Clocking up the royalties

190 comments on “Clocking up the royalties ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gruela 1

   29 November 2007 at 6:12 pm

   I tried to email their management to confirm the royalties were paid, but I couldn’t find them. Apparently Coldplay have just ditched their long-term manager and hooked up with a guy called Dave Holmes at 3-D Management. Maybe someone else would have more luck.
2. dave 2

   29 November 2007 at 6:41 pm

   Never Mind, heres what Labour would have chosen on its DVD…. Fix You

   When you try your best but you don’t succeed
   When you get what you want but not what you need
   When you feel so tired but you can’t sleep
   Stuck in reverse
3. Matthew Pilott 3

   29 November 2007 at 6:41 pm

   I do wonder if they used one of those pseudo-tracks that have been mentioned. I quite dilike them. Spooks, and numerous other pogrammes ripped of Massive Attack’s Angel. A travesty, given the pure genius of that song. Credit where credit’s due!

   If so, it’s basically IP theft, albeit legalised. I accept that there is a point where IP has to stop with regards to a particular tune, but to deliberately simulate it, with just enough difference to avoid royalties ain’t cricket…

   Gruela – keep us updated, if you will, it would be interesting to know (Regardless of the subject matter, it’s always intrigued me what sum is due for such royalties…) Cheers 🙂
4. Ben Marshall 4

   29 November 2007 at 6:44 pm

   Ok well I know Coldplay and that song is not Clocks. What the hell are you people on?
5. Leftie 5

   29 November 2007 at 6:58 pm

   I quite liked Coldplay until now.
6. Lee C 6

   29 November 2007 at 7:18 pm

   But…Tane ….(read my lips: because evidently you are hard of hearing;) IT IS NOT COLDPLAY!!!!

   All you are doing is promoting Key’s DVD by encouraging people to go and listen to the soundtrack, you fool.
7. Lampie 7

   29 November 2007 at 7:21 pm

   All you are doing is promoting Key’s DVD by encouraging people to go and listen to the soundtrack, you fool.

   he’s on commission
8. Gruela 8

   29 November 2007 at 7:22 pm

   Lee

   Yes, but is it Coldplay?
9. Dean 9

   29 November 2007 at 7:42 pm

   It’s not Coldplay.

   It’s very similar to Coldplay’s style, but then so are many bands nowadays.

   Seriously, guys. If you’re going to get worked up by something, make sure you have the facts first.
10. burt 10

    29 November 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Is there anybody else who is starting to think ‘The Standard’ is a parody site with a sole purpose of helping to raise political awareness of John Key and get as many people as possible to watch his promotional DVD?
11. Leftie 11

    29 November 2007 at 7:55 pm

    Handy tool that copy and paste aye Burt.
12. Dean 12

    29 November 2007 at 8:03 pm

    Leftie, cut and paste is awesome. For instance:

    “Tax cuts are a very sort of blunt weapon to redistribute income”

    That’s not even to mention what Cullen and Clarke have had to say on the subject, because that would embarass certain people even further.

    The point still stands. If you’re going to make fun of something, make sure you have your facts straight first. You could pull a Jordan Carter and claim it was an “experiment” after the fact of course, but noone in any corner of the political spectrum believes that kind of nonsense for even a second.

    It’s not coldplay. But hey, let’s make a big deal about it anyway.
13. burt 13

    29 November 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Leftie

    It’s OK that Labour stole $800K of tax payers money a month or two out from an election then passed retrospective laws to validate it. Jolly good job – the ends justifies the means.

    BUT OH MY GOD – The National party spent way less than 10% of that of their own money at a time when an election date has not even been set and the sky is falling !

    Ha ha ha ha ha – You guys are classic. Keep up the PR for National, you are saving them tens of thousands of $$$$.
14. burt 14

    29 November 2007 at 8:38 pm

    Leftie

    I quite liked Coldplay until now.

    Handy tool that copy and paste aye Burt.

    Your contribution to this thread is …. laughable.
15. Leftie 15

    29 November 2007 at 8:42 pm

    echo echo echo…
    Maybe you guys could tell me about the price of fish in China now?
16. Luke 16

    29 November 2007 at 8:44 pm

    As well as not letting many comments be seen they didn’t seem to want to accept my video as a response.
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=RhGaHWoogSU
    I’m not really suprised though, they want to hide these comments.
    It’s a work in progress by the way.
17. Alex Freeman 17

    29 November 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Burt all your contributions to all blog threads are just as laughable, though I feel sorry for you most of the time.
18. burt 18

    29 November 2007 at 8:49 pm

    Alex Freeman

    So shooting the messenger is your MO as well then ?
19. The Prophet 19

    29 November 2007 at 8:57 pm

    Ah Tane Did you have permission to alter and then publish the header photo of this post?

    I’m fairly sure it will be under copyright.

    I hope so, I just sent a link to Coldplay’s NEW management co.
20. Gruela 20

    29 November 2007 at 8:58 pm

    burt et al

    I don’t understand why you don’t think John Key’s dvd is a legitimate and worthwhile topic of discussion for a Labour blog.

    It was an expensive and lame piece of political propaganda. So when did poking fun at our politicians’ attempts to woo votes not become fun for the whole family?

    Maybe the Standard has to concentrate more attention on the dvd than it deserves because National refuses to release any relevant details about actual policy?

    I do have to say that at least Don Brash had the courage to stand up and express his own convictions, (misguided though I think they were.) You knew what sort of policies he supported. Ditto for Helen Clark.

    John Key seems intent hiding his own beliefs. The man has no substance. He will say whatever he thinks the voters want to hear, without confining himself to any set policy or political philosophy. What kind of man is he?
21. redbus 21

    29 November 2007 at 9:08 pm

    “…Clarke…”
    – How is it that you can’t spell the surname of the Prime Minster? It’s been eight years!
22. burt 22

    29 November 2007 at 9:27 pm

    Gruela

    The sub standard (that was a good name of yours) is welcome to continue publishing threads about John Key as much as they like. Yes it’s fun.

    That’s not to say I shouldn’t get my fun by pointing out to them that they are on one level scoring a home goal. Others might have a genuine concern that ‘the standard’ is helping to promote John Key, but I won’t second guess their motives. Who knows, these might even be the same people who have been pointing out that the EFB will be bad news for Labour come election time. They may be right, they may be wrong. – They sure get told to F-Off a lot and one day they might. Ignorance will be bliss in a time of zero audible resistance.

    As for policy, come on, one example: From denigrating tory charity to discussions on automatic deductions through the tax system in less than a year! What’s that election date again?

    captcha: “Minister protecting” Very descriptive.
23. burt 23

    29 November 2007 at 9:35 pm

    redbus

    Eight taxing years – are we there yet?
24. djp 24

    29 November 2007 at 9:41 pm

    This seems like a new low for the standard….

    seriously the feigned concern you guys put on is laughable
25. chance 25

    29 November 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Tane’s short-term memory must be playing up. He had it repeatedly explained to him yesterday that it’s a completely different tune that is vaguely in the style of Coldplay: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/electoral_finance_bill_marches.html

    and even appears to accept it:

    Tane Says:
    November 28th, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    Hey Pascal, you’re in the industry you might be able to help me with this – if the song is not Clocks and National had to get it made from scratch what would the production costs on something like that be?

    But now, it’s Coldplay again! Because tone-deaf Tane says so apparently.
26. Gruela 26

    29 November 2007 at 9:56 pm

    burt

    I can’t fault your reasoning.

    What’s the ‘denigrating tory charity’ about? I must have missed that one.
27. Pascal's bookie 27

    29 November 2007 at 9:57 pm

    Gruela

    John Key seems intent hiding his own beliefs. The man has no substance. He will say whatever he thinks the voters want to hear, without confining himself to any set policy or political philosophy. What kind of man is he?

    He’s a real nowhere Man,
    Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
    Making all his nowhere plans
    for nobody.

    Doesn’t have a point of view,
    Knows not where he’s going to,
    Isn’t he a bit like you and me?
    Nowhere Man, please listen,
    You don’t know what you’re missing,
    Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.

