christianity

cool as ad

To put things very simply. If you have two students, and one is significantly better than the other, but you give all props and resources to the worse student;

1 the better student is going to start questioning their own judgement

2 they will give up

Putting the promotion of nationalism and political interference ahead of the nurturing of talent will promote nationalism and a stronger sense of political identity.

Within the competitive environment. Will introducing a greater number of lesser accolades enhance the race for the top prize?

perhaps.

depending on the assessment criteria.

If the criteria to win lesser accolades conflicts with the criteria to achieve the highest accolade, will the competition be enhanced?

If a government is willing to introduce policy to interfere with a cultural field regardless of the tastes of the majority at the time of introduction. Then what are the underlying motives?

Why do we want to see more of New Zealand on Air?

If New Zealand on air was established to overcome the cultural cringe, is the underlying psychological 'cringe' condition in anyway related to the inability of certain NZOA members to consistently select music featuring the New Zealand accent?

Should NZOA panelists be tested for the cringe and If they suffer from the cringe, should they be disbarred?

projecting the music visually always works

started working again...

you got that right MV, when it gets to the point where even a goody two shoes like ms yee is on the wrong side of the law, then they may as well just call it a day. I reckon if JY's (who claims to have attended church at easter) leisure activities are criminal then you can bet your gran's false teeth that about 90% of the rest of the people are also guilty of some infringement, it's like doctoring the rules of football so that everyone on field except the goalies are stuck offside at the behest of a sponsor or two. when you've got basically the whole country guilty of some crime or other, then you may as well change your name to Australia.

‘‘81A Copying sound recording for (private and domestic use) 25
personal use
‘‘(1) Copyright in a sound recording and in a literary or musical
work contained in it is not infringed by copying the sound
recording, if the following conditions are met:
25
Copyright (New Technologies (and
Part 1 cl 44 Performers’ Rights)) Amendment
New (unanimous)
‘‘(aa) the sound recording is not a communication work or
part of a communication work; and
‘‘(a) the copy is made from a sound recording that is not an
infringing copy; and
‘‘(b) the sound recording is not borrowed or hired; and 5
‘‘(c) the copy is made by the owner of the sound recording;
and
‘‘(d) (the)that owner acquired the sound recording legitimately;
and
‘‘(e) the copy is used only for that owner’s (private and 10
domestic use) personal use or the personal use of a
member of the household in which the owner lives or
both; and
‘‘(f) no more than 1 copy is made for each (type of) device
for playing sound recordings that is owned by the owner 15
of the sound recording; and
‘‘(g) the owner of the sound recording retains the ownership
of both the sound recording and of any copy that is
made under this section.
‘‘(2) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if the 20
owner of the sound recording is bound by a contract that
specifies the circumstances in which the sound recording may
be copied.

use your noggin

register a new name, new email address req

If I may quote Judith Tizard the Associate Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister, who, deputising for the prime minister at the launch of NZMUSIC month at Wellington bar Matterhorn, leapt at the chance to join Knox on stage, was unfamiliar with the lyrics - and later struggled to complete The Dominion Post's 10 multiple-choice questions about Kiwi music. When told she had answered only four of the questions correctly, she said: "I don't know the details, honey; I just write the policy and ask for the money."

http://stuff.co.nz/4505629a6000.html

it's the lack of black and gray. white just burns our monitors out. looking forward to hearing those mixes ILTC

well if the law was as reasonable as you mindvandal, i'd have nothing to mutter about in the corner, and heck, s'not like this is a new element of the law. or maybe it is. now you can make one copy on each format and not let it leave the house.

thing i don't understand is, if someone steals your CD collection, then it's illegal for you to retain the copies(on various formats) ....?

i read the whole legislation and not once did they use the term 'mixtape'. not even a slight parenthesized hint, what absolute fudgeknuckles. instead they wasted a whole house of ink on the rules for what can be legimately played in prisons. 有用. Couldn't find dash all about sampling....I'm sure someone's got links to someone who could read it better than me, but once again, where have all the experts gone....

ok, while not quite in the same league as joanna, but still today, on blog via fairfax, we see none other than jane yee, openly flouting copyright law. I know what you're saying mindvandal, she should be more responsible, but hey....

http://stuff.co.nz//blogs/girlsguide/2008/04/28/michaels-and-mixtapes/

go jane yee, you are badass no. 2

thanks for your thoughts mindvandal, although I am a little miffed that you're implying almost everyone I've ever met's a thief.
bring back joanna and the mixtape club!

