consider it” is soothing politician-speak for FOAD'
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
BTW, Russell, I do agree with you that this act is quite bad enough without the Orwellian hyperbole but believe me making a “recommendation” to caucus is a very long way from a solid policy commitment. And Curran knows it.
Yes, I’m sure she does know that.
The party has, since Curran got involved with the issue, formally and consistently opposed termination as a remedy. National appears to have insisted on it.
People might not agree with the compromise in getting termination made inactive in the bill as it was passed -- it's a matter of political taste -- but simply voting against it would have produced a worse result.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Right-wing mouthpiece Idiot/Savant...
Seriously I'm not sure my irony gland can handle this so early in the morning.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Not the filesharing bill, no. That's in the US position on TPPA.
Rick Shera has just confirmed for me that Russell is right about this.
Nothing on TPMs in new Act but under #TPPA breaking a TPM would count as a strike even if underlying material out of #copyright
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Rick Shera has just confirmed for me that Russell is right about this.
Nothing on TPMs in new Act but under #TPPA breaking a TPM would count as a strike even if underlying material out of #copyright
The US stance on TPPA would not only extinguish any fair-use rights to defeat a technical protection measure, it would protect a form of TPM – region coding – that has never been protected under NZ law (including the 2008 copyright amendment bill from which the file-sharing part was held back).
Pricks. But even that’s not in any draft – it’s just their extreme negotiating stance.
-
Good. Seems at least John Pagani has been given marching orders from Labour. More.
-
Lianne Dalziel seems to have given an answer in passing.
Essentially we couldn’t vote for Gareth’s amendments when we had agreed a compromise on the bill with the government.
-
Sacha, in reply to
John Pagani
Discussed by Danyl's commenters. Pagani even joins in:
But the hard issue for Labour is that pubic opinion iapproves of the Government’s direction. I’m not seeing your commenters engage with that , other than to assume it’s all because Labour hasn’t whacked the Government hard enough. I think it’s true that Labour could have attacked them harder, especially in the last couple of weeks when they inflicted a few of their own wounds just as National left some huge openings. But would that have changed the high approval ratings the government is getting? Not enough.
That’s not a comfortable position for the left to be in, but it’s one that has to be dealt with and no amount of abuse of me will change it.
Someone on talkback this morning argued, ‘All Labour has to do is ask “are you better off now than you were three years ago?”‘. Most people aren’t better off, and a few are much better off as a result of being looked after very well by the National Government. Why isn’t that a winning combo? Is it because Labour has done such a poor job of opposing – or is it because voters have given the Government a pass in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, earthquakes and relief that they haven’t launched another Mother of All Budgets?
Could we do beter at inspiring and motivating; and at managing our own stuff? Absolutely. We can do better at selling our values as well. But is that a satisfactory explanation for the state of the polls? Only in a world where we pretend voters want exactly what DimPost commenters want. But that is not the real world.
-
Just gets better. Pagani posts a response at his own blog titled "Does replying to trolls only encourage them?".
Danyl also posted "The blogger’s reply to the strategist" earlier, but his other thread seems better.
-
You should see Pagani's twitter feed. Does he realise other people can read what he's writing ?
Pagani also had a crack at me in his post. At the risk of linkwhoring here's my exasperated response.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Pagani's twitter feed
Had to agree with you that his punchline was jawdrop genius:
If only I could silence them.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Pagani also had a crack at me in his post. At the risk of linkwhoring here’s my exasperated response.
We do not have this “linkwhoring” concept here. I find it kind of silly. If you wrote something you think is interesting, link away.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Just gets better. Pagani posts a response at his own blog titled “Does replying to trolls only encourage them?”.
Well, John, until a few short weeks ago (apparently) you were a senior advisor to the leader of the Opposition in our House of Representatives -- and I presume you weren't working pro bono or getting paid by the Labour Party.
When any critique of our elected representatives is dismissed as "trolling", the term is meaningless and someone needs a long spell on the political naughty step until they get their heads around the concept of representative democracy.
-
Audrey Young is a tad confused.
Apparently Labour's craven behaviour over CERA and suchlike is *not* evidence that they have been following Pagani's advice for the last 20 months while he has been Goff's main comms advisor.
If Pagani has been giving such advice they haven't been listening. If they had been listening, Pagani might not be a former adviser.
Uh huh. She also somehow convinces herself that Trotter's advocacy of moving away from identity politics towards appealing to the 'Waitakere Man' is somehow a shift to the left.
At first glance, Pagani and Trotter would be appear to be on opposite sides of the argument - given that Trotter is calling for a hard left turn. But actually their respective cases have a common theme: both are arguing that Labour is making a hash of connecting with people.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Labour is making a hash of connecting with people.
It surely is that.
To quote an FB exchange with my brother yesterday:Brother - "I would really like the [Labour] Party to actually stand for something other than being re-elected" - Dimpost comments section.
Me - Even if that's all it stands for, it's still doing a really fucking shit job of standing for it!
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Apparently Labour’s craven behaviour over CERA and suchlike is *not* evidence that they have been following Pagani’s advice for the last 20 months while he has been Goff’s main comms advisor.
I think Pagani's stuff is extremely ropey, but I can also see the argument that Labour would be making a rod for its own back by voting against CERA. It would not have stopped the bill.
What Labour should do now is emphasise its Christchurch MPs' connection with the city -- Dalziel, Dyson and Burns have been impressive, and they're the ones who can credibly say "This is what we warned of, this is what our amendments were design to prevent. But the government doesn't care about what Christchurch people think about Christchurch. It doesn't know what it's doing."
In other words, make CERA a rod for National's own back.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
Perhaps you should be the new adviser, Russell?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
They were at their best keeping in touch when Mike Munro was handling communications. Once he left for a private sector job, those who replaced him didn't quite fill his shoes.
-
Sacha, in reply to
What Labour should do now is emphasise its Christchurch MPs' connection with the city
Coherent, well-crafted communication would be useful, yes
-
3410,
It would not have stopped the bill.
I keep hearing this argument, but I just do not get it.
For starters, if ever that were not the case, the govt. would therefore no longer have the confidence of the House and would have to call an election.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
For starters, if ever that were not the case, the govt. would therefore no longer have the confidence of the House and would have to call an election.
uh, no. Only if the government fails to get a majority on a confidence or supply motion is that true. It's possible (and has happened) for the government to fail to pass legislation without bringing about an election.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.