    He’s as blind as he can be,
    Just sees what he wants to see,
    Nowhere Man can you see me at all?

    Nowhere Man, don’t worry,
    Take your time, don’t hurry,
    Leave it all till somebody else
    lends you a hand.

    Doesn’t have a point of view,
    Knows not where he’s going to,
    Isn’t he a bit like you and me?

    He’s a real Nowhere Man,
    Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
    Making all his nowhere plans
    for nobody.
    Making all his nowhere plans
    for nobody.
28. The Double Standard 28

    29 November 2007 at 10:04 pm

    “But now, it’s Coldplay again! Because tone-deaf Tane says so apparently.”

    No – just because it makes a good lie to propagate. Typical classist fuck tactics from Tane.
29. The Double Standard 29

    29 November 2007 at 10:06 pm

    As I noted here, there is a Young Labour video on youtube that really does use “I See Red” by split enz. However they seem to have a mistaken impression that this a Labour support song – they probably should listen to the words!

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=767#comment-6252
30. Billy 30

    29 November 2007 at 10:07 pm

    John Key and Chris Martin have the same hairdo. Wonder if he paid a royalty for that.
31. burt 31

    29 November 2007 at 10:10 pm

    Gruela

    “denigrating tory charity’.

    Earlier this year National proposed a policy of making all charitable deductions tax deductible, it was part of their approach to helping “the under class” that Labour denied existed and now embraces. Labour denigrated the concept as a move to enable Nationals big business mates to get more tax deductions. ‘Not needed – we have excellent welfare!’ style of thing.

    Labour implemented the total tax deductibility (removing the $1,500 threshold) on charitable donations in the budget this year. ‘Fresh Labour policy’ would have probably been the catch cry had the standard been around at the time.

    Now about this Coldplay thing.

    It would seem normal that if the track is licensed from Coldplay there will be a copyright notice on the DVD cover and/or the credits on the movie. I didn’t see one, perhaps Tane can get his hands on a DVD and publish a picture of said copyright notice and settle this debate.
32. Wayne 32

    29 November 2007 at 10:41 pm

    I’m pretty certain Coldplay is used at least once in the DVD. Key definitely used it at the National Party conference.

    Questioning whether Key’s paid the royalties for this is a perfectly legitimate question for a leftwing site and it’s one that no one else is asking. Keep probing guys, there’s something fishy going on with this DVD.
33. Wayne 33

    29 November 2007 at 10:42 pm

    For the person who asked about copyright for the image it’s satire. That means it’s fair use. Next please…
34. Benodic 34

    29 November 2007 at 10:44 pm

    John Key and Chris Martin have the same hairdo.

    Chris Martin has more hair.
35. Gruela 35

    29 November 2007 at 10:49 pm

    Pascal’s Bookie

    Bah ha ha! I remember when that school group sang it to Jim Bolger! The best comedy is always unscripted.

    burt

    Okay, I’m willing to admit that National has 1 policy.

    As for it having being appropriated by Labour, well we’ll just write than in the ledger opposite the entries for our anti-nuclear status and non-involvement in the Iraq war, (and I’m sure there’s others examples, but you get my point.)
36. burt 36

    29 November 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Wayne

    Isn’t there a law banning political satire?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450046

    Guess old granny was correct about it being ignored. It’s surprising that Labour supporters are ignoring it.
37. Dean 37

    29 November 2007 at 10:59 pm

    So, have we figured out wether “but as we’ve noted before, his choice of Coldplay’s ‘Clocks’ as the theme tune is more revealing than he may have intended” is accurate or not?

    Is it even close to the truth? Does it have even the slightest, merest kernel of a grain of truth to it?

    I’ll give you a hint. No.
38. Alex Freeman 38

    29 November 2007 at 11:02 pm

    TDS – You cannot compare a private citizens homemade YouTube video that is shot on a camcorder and edited by themselves to JK’s and the Nats tens of thousands of dollars professionally created video that tries to engage with the the NZ electorate.
39. Gruela 39

    29 November 2007 at 11:05 pm

    But is it Coldplay, or not?
40. Lee C 40

    29 November 2007 at 11:08 pm

    I want a copy of the poster.
41. burt 41

    29 November 2007 at 11:12 pm

    Gruela

    How would I know, I don’t think so. There is not enough of the track at one time for me to be sure, unlike Tane I’m just not that good a judge of these things. Is there a copyright notice on the credits or the packaging? If not have National broken copyright laws? Is Tane content to point and accuse or will he prove his assertions?

    Tane states it is – the burden of proof is on him.
42. redbus 42

    29 November 2007 at 11:21 pm

    Whaleoil has certainly clocked up a list of stolen art:

    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=dFPC5b2mycw&feature=related
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=8lnOlNGNT1o&feature=related
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=jWb8kErSWc4
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=eAerm_d43wo&feature=related
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=hmxhqe3oBT4&feature=related
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=dyePB4sNqtE&feature=related
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=cpK3IQECLFo&feature=related

    But this is the real gem:
    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=JFcf74iNFBY&feature=related
    “Hi I’m John Key. I’m Leader of the National Party and welcome to the first of my video journals.
    We’ve decided that we’d like you to have you join the conversation with us, to interact so we can hear more of what you’re saying directly and you get a chance to see more of what I do as the Leader of the National Party, yeah, around the country on a daily basis. So we’ll be launching this site, ah, it’s a video journal. It’s an opportunity to see in about a one or two minute time-slot roughly what’s going on to debate the issues, ah, for you to be able to interact with us by lodging emails or logging things on the website. Ah, and just getting a sense of where things are going.”
    “We really like this form of communication, we think it’s really an opportunity to get closer to the voters; we think it’s an opportunity to express, yeah, our thoughts; but most importantly for you to join in with us and give us a sense of what you’re thinking aswell. So, we hope you’ll enjoy this format. We hope you’ll tell you’re friends about it and log in on a regular basis – see what we’re up to and, ah, join the conversation.

    – Yet, through all that welcoming and encouraging the public to give the Nats their opinions… They decided to moderate the comments, and block opposition from commenting again. Marvellous. They’ve gone against the words in the bold by doing this. Yet they’ve kept their word on the things I put in italics. “See more of what [he does]”, to “get closer to the voters” votes for next year, to express “our thoughts” over yours, and to make sure that you can’t “join in with us and give us a sense of what you’re thinking”.

    “Hi I’m John Key. I’m Leader of the National Party and welcome to the [worst of all] video journals.”
43. Matthew Pilott 43

    29 November 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Tane: “if the song is not Clocks and National had to get it made from scratch what would the production costs on something like that be?”

    Chance: “But now, it’s Coldplay again! Because tone-deaf Tane says so apparently”

    TDS: “No – just because it makes a good lie to propagate. Typical classist fuck tactics from Tane”

    I have a game for everyone. It’s called spot the idiot. You get one clue – there are actually two idiots, and both have taken a question from the non-idiot, pretended it was a statement and not a question, and then hoped no-one with half a brain noticed that they were using phrases such as “Typical classist fuck tactics” based upon what that person didn’t say!

    God you guys are stupid sometimes, please lift your game.

    At least Burt is trying with his RETROSPECTIVELY. Hey Burt, q. for you. Without being allowed to use the money RETROSPECTIVELY allowed as you piss and moan about, how would a government ever publish a budget. Y’see, a budget says what you are GOING to do with money. So without that law being passed, it would be illegal to publish a budget, acording to the AG’s new definition of electoral spending.

    So, umm, hahaha Burt, keep up the good work, you’re saving US from having to make YOU look ignorant, as you’re doing it all by yourself. (Y’know, by posting the same vacuous and incorrect/simplistic tripe on every thread you can make a tenuous link with)

    P.S. your HTML skills are a wonder to BEHOLD
44. redbus 44

    29 November 2007 at 11:28 pm

    Wow, you still read Burts comments.
45. Gruela 45

    29 November 2007 at 11:30 pm

    Me first!