Doesn't shit like this strike you as even a little strange? that if you buy a cd, and copy it onto your computer once, then you're innocent. but if you forget you've copied it onto your computer and have two instances of that file on your computer then you've broken the law? But if you take the harddrive with the second instance out of your computer then you're innocent again?

?

people will continue to share music. People have been sharing music forever. the issue is not sharing music, the issue is sharing too much music. The government hasn't introduced legislation that will effectively ensure that even 25% of the income lost from sharing will make it to the copyright holders.

noone is getting hurt, stabbed, nuked....much. And I do hear what you're saying about copyright mindvandal, very few people are sharing production line standard versions of the copyright material.
it's inferior quality. your suggesting taxing the court system. the police, the prisons, the parole boards, without ensuring the flow of revenue.

this is money poorly spent, it begs the question as to why NZ has been pumping money into music for the last 15 years when those MPs on 130k a head can't even figure out a way to help those artists mine the filesharing market.
new zealand is smarter than that.

"65. Subtlety
The ancients did not seek to rule people with knowledge,
But to help them become natural.

It is difficult for knowledgeable people to become natural;
So to use law to control a nation weakens the nation,
But to use nature to control a nation strengthens the nation.

Understanding these two paths is understanding subtlety;
Subtlety runs deep, ranges wide,
Resolves confusion and preserves peace."

live in the same 'household' as someone with a good music collection and you've got no worries.

It's a cool way to live harshbloke, test it. very inspiring.

moved to australia

will check it out,
just watched battle for haditha which was one of the better antiwar movies i've seen
Looking forward to Indiana Jones 4 and Batman

what about the artists?

1-Cynthia Robinson, best known for being the trumpeter in the popular and influential psychedelic soul/funk band Sly & the Family Stone. sold X million records, reported in grand royal magazine 1997 to unable to afford to get her car repaired

2- Prince In 1993, during negotiations regarding the release of Prince's album The Gold Experience, a legal battle ensued between Warner Bros. and Prince over the artistic and financial control of Prince's output. During the lawsuit, Prince appeared in public with the word "slave" written on his cheek. Prince explained his name change as follows:

The first step I have taken towards the ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains that bind me to Warner Bros. was to change my name from Prince to the Love Symbol. Prince is the name that my Mother gave me at birth. Warner Bros. took the name, trademarked it, and used it as the main marketing tool to promote all of the music that I wrote. The company owns the name Prince and all related music marketed under Prince. I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros.… I was born Prince and did not want to adopt another conventional name. The only acceptable replacement for my name, and my identity, was the Love Symbol, a symbol with no pronunciation, that is a representation of me and what my music is about. This symbol is present in my work over the years; it is a concept that has evolved from my frustration; it is who I am. It is my name.

3- radiohead 2007-Radiohead left original record label EMI because the company would not pay agree to a deal worth £10 million.

4- george michael -London's High Court threw the case out in 1994, saying that Sony had acted properly and that the contract was "reasonable and fair." No financial details were given, but the industry magazine Music Week has said Sony could be in line for a $40 million release fee, $30 million for a "Greatest Hits" album and a 4 percent royalty on future recordings.

