Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Sam Durbin,
That’s always been the case – Sky et al have been saying from the get go that it’s not about what people do with their internets at home, it’s about clarifying the rules of the game and therefore the true value of the exclusive rights that all those players have paid for.
The problem is they can’t ignore the actions of NZ-based players as they are the ones who have forced the issue by actively promoting and profiting from such a service. Either way, them and the content owners overseas will be involved when this gets to court.
But it's Netflix (and others) that are breaching their contracts by selling content to users they are not permitted to sell to. Lightbox et al should be forcing the content owners to enforce their exclusive rights. It's simply a contract dispute between Lightbox and the content owners (and possibly Netflix). The "rules of the game" are quite clear: Netflix is infringing copyright by allowing NZers to see content via the US service that Netflix are not permitted to show them. The ISPs have nothing to do with it (at least nothing beyond the existing argument that the contribute to all online copyright infringment).
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
That says to me that they, at least, don’t really care very much about where their customers are.
Why would they? As with any unencumbered business they're happy to sell to anyone. The only reason they even do geoblocking is because the content owners force them to. But they're also big enough that they can get away with a token effort and the content owners don't press the issue.
Which gets back to the point Bill made: the issue here is that the content owners are not providing Lightbox the exclusivity they promised, but Lightbox are unable or unwilling to try to enforce the contact they signed. Instead Lightbox et al are attacking a softer local target and that looks very much like an attack on the consumer. It's telling that Kym wrote 1400 words defending their action and yet failed to address this point.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Mike O'Connell,
From what I understand, should the ball strike any object in the field of play (e.g. a spare fielding helmet behind the keeper – and I have seen this happen), then five runs is signalled (though not sure if players then swap ends for the odd number).
What happens if e.g., it strikes something above – a bird or a wire – or a drone (that will happen sooner or later) I’m less sure – dead ball I think.
I noticed Steyn had a ‘sand castle’ by his run-up start. If a straight drive had clipped that, I wonder if a five would have awarded?
The 5 runs for hitting a spare fielding helmet are penalty runs. They are awarded because the fielding team was responsible with the interfering object. I'm not sure that the laws permit the same penalty to be applied if the ball hits a bowlers sand pile. I suspect that ball would remain live just as it does if it hits an umpire.
If a ball hit an obstacle that wasn't left by a fielder (e.g. a bottle thrown by the crowd, a bird on the field, or a flying drone) it would be up to the playing conditions the umpires had decided before the game. It could remain live or be ruled a dead ball. Similarly a wire could count as part of the boundary (so a six) or result in a dead ball, depending on what was decided before the game.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Bart Janssen,
So I’m a grumpy old man now, with the classic grumpy old man trait of loving test cricket more than the one day game. I’ll even argue long and loud (especially with wine in hand) that ODIs are a thing of the past now that we have twenty 20 …
I must be an even grumpier old man as while I too prefer Tests, I also prefer ODIs to Twenty20s. As someone on twitter pointed out, ODIs have a lot more scope for recovering from a losing position than Twenty20s do. I also think the powerplay rules have eliminated most of the tediousness than ODIs have been accused of in the past.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to simon g,
The basic rule of sports-nationalism is that you don’t get to win a lot and be loved. The Australian cricket team is pretty unlovable, as are (to many non-New Zealanders) the All Blacks.
I don't think that’s universally true. The great West Indian sides of the 70’s and 80’s commanded both respect and fear, and they were also loved by fans around the world. The Australians have been at times too, e.g. under Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor they were not as disliked as they are now despite being more successful. But this team are disliked not (just) for their ability and success but because they are seen as arrogant and uncouth. I don’t respect them at all because they don’t respect anyone but themselves.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to ,
I could understand the part when the referees where checking to see if the ball had hit the camera wire. Is it not actualy a catch, if the ball touches an obstacle, without exception? what if the ball hits the Tellevision drone?
I'm not sure what the playing conditions in this case actually were (and they didn't say in the coverage so I'm picking the commentators didn't know either), but it is common for the ball to be ruled as dead if it hits an obstruction in the field of play. This is the case, for example, at Ethihad Stadium if the ball hits the roof when the roof is closed. So presumably if it hit the wire or the drone, it would have been a dead ball, no runs could be scored and it would have been not out.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Paul Williams,
Sometimes I wonder if Kiwis have more of an issue with Aussies than vice versa.
Having lived in Sydney, I think that's definitely true. And I think the feeling here in NZ is fed by a perception that Australia dismisses and ignores NZ to a degree.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Jimmy Southgate,
One of the best things about the game was that it appeared to be conducted by two teams who have little time for this sort of attitude:
“Sledging inevitable in Cup semi-final – Faulkner”
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/854317.htmlSee also I'll sledge India if David Warner won't, says Australian fast bowler Mitchell Johnson.
The Australian team really do strike me as a bunch of arseholes, and that's why I'll be supporting India.
-
Hard News: Villainy and engagement, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Right. I wasn't really expecting them to apologise, though it would have been the smart thing to do. I was more stuck by how much of the media were treating their statements as apologies when they clearly weren't.
-
Hard News: Villainy and engagement, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Even if what they said was scripted, they still said it. They are the ones that did the bullying, and caused the hurt. They should be the first to apologise, whether or not others are also culpable. "I was just following orders" really doesn't excuse their behaviour.