    Idiot no. 1 is…that guy on the Bam commercials. I just want to Bam HIM.

    Idiot no. 2 is…whoever is Coldplay’s manager, cause I can’t f*****g find him anywhere!
46. Gruela 46

    29 November 2007 at 11:31 pm

    Do I win a prize?
47. redbus 47

    29 November 2007 at 11:32 pm

    Yes, you’re prize is ….

    A LABOUR GOVERNMENT!

    – Oh my God, wow, WE ALL WIN!
48. burt 48

    29 November 2007 at 11:34 pm

    I just love it when you guys focus on the messenger and not the message.

    and both have taken a question from the non-idiot, pretended it was a statement and not a question

    If Tane is not stating it’s Coldplay, which I believe most reasonable people would agree he is where he posts “his choice of Coldplay’s ‘Clocks’ as the theme tune is more revealing than he may have intended.” then IrishBill certainly is over here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=767

    What really blew my mates away though is the use of Coldplay & the truth is none of us knew what that would cost because it’s just out of the league of anyone we know. But here’s a little story….

    But here’s a little story… without some actual proof. I used the ‘boring propaganda’ link to view the clip, hope the standard is getting click-thru credits.
49. Matthew Pilott 49

    29 November 2007 at 11:36 pm

    Yep, you get the law of your choice, retrospectively validated by none other than Burt!

    Redbus – everyone else realised that reality meant that parliamentary spending had to take into account what it was for, and that interpretation of the law would make such publications as the budget illegal. I jut wonder if Burt had missed all that stuff.

    Sorry Gruela, in retrospect, I don’t think you got the answer right, but the BAM!!! call gets you the law anyway, I’m in a giving mood. Must be thinking about Santa Clau(w)s.

    Don’t you people sleep 😉
50. redbus 50

    29 November 2007 at 11:40 pm

    “Don’t you people sleep”
    – try to, but I can’t switch off. I think for hours about tedious things so I just give up… I get more inside work done at this time, which (now that daylight savings grants me so much afternoon sunlight) gives me more time in the garden! YAY!
51. Matthew Pilott 51

    29 November 2007 at 11:43 pm

    Burt you’re a bit wide of the mark. Tane did not say in the comment that Chance used, and TDS subsequently remarked upon, that it wasn’t clocks. He was asking that if it was not clocks, what was it. That doesn’t consitute Tane saying it is not clocks.

    Therefore, the message in chance and TDS’ comments was factually incorrect. I did the idiot thing because it felt like a bit of a laugh, but I take it all back, they’re not idiots, just…confused.

    To really spell it out: “If Tane is not stating it’s Coldplay, which I believe most reasonable people would agree he is where he posts “his choice of Coldplay’s ‘Clocks’ as the theme tune is more revealing than he may have intended.“.

    Ok so here we say “yes he is stating it is coldplay”. Whether that is infact true or not is irrelevant – my point is that they then use a quote and pretend that that quote is saying it’s not coldplay. The quote did not actually say that at all, as most people would agree.

    They are accusing Tane of flipflopping like JK, when he did not. Hope that’s all 5-5.

    My focus was on the message, pity if you focussed on the little joke distraction on the side. I’ll lay up on the games if it confuses the message too much.
52. Gruela 52

    29 November 2007 at 11:44 pm

    I work nights, and when I don’t, I get drunk.
53. ragtag 53

    29 November 2007 at 11:47 pm

    How did Otago ever award you a degree Matthew (mind you it was only a post grad Diploma in political science – ho hum). Read Tane’s intro to this post:

    “his choice of Coldplay’s ‘Clocks’ as the theme tune is more revealing than he may have intended.”
54. Dean 54

    29 November 2007 at 11:58 pm

    Matthew, you did read the post Tane made right? At the top of the page?
55. Matthew Pilott 55

    29 November 2007 at 11:59 pm

    For god’s sake ragtag I can’t make this any more plain!

    The post that was accusing Tane of saying it was NOT clocks did NOT say that. It said that IF (I’ll say it again, IF) it was not clocks, then blah blah blah. Therefore he did not say in that post that it was NOT clocks. So saying that he said it was not clocks is worng. So those posts about Tane lying were wrong.

    How did you manage to paste my name into google if you’re to slow to see that? Did you get an adult to help you, kid?

    Would you like an further details about me? As you can tell, I’mnot too fussed about it or I would use a pseudonym. Anyway, are you perhaps worried that I have a larger penis thn you, or can urinate a greater distance? Cheers for illustrating the need for most people using pseudonyms BTW, and good on you for taking advantage of the fact that I do not 🙂
56. r0b 56

    29 November 2007 at 11:59 pm

    Folks, it doesn’t matter how often you chide Burt on the error of his ways. He just loves the word retrospective , and he’ll keep popping up with it. I wrote the response below several threads ago – Burt did not reply:

    I have no problem with the retrospective validation of government spending following the 2005 election because:

    (1) It is standard practice for NZ governments to retrospectively validate their spending – this happens most years. (Did you know, Burt, that a National government once retrospectively validated $50 million in illegal spending?).

    (2) It was an issue that needed to be addressed for the functioning of government. Treasury had advised that on the basis of the Auditor-General’s report all party spending since 1989 had probably been unlawful, which therefore left the Government’s books for that period unlawful. Legitimate accounts, which were nothing to do with election spending, were being refused for payment. This situation had to be resolved, and Treasury advised the validating legislation.

    (3) The moral imperative against retrospective legislation is that it has the ability to impose penalties on people who did not know that what they were doing at the time was wrong. This imperative in no way applies here, so there is no in principle objection.

    The rest is politics.
57. Tane 57

    30 November 2007 at 12:03 am

    Hi Matt, thanks for sorting that out. I’m pretty sure it’s either Clocks or something so damn near close to it that they’re probably due for royalties anyway.

    Interestingly, I actually blind tested a few of people by playing them Key’s vid and asking them what they thought the tune was – every single one of them said it was Coldplay.

    Either way, if it ain’t Coldplay then the Nats are deliberately trying to rip it off for their own political ends, and judging by Chris Martin’s politics I don’t think he’ll be happy.
58. Matthew Pilott 58

    30 November 2007 at 12:05 am

    Dean, try reading the post of Tane’s quoted by Chance, and then tell me if you think it explicitly says that Tane thinks the song is not Clocks.

    If it does not, and I’m fairly sure that it does not, then tell me how not actually agreeing it is not Clocks is a different viewpoint to the bit where he says it is Clocks.

    Surely you guys can do that. Am I the only one not drinking? (apart from Gruela, if you are in fact workin/blogging 😉 ) Really, this is not a difficult thing to grasp.
59. burt 59

    30 November 2007 at 12:05 am

    Matthew Pilott

    How did you manage to paste my name into google if you’re to slow to see that? Did you get an adult to help you, kid?

    Excellent, nice and denigrating. Good work.

    OK, So did Tane and/or Irishbill say it was Coldplay or not? Can you speak for them? You seem to have one side of their argument waxed, how about the other?

    If they didn’t say it was, didn’t say it wasn’t, have never used the phrase “we think it is”, then what the hell are they saying?

    I’m picking just spinning any crap at the fan and hope that some of it sticks somewhere.
60. chance 60

    30 November 2007 at 12:12 am

    Matthew Pilott, I said Tane “appears to accept” that it is not Clocks, because I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. After all only a tone-deaf idiot would continue to insist, in the face of all the evidence, that the tune in that video is Clocks, and from his new line of questioning it looked like Tane had finally come to his senses. Now I find myself agreeing with Double Standard’s “big lie” theory.
61. Dean 61

    30 November 2007 at 12:12 am

    Matthew, I don’t care who said Tane said it was or wasn’t.

    The fact is this post clearly says Tane thinks it is “Clocks” by Coldplay, and he goes on to ask “Are National paying Coldplay their royalties for use of their property? They are legally required to do so, as APRA, the body responsible for collecting artists’ royalties, explains.”

    It’s not Clocks. It’s similar, but it isn’t the same song. Anyone with any kind of musical appreciation or ability and who had heard the song even once could have told him it wasn’t.