5- Madonna 2004 "I find myself in the ludicrous position of being sued by my own record company," Madonna said in a statement, "whom I have been loyal, industrious and reliable to for over 20 years. For them to behave this way is nothing short of treason.

etc

generally people give respect where it's due, the recent radiohead example is a good one.
but mindvandal, the artists i listen to are mostly dead.
what it seems you're saying is that the artists shouldn't get paid, the labels shouldn't get paid, things should continue as they are where millions of people share files, and the government can pay lipservice to the industry, deleting files, closing internet connections but not actually giving the copyright holders what is due, based on the argument that:

both artists and labels should lose income, until habits just change to fit this criteria of personal responsiblity.

unlikely

it's nothing like saying it's ok to nuke people,
for me, i feel it's like saying if you manufacture weapons and they kill people then you should help to pay reparations.

like you say
it is illegal.
and the government has just passed new laws
that will bring that money no closer to the copyright holders.

reply received from Ministerial Office of the Prime Minister:

"Thank you for your e-mail message. It is difficult to respond to
the many e-mail messages received. We do however read
everything that is sent and if a unique issue has been raised or
new information presented we will respond as soon as possible.

Dinah Okeby
Private Secretary"

"it's the work itself that's copyrighted. Meaning all replication of the work."

yeah that's the thing that gets me. see i never had alot of money growing up, couldn't afford to buy many albums, often borrowed tapes or copies of tapes, duff mckagen said it's ok to do it to their album so i never really questioned the morality.

this wasn't really an issue, maybe in the states, but not in new zealand. since napster things changed, but people are still buying music. over the time in which the technology has been developed to copy files, so has the technology to dramatically lower the costs of music and more so film production. there must be some equation there.

secondly. people were already doing it, without the technology. forever. copying, we don't develop the technology. and it's the people who did, who should pay for the result.
computer manufacturers
should be taxed
to pay for the free music of the world
or internet providers
because i'm tired of the fact that this has to come down to people on a personal level, our personal responsibility, not to do what seems completely natural.

i don't care who carries that cost
as long as it's not individual citizens
let the government just negotiate a tax with the few major companies and cut the walkless bolshi talk pretending it's not completely normal everyday free western habit.
because hearing a song and sending it your buddy, is the most natural thing in the world
everyone does it
it may cut down profits for copyright holders
so why don't governments take some responsibility
for the widespread ripping off of copyrights throughout the world
for the widespread permeations of the natural instinct and behaviour of the country they govern?
for not educating their citizens better?
for allowing microsoft to deliver their messenger live with it's sharing folders?
for allowing internet providers to profit off $100s of dollars of internet file sharing?
for allowing companies like Sony to sell music reproduction technology and also to complain about people sharing their copyrights? then to sign up new zealand artists to pay off albums they manufacture and manufacture the cds to copy onto and manufacture the cd writer to copy using?
that's just a burden on the system
but they'll say it's a different branch of the company
tax these corporations
and been done with it
instead of spying on us
mrs Clark
and using their market straddles as an excuse to spy on nz
and any other random excuse to spy on nz

and underselling our value as listeners and connoisseurs of culture.

why keep writing legislation to burden a nation by criminalizing yet another natural human behaviour on an individual level, instead of finding a way out of that?
why not at least look for a real solution for a change?

don't want to turn the country's internet system into a library?
pay the majors in bulk, something reasonable, taxed from the facilitators so that police, judges and ambulances don't have to get involved.

too pricey?
the current law blames 7 year olds who copy something for a friend -criminal. 5! that's pricey.

it's the record companies greed vs a realistic outcome vs government accountability for the people's freedoms

the nz government seems intent on protecting the rights of these corporations, so they should be up front to them: admit there's nothing they can do to completely stamp it out, absolutely no crime prevention strategy and without undermining traditional cultural values and wasting precious justice system resources and twisting the screws a little tighter on natural disposition, pay the music industry mafia off for the trouble. protect copyright! protect consumers who brought their digital products in the knowledge that this kind of thing is pretty common and pretty natural and pretty safe

new zealand- 'the encyclopedia of internet sharedness.'
with super lazy politicians

or if that's too much of a stretch,
at least work the economy so shit like food is affordable

the lipservice. © copyright 2008.