Random Rants

Gotta say, I agree with Richard Long.

Self Defence should be something we're entitled to. Criminals have far too many rights!

Alfie's not the Dad - I bet hes pleased.

I bet he's far less pleased at the news that his girl has apparrently slept with 'half a dozen' different boys... ?

At least we don't have a 12 year old dad on our hands... but we do apparently have a 14-15 year old 'slut' of a girl... ?! (I bet HER family are pleased with that most public revelation too!!)

NBR (Among others) is reporting that Section 92A is to be dropped.

However the 'Replacement' will be of concern; one can only hope Government gets input from all relevant areas... not just a small group of biased rights-holders and their representatives.. !

However big kudos to all involved in petitioning the Government on this issue... it likely made all the difference.

[edit: Stuff.co.nz demonstrating Geek FAIL. Clap. Clap. Clap.]

[more edit: NZOSS Press Release which I agree with also.]

Now an Australian Study gets to confirm what most of us have known for a bloody long time.

Driving while wearing headphones is _dangerous_!!!

Now if only people would pay attention?

I'd just like to say:

I Agree.

I also agree.

Facebook. Stupid.

Auckland District Law Society are urging caution as regards Section 92A.

Google are against..

United Video are at first glance, for the change. However if you read between the lines:


"I trust this submission helps shed some light on the rental industry in New
Zealand and the far reaching effects this legislation could have in either
supporting us if passed, or destroying us if it is quashed. The need
therefore for a code which is acceptable to all parties is imperative and hope
the ongoing dialogue between Rights Holders and ISP’s produces such a
Code."

So... whilst there's some definate application of the law that's of benefit to say, a Video rental outfit, they're actually looking for a code which is 'acceptable to all parties'. Perhaps United Video havn't noticed the objections by such a large number of parties... ?
Their message would appear to be quite confused in that stake. Or doesn't 'all parties' include artists and innocent members of the public clobbered by poorly written legislation?

Even more amusing was their earlier paragraph, describing themselves as "the gatekeepers of entertainment technology as it reaches the rental marketplace" and they "as being a real link between the producers ofthe product and the end consumer." (which makes me laugh/choke/cry).

Brendas Tally is quite telling in itself.

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/whataboutus.html is worth a look - especially the videos.

Currently pondering whether I can justify making one myself. ;-)

After noticing last night that there were problems loading a clip of Rock Band playing at a friends Birthday do that I had put on Youtube recently, I went Googling and found out that this isn't isolated.

rockbandcontent.com and The Playstation Message Board cite examples and there's even some (poorly visited/supported) Online Petitions on the subject.

That whole situ strikes me as absolutely rediculous... the label has licensed the Rock Band authors to use the tracks, and people are recording their successes/failures/ENJOYMENT of these for non-profit use. 'Fair Use' would definately seem to apply in the majority of cases.

That was silly enough, IMHO.
Then this morning Brenda posted a boingbong.net article citing cases where videos of peoples babies interacting with music have been taken down...!

Surely everyone can see how utterly rediculous that is?!?!?

Syndicate content