    This actually suprises me, because the self professed “left” always love to talk about their affinity with the arts, yet Tane can’t even get the song right. Not only can he not even get it right but he goes on to wonder about possible non payment of royalties.

    All you’re doing, Matthew, is talking in circles around the actual post, much as was burt and co. And as amusing as that can be, I strongly suspect you are capable of more rational dialogue than arguing about who said what about what song and on what blog, and thinking that it matters.
62. Benodic 62

    30 November 2007 at 12:13 am

    Burt I really don’t know why anyone bothers engaging you. If you’re not going to read people’s posts and respond thoughtfully then what’s the point?

    Go back to bed you drunken middle aged bigot.
63. Matthew Pilott 63

    30 November 2007 at 12:17 am

    Burt, I believe it is a fair enough comment to make when someone has searched my name in Google (unless they went to Uni with me but are hiding that fact) and then insinuated I am too stupid to be awarded a degree.

    Do you disagree with the above statement Burt?

    Perhaps I could take the higher ground and ignore it entirely, but I thought I would try and convey the impression that it’s not good internet etiquette to reveal details about someone, even if they are freely available on Google.

    Do you disagree with that Burt?

    As for your other point, I cannot explain it in any more simple terms. I suggest you read the post of this thread, Chance’s post, TDS’ post and then my first one.

    In that order.

    Perhaps you’ll decipher it then, but for a clue – Tane never said, based upon what I have read (and no I cannot speak for Tane or IrishBill, however nor can Chance or TDS, therefore I am only commenting on what is posted, do you understand that Burt?) that the song was not clocks.

    Nite all 🙂

    P.s Tane, I’m sure you’re big and ugly enough to speak for yourself but I had an idle few minutes (turned into hours) and thought I would question the integrity of TDS’ post. Turns out I was testing the logical reasoning skills of quite a few people here. Perhaps this would have been easier a 12PM!
64. burt 64

    30 November 2007 at 12:17 am

    Benodic

    12:03 plays 12:05. Are you normally such a heartless bastard not allowing people up to 2 minutes to write their post.

    Attack attack attack. This one makes you like like a Rottweiler. How many minutes since your post, did I miss the apology ?
65. Alex Freeman 65

    30 November 2007 at 12:21 am

    Here here Benodic!
66. Benodic 66

    30 November 2007 at 12:23 am

    I was actually talking about an earlier post of yours, and indeed your posting style in general. You don’t read other people’s opinions and respond to them thoughtfully. All you do is come in here and try to disrupt. Granted, I’ve seen you in good form once or twice but overwhelmingly your modus operandi is to attack people personally and generally be an obnoxious arsehole. You make things unpleasant Burt.

    That’s just my two cents.
67. burt 67

    30 November 2007 at 12:30 am

    Matthew Pilott

    Burt, I believe it is a fair enough comment to make when someone has searched my name in Google (unless they went to Uni with me but are hiding that fact) and then insinuated I am too stupid to be awarded a degree.

    Do you disagree with the above statement Burt?

    No I don’t agree. If you don’t want your name searched on google post under an alias.

    Perhaps I could take the higher ground and ignore it entirely, but I thought I would try and convey the impression that it’s not good internet etiquette to reveal details about someone, even if they are freely available on Google.

    Do you disagree with that Burt?

    I agree it’s not good net etiquette but if you are offended by it then once again, use an alias or put up with it.

    As for the drama about Tane not saying it wasn’t, I was arguing that he was saying it is and should prove it with publishing the copyright notice on the packaging and/or show it in the credits. Just who was ignoring who Matthew?
68. Gruela 68

    30 November 2007 at 12:35 am

    Oh, go on, burt. Be a proper man and apologise to Matthew. ragtag was well out of order with that post. Nothing wrong with admitting when you’re off target.
69. Benodic 69

    30 November 2007 at 12:40 am

    Again Burt fixates on the trivial and his equally fixated interpretation of it. Here’s what I read from Big T:

    “Hi Matt, thanks for sorting that out. I’m pretty sure it’s either Clocks or something so damn near close to it that they’re probably due for royalties anyway… Either way, if it ain’t Coldplay then the Nats are deliberately trying to rip it off for their own political ends, and judging by Chris Martin’s politics I don’t think he’ll be happy.”

    I listened to Key’s DVD and then I listened to Clocks and the analysis above sounds about right to me.

    Is anyone else wondering why Burt is so fixated on this? He comes across as desperate to get in a hit because knows he won’t any other way, and even on this one he’s going nowhere in a hurry.

    His entire ego is build into his obnoxious little online persona and he’s having to stay up all night just to hold it all together. Here’s a piece of advice: go back to bed burt. It’s far too late for a man of your age to be up on the turps trying to argue with young bucks like myself.
70. burt 70

    30 November 2007 at 12:42 am

    Tane

    This entire debacle suggests to me that when you started this campaign about excessive spending on “clocks” you had a lot to learn about the production of media releases involving music clips. Or you poorly researched your material before you called the crowd to go wild. Or you just like making stories out of nothing.

    There is no shame in not knowing that ‘ripoff sound alike’ tracks are used to save advertising dollars.

    BTW: Isn’t that photoshop image of John Key objectionable under the law that bans images from parliament for political satire. Looks like an official ‘head shot’ to me.
71. Benodic 71

    30 November 2007 at 12:49 am

    Burt you don’t understand the law do you?

    And for the record Key has used Clocks in the past. He used it at National’s conference and he used it or something so similar as to be indistinguishable in the DVD. Whatever the answer is he’s a crook.

    Now run along to bed Burt. Don’t want to do your head in for the morning. You’ve got money to earn and taxes to pay remember?
72. Grant Edwards 72

    30 November 2007 at 1:00 am

    I don’t usually comment on this site though I’m a regular reader. Generally I slink on here in between finishing my shift and going to bed, have a quick read and don’t pay much attention to what’s being said in the comments

    Tonight I couldn’t help wading in. You guys obviously have National worried and they’re giving their all to attack, attack, attack you until you give up and go home. Don’t. The Nats have dominated the internet far too long and it’s time we on the left stood up to their crap.

    Keep up the great work and keep the free speech policy. Burt, Dean and The Double Standard would be baned in five minutes if they tried the same schtick over at Kiwiblog. What hypocrites.
73. chance 73

    30 November 2007 at 1:51 am

    Right on Grant! If ever there was a cause to rally around, it’s whether National used a particular song on their soundtrack! You’ve got your very own Electoral Finance Bill right here!!
74. Lee C 74

    30 November 2007 at 7:41 am

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ah . (scuffle) It’s ok! I’m here!

    Sorry?

    Oh, I thought I heard benodic asking for asking for a ‘drunken middle aged bigot.’

    I got here as fast as I could….

    ps. trust me, benodic, one day that will be how people describe you, then you’ll feel silly. Take this from one who knows.
75. The Double Standard 75

    30 November 2007 at 8:22 am

    “The Double Standard would be baned in five minutes if they tried the same schtick over at Kiwiblog. What hypocrites.”

    I must have missed where Tane got banned for this

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/williams_on_tamihere.html#comment-373864

    The point is, the commenters over at KB (who certainly seem believeable on their knowledge of knock-off music) made it clear that the tune was similar but not the same.

    Tane then pops back here and posts a complete lie.

    Way to go Tane – nice to see you are keeping up your “standards”

    Meanwhile, do we see anyone here standing up for the rights of workers like Erin Leigh> – no chance!

    How about Teh Party disclosing where the $800k came from eh?
76. burt 76

    30 November 2007 at 8:27 am

    Benodic

    Very few people understand laws that are passed by Labour. It seems they are seldom passed with the intent of being applied… The law of common sense and all that.

    Now what was that anti satire law passed for … ummm perhaps the same thing as the ban on megaphones, anti terrorism laws or perhaps anti smacking laws…. They clearly were not passed to be enforced – perhaps they are just fun to debate in the house.

