Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
David, that sentence was poorly-worded on my part. What I meant was, I sought no permission for the quotes. The entire thing is factual, and the only example I used that he didn't was Lolcats. There are a number of people in this thread who were also present at the talk, and can verify that. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, I endorse his position. It's very close to my own. But I wrote that as an observer, not a supporter. And I still hold the copyright in that work, have not in any way released any rights to PAS (except to reproduce it, and I'd indicated the formatting choices that I desired when I sent it to Russell), and do actually object to the hypocrisy label. If one cannot discuss the flaws in copyright except on sites that operate under CC, one has extremely limited venues in which to try and make any kind of statement.
But, if it'll make you happy, and since you do raise a valid point, I'm stating here that the column is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial licence.
-
That's what pisses me off about Labour the most. For all their progression, they've glossed over and failed to contain what has been a glaringly obvious problem for years
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. You're complaining that they did "nothing", but if they'd done things in keeping with the allegations that fly from the fingers of Farrar and Slater you'd probably be bitching just as loudly that they're nanny-statists, interfering in the free choice of the population to spend its non-money as it sees fit. And even if not you, many, many others.
-
Not sure of the Science but it is said that Labour Governments have introduced change especially including social policies but National Governments seldom do.
Social change almost invariably comes from Labour (or similar) governments. 40-hour working week, welfare state, homosexual law reform, abolition of the death penalty (for treason, and for everything else), civil unions, etc. Not a one of these fundamental changes to our social fabric came under National. Hell, there are still MPs in the House who voted against the Death Penalty Repeal Bill in 1989, and the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986, while members of the National Party.
-
David: what?!
I'm advocating nothing. It's a report, not an opinion piece. Could you point to where, anywhere, in that column I have advocated for any position?Also, that PAS wishes to exercise its copyright in the site layout (which is what that copyright statement means) has no bearing on the copyright in any of the comments on this site that don't come from paid contributors. I have not received, nor been offered, any payment for this work, so the copyright in the article remains mine. Similarly all user comment has copyright vesting in the author. That's the law. Why should I not be free to publish my work where and when I see fit? I've not stated any kind of licence on that work, so how you infer that somehow I'm being hypocritical in reporting Professor Lessig's views is beyond me.
-
Oh, also, Stanford has only one d.
Whoops. Typo on my part. That bit was written late at night, and I also blame my sub-editor for failing to pick up on it :P
Can you fix that please, Russell.
-
What's the problem? This is like whinging that George Clooney won't turn up in your film for cheap.
That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.
And if it costs too much, don't pay. That's the free market for you.
It's possible to make a movie without George Clooney being in it. One can make a perfectly adequate movie without having to resort to recognised talent. Though, if it's on a topic that's of interest to him, you may well find that he'll produce it for you and charge a very low appearance fee. Look at Thank You and Goodnight. So you could've picked a better example for your strawman.
However, that doesn't hold for this kind of movie. If you're making an historic record, with era-appropriate soundtrack, you are distinctly limited in your choices for music. It's all already been made, and you can't just go out and get your mates' garage band to record a cover for you in order to get around the copyright. So your choices are pay the exorbitant fee, or don't make the movie at all. There is no middle ground. Ergo, copyright blocks expression because an 1800-fold increase in the cost of your movie just to comply is so extortionate as to be an effective prohibition. How does society benefit from that?
-
My major gripe is that the incumbent government has done nothing to warn people that their borrowings are funded offshore and the implications of that when it all turns to custard
What makes you think that would've made the slightest bit of difference? Bollard sounded alarm bells for a long time before it all went to shit, and nothing changed. The collapse of the housing bubble was thoroughly forecast, but people still acted like it was the unforeseen demise of some kind of natural right to ever-rising house prices when it actually occurred.
The Government should stay the fuck out of how people spend their money. Directing private-sector spending is otherwise known as communism, and as much as that charge is levelled at Labour they are very definitely not communists.
-
Man, this is nuts. The results haven't even started coming in yet and we're already nearing 100 posts in this thread!
-
I think the campaign against repeal of Section 59 did for it. They became ridiculous in the eyes of mainstream New Zealanders
Oh really? There are a lot of people out there who view the s59 repeal as a case of pure social meddling, thoroughly ignorant of the kinds of abuses that were being perpetrated with impunity because of its defence. Try and explain, and they start the "But the law change hasn't ended abuse" line. Well, fucking d'uh!
I wouldn't put s59 down as the demise of Christian fundy-ism here. Too many people out there want s59 gone, and don't give a damn about why it was introduced. They don't beat their kids, so why would it be necessary to change the law? My feeling is that it's more things like the CUB that have worn down the welcome of the fundies. Society hasn't imploded through this "alternative marriage". That the CUB has been pretty much a total non-event in terms of social demise, despite the dire predictions, assists the fundies not in the slightest.
-
"We don't want our people just working in factories", said Tuigamala. "We want them starting to own those factories."
Yeah, like seizing the means of production. I always knew National were closet Marxists ;-)Yeah, I had the same thought when I read that this morning. Absolutely classic Freudian slip.