    So you say John Key is a crook – under what law would that be ? Perhaps the law of common sense ?
77. burt 77

    30 November 2007 at 8:43 am

    Grant Edwards

    What is absolutely priceless about this site is that it’s a bunch of people who use an alias rather than their own names denigrating National and John Key while complaining about chinless scarf wearers from a weird and dangerous sect who didn’t reveal their identity in a political attack campaign.

    I don’t have a problem that the authors on this site don’t publish their own names, neither do I – but I’m not jumping up and down insisting that it’s valid to change laws so that people must publish their identity to express political opinions.
78. The Double Standard 78

    30 November 2007 at 8:58 am

    On the young labour use of “I see red” I’m not frantically searching for the name of split enz’s manager (Lol at Gruela – get a life dear) but I do think its funny that the speight’s swilling future leaders of Teh Party are using a song with lyrics like this

    ” When my baby’s walking down the street
    I see red, I see red, I see red.
    How could someone wicked walk around free
79. Robinsod 79

    30 November 2007 at 9:42 am

    DPFDbl – Did you have to look those lyrics up or do you know them by heart?
80. Billy 80

    30 November 2007 at 9:48 am

    Grant Edwards: “You guys obviously have National worried…”

    That’s right, all those record poll leads are scaring the shit out of National.

    This has been the biggest attempted beat up I have ever witnessed.

    This started as an attempt to say that Naitonal had spent “too much” on its promotional material. My random thoughts on this are:

    1. Why is it any of the Standard’s business how National allocates its promotional budget. Is your point that they are profligate and should not be trusted with the treasury benches as a result?

    2. If it’s as lame as you claim, why does that trouble you? Would you not regard that as a good thing?

    3. Used Clocks, didn’t use Clocks, used something similar but not the same as Clocks. Why does it matter?

    This really has been a particularly pointless thread.

    Burt, forget what I said the other day, how do you use HTML?
81. Billy 81

    30 November 2007 at 9:51 am

    And while I am at it, Sonic and Rogernome have never, to my knowledge, been banned from Kiwiblog. This is despite them being openly oppositional and, in Sonic’s case, quite cutting.

    It is just a fantasy to say that all dissent is banished from Kiwiblog.
82. Liz Short 82

    30 November 2007 at 10:10 am

    I visit this site everyday and read most comments
    I was just reading Billy’s comment ,when I was struck by the realization that when Double Standard appears more often then not so does Billy
    There seems to be a strong chance that they are the same person.
    The question is why?
83. Robinsod 83

    30 November 2007 at 10:26 am

    Hmm – good cop/bad cop?
84. the sprout 84

    30 November 2007 at 10:31 am

    i guess it’s to create the impression of a legion of lunatics, when it’s actually some sad lonely dumbarse brooding in a shed in the waikato.
85. Billy 85

    30 November 2007 at 10:31 am

    Which one am I?

    PS Captcha is “prospering Left”
86. Matthew Pilott 86

    30 November 2007 at 10:39 am

    Yeah if I cared about it I would be interested to know where ragtag came from – someone I was arguing with creating an alias to do their dirty work?

    Just can’t remember if I have ever seen that name before 😉

    Can someone go all KB Authoritarian Style and check out the IP address? I take that back – you’d need to be a downright sad bastard to do that, without a REALLY good reason!! Or maybe if the power was getting to your head a bit, but it wouldn’t do to suggest that aye guys…
87. Billy 87

    30 November 2007 at 10:41 am

    Sprout, I am not sure what you and your mates are aiming for with the lunatic carping. Are you going for amusing, clever or superior? It just seems a little childish to write off everyone who doesn’t agree with you as a lunatic. But then, maybe you are a child.
88. Robinsod 88

    30 November 2007 at 11:00 am

    I’ve gotta say that I don’t think Billy and SantaDPFDbleStdClaws are the same person. I will say that Billy takes part in an arguement and shift his position occasionally (the only real sign of someone taking the debate seriously) while SantaDPFDbleStdClaws tends to attack and then bail or change tack when he’s proved wrong (so he could be Prick).

    But Billy, you do lapse into the cheapshots more frequently than you should and I don’t think you’re doing yourself justice when you do so as you seem to be pretty smart and ocassionally funny human being.
89. The Double Standard 89

    30 November 2007 at 11:11 am

    Billy – par for the course for this rather dismal lot.

    Think they might be concerned about wasting taxpayers money on Party hacks instead of wittering on about John K all the time?

    “Brendon Burns, the Labour Party’s candidate in the Kaikoura electorate in the previous two elections and a former Beehive staffer in the Prime Minister’s office, was paid $20,575 last year for PR work on an energy efficiency consumer awareness programme for the Department of Building and Housing.”
90. Liz Short 90

    30 November 2007 at 11:14 am

    Draw your own conclusions

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 10:29 am

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 10:29 am

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 10:29 am

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 10:45 am

    BILLY
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 10:54 am

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 10:56 am

    BILLY
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 11:14 am

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 11:17 am

    BILLY
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 11:37 am

    LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME

    BILLY
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 3:20 pm

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 3:47 pm

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 3:55 pm

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 4:10 pm

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 4:13 pm

    BILLY
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 4:15 pm

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 4:26 pm

    BILLY
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 5:15 pm

    BILLY
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 5:20 pm

    BILLY
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 5:32 pm

    The Double Standard
    Wednesday, 28th November 07, 5:36 pm
91. Liz Short 91

    30 November 2007 at 11:22 am

    I can do other days 🙂
92. Liz Short 92

    30 November 2007 at 11:23 am

    If they are not the same person.
    They “do lunch” together
93. Daveo 93

    30 November 2007 at 11:29 am

    LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME * LUNCH TIME

    Pure comedy gold.
94. Matthew Pilott 94

    30 November 2007 at 11:42 am

    TDS is right of course, energy is free and harvested from plentiful truffula trees in New Zealand and distributed by the benevolent Urewera FM radio network pixie employees, so energy efficiency is a joke. NZ’s GDP is actually 90% energy exports because of this! Crazy but true.

    Love the random excerpt strategy that dismal lot are trying – “hey – shouln’t you be posting about THIS?! No, look over here – it’s really imoportant! C’mon, check it out.. Oh, why won’t you look over here!

    TDS as must have been mentioned a million times, why don’t you set up your own blog, you could call it Brendan Burnswatch, and give a running commentary of his employment. The readers would literally flock to it. literally… Or have you already got a blog?
95. Liz Short 95

    30 November 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Robinsod
    Firstly, Don’t think that I am obsessing over you
    by this post.
    There is some sort of tie in with Santa/DS
    and Billy .
    I also read KWBB and I think that David is to vain not to post there.
    There is one poster who springs to mind but he write in two completely differing styles.

    I guess people can share login details 🙂
    Anyway life is to short

    PS I’m worth obsessing over I would be a 15 on Davids scale–thats of course if you like breasts
96. Robinsod 96

    30 November 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Who doesn’t like breasts?
97. chance 97

    30 November 2007 at 12:24 pm

    Oh dear, despite Tane and Sam’s blogspam Colin Espiner has joined the “not-Clocks” camp: (http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2007/11/29/pleased-to-meet-you-john-key-re-introduces-himself-to-new-zealand/).

    Sam, I think Razorlight is right – we listened to this song in the office several times and while it sounds like Coldplay’s Clocks I don’t think it is. I think it’s unlikely National would have forked out to use the song, which as you point out would have cost it megabucks. The $40,000 figure I got from people at TVNZ, who probably know a thing or two about TV production, but I stand to be corrected.
98. Robinsod 98

    30 November 2007 at 12:56 pm

    Interesting to see his estimate of the cost was similar to the standard’s. Despite all the gnashing and howling from the righties I’ve still not seen any decent costings that go lower… Hmmm.
99. Visitor 99

    30 November 2007 at 1:14 pm

    This is TVNZ’s report on National’s conference, in August:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1271053

    Click on ‘Related Video’. A few seconds in, you’ll hear John Key’s intro music.
100. PhilBest 100

     30 November 2007 at 1:15 pm

     IN friggen CREDIBLE. I thought we’d already agreed over at Farrar that this song was NOT “Clocks” by Coldplay.

     Neither is it a question of ripping off “Clocks” by Coldplay.

     For the benefit of Tane and all you other tin-eared Socialists, the pop music industry works like this:

     Keep endlessly recycling the old successful riffs, chord sequences and tunes, with different lyrics and titles, and the ignorant teenagers and tone deaf rockers will fall for it in droves. There have been court cases where an earlier artist tried to do the later one for royalties, but apart from extreme cases where a song actually was quite distinctive, like “Dime” and “Feelings”, the precedents set involve that basic chord sequences and tunes that have been done over and over since time immemorial, cannot be held to be any one induvidual’s artistic property.

     And if you thought “Clocks” by Coldplay, was at all original, you haven’t got a clue about music.
101. The Double Standard 101

     30 November 2007 at 1:24 pm

     “Interesting to see his estimate of the cost was similar to the standard’s. Despite all the gnashing and howling from the righties I’ve still not seen any decent costings that go lower. Hmmm.”

     That’s because the Nat’s paid for it themselves, unlike the pledge card. I know you have trouble with simple concepts Robbo, but see if you can get that one through your thick skull.

     And Liz – whatever turns your crank dear – perhaps you and robbo would like to find a room and participate in some mutual ****ing over your wet dreams that I am DPF or Billy.
102. Liz Short 102

     30 November 2007 at 1:53 pm

     Posts on Standard Thursday 1.36pm onwards

     Billy
     Thursday, 29th November 07, 1:36 pm

     The Double Standard
     Thursday, 29th November 07, 10:04 pm

     The Double Standard
     Thursday, 29th November 07, 10:07 pm

     Billy
     Thursday, 29th November 07, 10:08 pm

     Both got in the same time eh ?

     Do you both drink Milo ?
103. The Double Standard 103

     30 November 2007 at 3:15 pm

     Liz – you up for a threesome?

     email me at Liz_is_a_paranoid_leftie_nutcase@hotmail.com
104. Insolent Prick 104

     30 November 2007 at 3:22 pm

     This is brilliant. Tane and Sam Dixon go around spamming people’s blogs–including media blogs–with the absurd claim that John Key ripped off a Coldplay song–only to be smacked down by the likes of Colin Espiner, who agree it’s not a Coldplay song.
105. The Double Standard 105

     30 November 2007 at 3:25 pm

     Hey, what about this – coincidence or ???

     Matthew Pilott
     Nov 30th, 2007 at 10:31 am
     Liz Short
     Nov 30th, 2007 at 10:32 am

     Matthew Pilott
     Nov 30th, 2007 at 11:34 am
     Liz Short
     Nov 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
106. Visitor 106

     30 November 2007 at 3:29 pm

     No comments on the TVNZ link then? What was that music at National’s conference?
107. Billy 107

     30 November 2007 at 3:30 pm

     Thanks for lunch TDS. Next time, my treat.
108. The Double Standard 108

     30 November 2007 at 3:31 pm

     “Colin Espiner”

     So, is he back off Teh Party’s xmas card list now? I can’t keep track!
109. Robinsod 109

     30 November 2007 at 3:32 pm

     Hey Prick – I believe that you were bitching like a little girl about the Standard’s costing – looks like it’s in the ball park. So you wanna apologise now or just call everyone a liar and try to change the subject like usual?

     Oh, and I got an interesting email this morning, Prick…
110. Robinsod 110

     30 November 2007 at 3:37 pm

     Oh and SantaDPFDbleStdClaws, it looks like Liz got under your thin skin. Tell me, will you ever explain why you felt the need to use my wee joke as your handle?

     http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/little_may_stand.html#comment-360421

     Is it ‘cos you want to be me?
111. insider 111

     30 November 2007 at 3:41 pm

     Robinsod

     Tane said 50k other costs, Colin said 40k including distribution. If you don’t think a more than 25% discount is not going lower or a similar cost to Tane’s then you are not a very discerning shopper.

     And you are ignoring the comment on Colin;s blog from someone with direct experience who said it could be done for 10k. I would have thought an educated guess trumped your pure guess.
112. The Double Standard 112

     30 November 2007 at 3:45 pm

     Well Insider, who knows. That commenter could just be talking out his ass, like Tane and Sambo were with their blatant lies and link-whoring.
113. Robinsod 113

     30 November 2007 at 3:58 pm

     Insider – um, some dude making a comment on a blog versus a reasonable itemised list of costs on the standard and a costing from TVNZ? I’d say you’re the one who lacks the ability to discern. $40k and $50k are in the same ballpark for complex team-based projects and %0 to 40 is a 20% reduction – are you like numerically illiterate?

     SantaDPFDbleStdClaws – I’m still waiting for an answer. Why won’t you give me one?
114. Robinsod 114

     30 November 2007 at 4:12 pm

     Hey Prick – I just had a look at the “blogs I read” column on your website and the standard’s not listed. Do you comment here without reading anything (which would explain a lot) or do you just tell lies on your website?
115. Billy 115

     30 November 2007 at 4:15 pm

     Oh God. It is soooooo pointless. Let’s just all agree that it IS Coldplay. And they paid $60k because Coldplay got all mean and capitalistic. And they had a 45 person crew being paid 120% of scale. And they had Peter Gordon do the catering and he used truffle oil in the danishes.

     Now FFS, can we talk about something remotely important?
116. insider 116

     30 November 2007 at 4:21 pm

     rOBIN

     “some dude making a comment on a blog”

     You mean Tane?

     “a resonable itemised list of costs on the standard”

     You mean those numbers you guys allocated to this with no real evidence to back up that they were real? COme on….

     “50 to 40 is a 20% reduction”

     Correct but you guys have been saying “at least $50,000 just to get the thing made and then who knows how much for the right to play “Clocks”.” and then quoting tens of thousands for that. So more than 25% looks fairly good to me unless you are saying that the absolute maximum you are claiming it cost is now $52,500?
117. The Double Standard 117

     30 November 2007 at 4:25 pm

     What would suggest Billy?

     How about whether Mallard will be granted bail?
118. Robinsod 118

     30 November 2007 at 4:32 pm

     Insider – you couldn’t even do the simple maths for a percentage deduction. Just admit you got it wrong and stop obfuscating. Like I said bro – the standard gave more info than anyone else has including a link to gear rental, I haven’t seen more credible evidence yet.

     DPFDbl-ect – I’m still waiting for an answer. Hello? Hello?
119. Liz Short 119

     30 November 2007 at 4:39 pm

     Liz – you up for a threesome?
     TDS yes I am but if you are inferring you and billy and I ,that only makes 2
     Do I have to bring a friend along ?

     BTW your example http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=782#comment-6803
     is pathetic
     I can give you much better data
     Want some ?
120. Billy 120

     30 November 2007 at 4:39 pm

     Well that didn’t work.
121. Matthew Pilott 121

     30 November 2007 at 4:56 pm

     Liz, I may be mistaken, but I think I may have been posting here for a while longer than you. (no offence intended if I am wrong).

     I would just like to point out that by TDS’ reasoning (you & I being 1 & the same), s/he was therefore suggesting a threesome with Billy, TDS and myself!

     So, the REAL question – is TDS a man after a homosexual orgy, or is TDS just after a good old fashioned spitroasting?
122. Visitor 122

     30 November 2007 at 4:57 pm

     I’ve already provided the answer. But you’re all too busy having group sex to notice.
123. Liz Short 123

     30 November 2007 at 5:21 pm

     NO Matthew I am a virgin at this.
     I read this KWBB and the Bog fairly often

     TDS and Billy are the same person. I
     If not they share remarkably similar habits
     Both like spit roasts ? (what ever that is:-)
124. Liz Short 124

     30 November 2007 at 5:24 pm

     And I am not a leftie either thankyou very much
125. Matthew Pilott 125

     30 November 2007 at 5:35 pm

     Oh I wasn’t implying you were a leftie, only that since I’ve been on longer TDS must have thought that you were a new persona/pseudonym of me, and my name is definitely male.

     So I just figured I (under the pseudonym of your name, if we’re going with what TDS thinks) got invited to a threesome with TDS (who I think is male) and billy (who I also assume is male, if he is not in fact also TDS…)

     Yeah, spit roast… Umm not really dinnertime topic… I would give you a link but the wiki page is blocked from work. Suffice to say it’s on the page “list of sex positions”…
126. Billy 126

     30 November 2007 at 5:36 pm

     Or maybe it did work…

     My mind is boggling. What with everyone’s identity being so uncertain I am not sure if what is being proposed is the good kind of threesome, or what I like to call, “the devil’s threesome”.

     To steal a phrase from Dragon’s Den, for this reason, I am out.
127. redbus 127

     30 November 2007 at 5:57 pm

     ““the devil’s threesome”.”
     – Wow. You’ve been in the situation of being accused of having two screen names… How else could you have said it so often to claim that you “like to call” it that?
128. Gruela 128

     30 November 2007 at 6:01 pm

     Cool, now that you guys have got your hook-ups all sorted out, could someone please tell me,

     Is it Coldplay, or not?
129. Gruela 129

     30 November 2007 at 6:02 pm

     (It’s just never going to get old.)
130. Robinsod 130

     30 November 2007 at 6:20 pm

     It’s a bastardised version of coldplay. What National is gonna have to worry about (given all the attention it’s getting) is whether it’s basdardised enough. I picking that the answer is “yes” because if it’s “no” then they are real chumps for not consulting a copyright lawyer and all of my theories about them being smart but evil operators are out the window.
131. Robinsod 131

     30 November 2007 at 6:36 pm

     But I’ll still think they’re evil..
132. The Double Standard 132

     30 November 2007 at 6:41 pm

     # Liz Short
     Nov 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

     # 125 Matthew Pilott
     Nov 30th, 2007 at 5:35 pm

     There it is again! Come on Matthew – own up. You’re not even being subtle about it!
133. Robinsod 133

     30 November 2007 at 6:52 pm

     DPFBblClaws – you’re back! Now what about my question. You know the one that has a simple answer but you’ve been avoiding for weeks: why did you use my witticism as your handle? C’mon boy you can do it. C’mon boy, c’mon…
134. Lampie 134

     30 November 2007 at 6:57 pm

     Maybe TDS and Billy share a one bedroom flat?
135. Billy the Double 135

     30 November 2007 at 7:17 pm

     Double Standard Did you steal that name off Robinsod ? Shame on you
136. The Double Standard 136

     30 November 2007 at 7:19 pm

     Lampie – ‘fraid not. I’ve got as much idea of who Billy is as Robbo has who his father is – none at all!
137. Lampie 137

     30 November 2007 at 7:22 pm

     you two really need to get out more, it is getting a bit ummm strange
138. Billy the Double 138

     30 November 2007 at 7:25 pm

     “Only people who are the messiah say they are not the messiah”

     or something like that
139. redbus 139

     30 November 2007 at 7:27 pm

     I think we’re in need of a new topic to comment on. This, ‘you’re her/him and she’s/he’s you’ argument has got annoying.

     Can’t one of the politicians make a stuff-up (other than bloody Mallard)? Christ, there are so many of them due to do so… Can’t Gerry push an oldie around anymore? Can’t Williamson make on off-key gaffe about the obese again? Hell, surely Henare is set to piss EVERYBODY off! Benson-Pope is too mute, he was good complaining-material back in my day…

     AT LEAST THE PICTURE OF JOHN KEY IN COLDPLAY STILL MAKES ME LAUGH! 😀
140. Billy the Double 140

     30 November 2007 at 7:30 pm

     Yeh not much happening here I’ll try KWBB
     hold on
141. Billy the Double 141

     30 November 2007 at 7:32 pm

     I’m back nothing there either apart from this brilliant piece by AK
     http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/homocracy-and-the-great-jewish-banker-conspiracy/#comment-1846
142. Gruela 142

     30 November 2007 at 7:38 pm

     Idiot/Savant has a good piece on the rejection of Ron Marks’ Young Offenders Bill. I think, of all the politicians in the House, this guy probably offends me the most.
143. Billy the Double 143

     30 November 2007 at 7:46 pm

     Thanx gruela good piece at NRT

     Wil NZ First jerk the chain in order to push its vicious agenda

     NZF are not in the greatest position at the mo
     to jerk any chains i would have thought
144. Billy 144

     30 November 2007 at 7:52 pm

     With apologies to Robinsod..

     Billy the Double, I am your father.

     Which I s’pose makes TDS your, what, uncle? And Robinsod your grandfather? Should be a fun Christmas dinner.
145. Gruela 145

     30 November 2007 at 7:53 pm

     I like Winston as Foreign Minister a lot more than I thought I would. But he really has surrounded himself with some pups. Does anyone know if he’s going to be re-contesting Tauranga?
146. Billy 146

     30 November 2007 at 7:56 pm

     That is Winston’s least favourite question. He refuses to answer it.
147. Billy the Double 147

     30 November 2007 at 7:57 pm

     Billy
     Being Christmas Santa Claws will be there as well
     so just the two us then 🙂
148. Billy the Double 148

     30 November 2007 at 7:59 pm

     or maybe three but and should invite Liz
149. Billy 149

     30 November 2007 at 8:00 pm

     Groan. Oh no, Billy the Double, are you Robinsod?
150. Billy the Double 150

     30 November 2007 at 8:02 pm

     No I’m just bad at maths
151. Gruela 151

     30 November 2007 at 8:04 pm

     (Deep breathes) Hiss…Hiss…Billy…I am your father…

     I would say Winston will be back. He’s too proud not to give it another go.
152. redbus 152

     30 November 2007 at 8:42 pm

     [quote=”redbus”]Just trying something out. Ignore this comment.[/quote]
153. Visitor 153

     30 November 2007 at 10:26 pm

     A final attempt to ignore the drivel on this thread and give you the answer (bangs head on desk):

     http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1271053

     Play the Video
     That is National
     That is John Key
     That is Coldplay
     That is Clocks

     End. Of. Story.
154. Lampie 154

     30 November 2007 at 10:37 pm

     Ummm vistor, ummm not a coldplay fan but ummm yeah thats it
155. Billy the Double 155

     30 November 2007 at 10:44 pm

     Hows your head ?
156. Gruela 156

     30 November 2007 at 11:08 pm

     Great post, Visitor, (from another planet, by any chance?)
157. chance 157

     30 November 2007 at 11:35 pm

     Visitor, if only this was a post and comments thread about the music at the National Party conference, then that would be the answer. The 10-second snippet on the clip does indeed sound like the Coldplay track. But this is about the John Key DVD, which has different music on it. The licensing of background music for conferences etc is completely different from the licensing of music for advertising. So what is your point?
158. Billy the Double 158

     30 November 2007 at 11:44 pm

     Start of with this Chris Martin one
     
     While i find the one where he has a go at currency
     traders
159. The Prophet 159

     1 December 2007 at 12:01 am

     Sod – Are you really trying to claim you invented the phrase “double standard”?

     Please!

     Also hows that crew list for Johns dvd coming along? Your extensive contacts in the Film and Advertising industries should be coming in handy about now, shouldn’t they?
160. redbus 160

     1 December 2007 at 12:18 am

     “Also hows that crew list for Johns dvd coming along?”
     – What difference does it make if you know their names? I don’t think it should be the job of The Standard to track down and publish their names. However, if you wish to view the crew, then merely take a look at the guerrilla footage of John Key at the Porirua market and count the number of people in Mr Key’s crew. This is proof as, through scenes in the ‘Amateur in New Zealand – Meet John Key‘ film, the Porirua market featured in a substantial portion of the film. ‘Extensive contacts’ are not needed, as only two organisations need to be consulted to find information on this film – The Nats, and Production TV. If you would like to consult the firm which created the bore-fest, then contact Production TV yourself. Try not to expect others to do everything for you.
161. Billy the Double 161

     1 December 2007 at 1:20 am

     Sorry Radio head
     But doesn’t give currency traders a good look
     didn’t put this on his DVD
     
162. Tane 162

     1 December 2007 at 6:40 am

     “Also hows that crew list for Johns dvd coming along?”

     What Redbus said. However, I can give you at least one name: Yvonne Mackay.

     Key used Production Shed TV to produce his DVD. They look like a pretty professional outfit, which kind of kills the ‘volunteers’ theory the right have been pushing on this site.

     http://productionshed.tv/
163. The Double Standard 163

     1 December 2007 at 7:42 am

     So, it turns out that it definitely wasn’t Clocks

     “National Party campaign manager Jo de Joux said the music was composed by “an Auckland artist” and paid for by the production company which produced the DVD.”

     but that there might be issues with similarity

     “However, music lawyer Chris Hocquard said if it was similar enough that the public was confused into thinking it was Clocks, it could be in breach of copyright laws and the Fair Trading Act.”

     Hey, at least the Nats will probably get more views of the video with this, and I’m sure they have a few lawyers available.

     I’d be surprised if any further action is taken.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10479448
164. Santi 164

     1 December 2007 at 7:59 am

     Lovely Tane: are you know a professional in the business of naming people? How principled although expected.
165. Kent 165

     1 December 2007 at 8:06 am

     I’d be surprised if any further action is taken.

     Same. The chances of winning a suit do not stack up against the cost of the action. Chris Martin might look at the video and decide there is nothing politically distasteful about Key or what he represents. Both Key and Coldplay aim to gain from all this fuss.
166. Robinsod 166

     1 December 2007 at 8:21 am

     Nice attempt at innoculation Boys – but the issue is not whether it’s clocks or not but whether they’re gonna get away with it. I guess my earlier comment (6:20pm) on this thread was right on the mark. I’m not so sure nothing will come of this, copyright infringment is a pretty hot issue right now and EMI will be aware that this is in the Weekend Herald – that’s the most read single edition of any paper in the country – I’m thinking they may have to take action just to keep face…
167. The Double Standard 167

     1 December 2007 at 8:26 am

     It does make a confirmed lie of Tane’s post at the top – I guess he should update it…..

     I suppose it just proves the point that if you lie about something hard enough, you might get your story in the newspaper. I dunoo if thats a helpful lesson though.
168. Robinsod 168

     1 December 2007 at 8:40 am

     Yeah DPFDblStdClaws – that’s right they’re all liars, the standard, the musicologists, the copyright laywers and the Herald – liars all of them. You’re the only honest man in this game. Grow up. Suck it up. I wonder how John’s feeling this morning.

     oh, and it’s slow news day and copyright issue’s are bread and butter for broadcast Jurno’s. Can’t wait for the HoS to come out too…
169. Kent 169

     1 December 2007 at 8:58 am

     I’m thinking they may have to take action just to keep face.

     Sure turns this into one hell of an interesting DVD, I say. I wouldn’t discount a large dose of politics in Graeme Downe’s musico-analysis tho.
170. Visitor 170

     1 December 2007 at 9:39 am

     National using Clocks at their August conference is absolutely relevant. It speaks to the essential issue: the timeline in the development of intellectual property.

     First, they intended to use ORIGINAL music.

     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=107

     Then, they decided to use Clocks instead, at the conference.

     They liked it. So, for the DVD they then used a piece of music which is simply a direct rip-off of Clocks. Why?

     Because using Clocks would have cost money. So they pretend to use “original” music, because they couldn’t (wouldn’t) use the music they wanted. Therefore they got as close as they possibly could to the REAL original, while pretending that “their” music was itself original.

     The intellectual property came from Coldplay. National liked it. Instead of using it, they copied it.

     To say “it is not Coldplay” is like saying the fake Rolex “is not a Rolex”. It is correct. It is also theft.
171. The Prophet 171

     1 December 2007 at 9:50 am

     I’ll ask again.

     Sod – Are you really trying to claim you invented the phrase “double standard”?
172. Chris Martin 172

     1 December 2007 at 10:05 am

     Their wives met at yoga. Now Chris Martin plans to rock the vote for Cameron’s Tories
     http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1744447,00.html

     Capitcha : Traveled husband
173. Robinsod 173

     1 December 2007 at 10:08 am

     Profit – as a play on the name of this website? Yes. So, back on topic – what do you think of National’s theft of intellectual property?
174. thomas 174

     1 December 2007 at 10:14 am

     And from the rest of the article that david linked to

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10479448Dr

     Graeme Downes, the former Verlaines frontman who is now a musicology consultant at Otago University, said the music shared the same rumba beat, harmony and chords as Clocks.
     It also had a similar drum introduction, and the key was the same, “which draws even greater attention to the harmonic similarity”.

     “If I were approached by a lawyer to furnish a report for a prosecution of copyright infringement against the music on the DVD I would happily do so. If approached by a lawyer to furnish a report in its defence, I would decline.”

     captcha lines faded
175. Visitor 175

     1 December 2007 at 10:18 am

     @ Chris Martin

     I suspect you already know, but … check the date and the by-line on that Cameron story!

     It was a good one though.
176. thomas 176

     1 December 2007 at 10:29 am

     Mr KEY hopes more British bands will follow where Coldplay has led the way, creating a Tory version of the socialist bands-for-Labour movement organised by Billy Bragg in the early 1990s.

     “I’m calling it Blue Wedge,” he said. “Blue is back. I want all the top bands out there, from the Attic Monkeys to the Kaiser Chefs, to know they’re welcome. There’s absolutely nothing about my policies which anyone could object to.”

     you could not make this shit up
     Capitcha vile national
177. thomas 177

     1 December 2007 at 10:42 am

     Oops, shit, it wasn’t david, it was TDS!

     FFS.
178. thomas 178

     1 December 2007 at 10:55 am

     Sorry it was the way he only quoted half the article got me confused

     Cap Mrs thomas
179. thomas 179

     1 December 2007 at 11:07 am

     But at least it gets the truth out there

     cap honest broker
180. thomas 180

     1 December 2007 at 11:10 am

     News Flash

     Evel Knievel dead at 69

     http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/11/30/kneviel.ap/index.html
181. thomas 181

     1 December 2007 at 11:57 am

     never did like him
182. thomas 182

     1 December 2007 at 12:05 pm

     I’m feeling a bit broken up over it

     Cap Dork Stuffed
183. Mike 183

     1 December 2007 at 12:49 pm

     This is classic ironic National Party incompetence, spend thousands of dollars to produce a sales DVD only to be forced to pull the whole thing over intellectual property theft.

     Unless you are deaf, there is no way you can say the tune is not derivative of ‘Clocks’. It’s just a very slight remix of the song.
184. burt 184

     2 December 2007 at 7:08 pm

     rOb

     Folks, it doesn’t matter how often you chide Burt on the error of his ways. He just loves the word retrospective , and he’ll keep popping up with it. I wrote the response below several threads ago – Burt did not reply:

     I have no problem with the retrospective validation of government spending following the 2005 election because:

     (1) It is standard practice for NZ governments to retrospectively validate their spending – this happens most years. (Did you know, Burt, that a National government once retrospectively validated $50 million in illegal spending?)….

     I did reply rOb, I guess you didn’t like my reply when I said you were like a 4 year old saying National did it too !

     Standard Labour response … we weren’t the only ones caught stealing tax payers money so it’s OK…. If you want to shoot me down then you could at least stick to reality.

Links to post

1. DPF, QC? 2 « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 12 December 2007 at 2:49 pm
2. [insert clock-related pun] « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 18 January 2008 at 12:43 pm
3. John Key The Currency Speculator « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 4 February 2008 at 11:47 am
4. John Key’s DVD: Take 2 at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 4 April 2008 at 10:27 am
5. Why Key really wants super-fast broadband at The Standard 2.01: posted on 11 June 2008 at 4:00 pm
6. The definition of irony at The Standard 2.01: posted on 20 June 2008 at 6:50 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS