Eminem case could cost Nats big

Written By: - Date published: 6:53 am, May 2nd, 2017 - 82 comments
Categories: crime, law, music, national, scoundrels, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , , , , ,

In the alleged ripping off of Eminem National knew they were on dodgy ground – Court battle between Eminem and National Party begins

Williams presented evidence to argue that National Party representatives knew copyright could be a problem.

An email chain included a quote from one National Party representative, questioning if their backing track was too similar to Lose Yourself.

“How can we be confident that Eminem doesn’t think we’re ripping him off?

“How do we ensure there is no liability with us?”

The email reply was that the National Party wasn’t liable, because they were only buying a licence for a specific use of music.

The Party was told the composer would be liable for any copyright problems.

Williams was scathing after reading from the emails.

“That is just wrong, in law.

“Also, the focus is on not just whether it’s an infringement. But whether they can shift liability to someone else.”

Typical. Could cost them big – National Party’s ad ‘bland’ and using Eminem song would never be allowed

Detroit-based copyright administrator Joel Martin said the holders would never have granted the party permission to use the original work. Use could have cost US$750,000 to $1m if permission had been given, but a fee after unauthorised use would have been higher.

82 comments on “Eminem case could cost Nats big ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Richard McGrath 1
    2 May 2017 at 7:16 am

    If the Nats violated Eminem’s property rights, they should compensate him for lost revenue. Simple as that.

    • Gosman 1.1
      2 May 2017 at 7:26 am

      What revenue did Eminem lose as a result of this?

      • Daveosaurus 1.1.1
        2 May 2017 at 7:29 am

        From the post itself: “US$750,000 to $1m”.

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1
          2 May 2017 at 10:08 am

          How did Eminem lose 1 million USD from this?

          • lprent 1.1.1.1.1
            2 May 2017 at 10:18 am

            Duh! Are you really that legally illiterate, or just naturally stupid? But I suspect that you are just demonstrating your astroturfing troll abilities.

            Because that would have been the order of the price that they (the artist or his agents) would have charged for any such a use of their music for advertising. I’d expect that they will present evidence to that effect – which won’t be . That effectively defines a market value. I could give you the legal precedents. But why bother to a astroturfer.

            If you want to astroturf this again, then I am likely demonstrate my assessment of the market value of that astroturfing to this site.

          • WILD KATIPO 1.1.1.1.2
            2 May 2017 at 11:33 am

            If you are really going to argue along those lines, Gosman , you may as well remove all copyright laws. Whether they are intellectual property or otherwise.

            Idiot.

            • Johan 1.1.1.1.2.1
              2 May 2017 at 1:01 pm

              WK don’t be too hard on Gosman, he is a bit slow and only comes here to ask stupid questions.

              • keepcalmcarryon …
                2 May 2017 at 2:06 pm

                Mr Gosman once more appears the wrong side of the clapper on the bell curve of understanding.

          • North 1.1.1.1.3
            2 May 2017 at 8:45 pm

            The owner lost the mill’ by not getting the mill’ that the law says he’s entitled to levy. Get that ? His property. Applied by someone whose property it is not. The availability of a remedy is the cornerstone of the ‘property-owning-democracy’…….the object of your outlandishly vaunted love.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2
        2 May 2017 at 8:02 am

        …and the stain of being associated with the National Party, and their manifest contempt for the law and Mr. Mathers’ property.

        • Psycho Milt 1.1.2.1
          2 May 2017 at 8:31 am

          I enjoyed this bit: National’s version of the track…

          … was “bland and perfunctory”, and not in the spirit of the Lose Yourself song, which encouraged the taking of chances…

          It’s like the guy’s met the National Party before…

        • Keith 1.1.2.2
          2 May 2017 at 9:02 am

          I concur. Having a lying slimey bunch of fucks like the National Party associated with your brand could be ruinous and very detrimental!

        • Gosman 1.1.2.3
          2 May 2017 at 10:08 am

          Are you able to quantify this?

      • michelle 1.1.3
        2 May 2017 at 8:33 am

        gosman we cant have the gnats protecting peoples copyright when they are abusing the very system they claim to be protecting when they are doing this themselves these tories have become so arrogant they seem to think they are above the law and they can do anything well they can f…of people have had enough of these two faces lying b…s

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.3.1
          2 May 2017 at 11:24 am

          these tories have become so arrogant they seem to think they are above the law

          That’s their normal position. Thing is, they get away with it so often as well. Just look at John Key’s assault of a waitress. That should have resulted in him being kicked out of parliament in disgrace and with a criminal conviction.

          • WILD KATIPO 1.1.3.1.1
            2 May 2017 at 11:30 am

            Indeed. Convicted on common assault charges.

            No wonder Bill English remained studiously quiet all throughout that episode…

          • McFlock 1.1.3.1.2
            2 May 2017 at 2:38 pm

            nah, ponytail pulling wouldn’t get a conviction on a PM.

            Should have been given a formal warning or diversion though, in case the behaviour repeats

            • WILD KATIPO 1.1.3.1.2.1
              2 May 2017 at 3:38 pm

              Mhmmm… I suppose we cant expect the same for someone else who repeat offends over a six months time period despite non consent on behalf of the victim.

              Workplace bullying in that case deserves two category’s , then .

              One for commoners and another for elected officials .

              OK then.

              • McFlock …
                2 May 2017 at 3:51 pm

                No, it’s more that all incidents would be viewed at once when they came up (which is why a “career” crim might cop to several unrelated offences all at once – think of it as a bulk discount), and if you do a conviction over hair pulling, how would you escalate the punishments for other people who do crotch-grabbing or progressively more serious offences?

                I mean, it definitely shows disturbing attitudes to women, but there’s always the argument that a conviction would be disproportionate punishment. If you have examples of folks being convicted for pulling hair and thus that a caution wouldn’t be appropriate, feel free to share.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  2 May 2017 at 4:07 pm

                  and if you do a conviction over hair pulling, how would you escalate the punishments for other people who do crotch-grabbing or progressively more serious offences?

                  A conviction doesn’t necessitate jail time.

                  but there’s always the argument that a conviction would be disproportionate punishment.

                  There’s no such thing.

                  • McFlock …
                    2 May 2017 at 4:11 pm

                    A conviction does have repercussions in its own right, though.

                    No such thing as disproportionate punishment?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      2 May 2017 at 4:34 pm

                      A conviction does have repercussions in its own right, though.

                      Yes, that’s the point.

                      No such thing as disproportionate punishment?

                      Correct.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2017 at 4:47 pm

                      No such thing as disproportionate punishment?

                      Correct.

                      Shit, didn’t realise you were in the garth mcvictim crowd. /sarc

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.3.1.2.2
              2 May 2017 at 3:44 pm

              nah, ponytail pulling wouldn’t get a conviction on a PM.

              But it should do especially if it continues over several months and the victim has, repeatedly, asked the perpetrator to stop.

              • McFlock …
                2 May 2017 at 3:55 pm

                Actually, what should have happened was that the police cautioned the perpetrator for the first incident, and then he either stops or the complaints and punishments escalate.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  2 May 2017 at 4:04 pm

                  That would be true if the victim reported it to police. Unfortunately, she didn’t and thus it rose to a level of significant abuse before it came to light.

                  Or, the other option that could have applied, is that the police officers that accompany the PM should have arrested him for assault on the first time. They were there and watching after all.

                  • McFlock …
                    2 May 2017 at 4:09 pm

                    Does one even need to be arrested to be cautioned?

                    As you say, they were right there.

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      2 May 2017 at 4:29 pm

                      Have you ever done any martial arts? or security work?

                      One of the first things you will learn about the ‘ potential’ of pulling hair isn’t that the hairpulling in of itself is the cause of the damage.

                      Its the strikes and ability to get a person off balanced and on the floor that is and subject to foot stomps etc .

                      And while Key obviously wasn’t intending any of that , but merely exercising his sick fetish , – there is a reason why even hair pulling is viewed under the law as assault.

                      Try it.

                      Go and pull the ponytail of a female police officer and see how dimly its viewed.

                      And just because Key was accompanied by the Diplomatic Protection staff, – even MORE SO that should not have been allowed to carry on over a 6 month period.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      2 May 2017 at 4:36 pm

                      Does one even need to be arrested to be cautioned?

                      Don’t think so but an arrest and then let off with a caution would, IMO, be more appropriate for assault than, say, parking on the footpath.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2017 at 4:40 pm

                      @WK Yes, actually. Both.

                      Assault is the application of force or the threat of force. Yes, assault on a police officer is bad. It can still result in a discharge without conviction. Especially if, as you say, the assault is “obviously” limited with no threat of escalation. And a waitress is not a police officer with the power to immediately arrest and charge someone who assaults her.

                      I’ve seen guys cautioned/diverted/discharged for full-blown fights where half a dozen of us had to hold the fucker down. Not necessarily rich bastards, either.

                      Yes, the cops right there should have intervened long before she felt she had to escalate. But come on, it was never going to get him an offence conviction big enough to be kicked from parliament.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 May 2017 at 4:44 pm

                      @dtb – I don’t think they do cautions for parking on footpaths. They write tickets.

      • Keith 1.1.4
        2 May 2017 at 9:00 am

        What revenue did they lose with their government hotel chain contract…. hang on, wrong court case.

      • AsleepWhileWalking 1.1.5
        2 May 2017 at 10:36 am

        The worst is not revenue lost, but the association of Eminem with National party politics, which imho clashes and undermines his brand.

        The ad for National while limited due to the small size of NZ would be as damaging as Eminem starring in a Disney movie.

        JK’s mother raising him in a State house given as a reward for hard work in those days in no way compares to the struggles of people in the Projects, nor for that matter does it compare to those in social housing or benefits today.

        • Gosman 1.1.5.1
          2 May 2017 at 10:39 am

          Maybe in the NZ market. Given it’s tiny size on the World I doubt Eminem brand can be stated to be damaged that much.

          • WILD KATIPO 1.1.5.1.1
            2 May 2017 at 11:28 am

            Yet still damaged.

          • dukeofurl 1.1.5.1.2
            2 May 2017 at 12:26 pm

            So Boeing sells its planes to Air NZ for a lot less, because its a ‘tiny market’?

            We keep getting told we have to pay the ‘world price’ for stuff we grow here.

          • Barfly 1.1.5.1.3
            2 May 2017 at 1:49 pm

            It was and remains world wide news Gosman – if he can’t be seen able to meaningfully protect his work it will be commercially damaging to him.

            • WILD KATIPO 1.1.5.1.3.1
              2 May 2017 at 1:58 pm

              Wooooohoooooooooooooo!!!

              NOW THAT’S – a bloody good point !!!!

              And we can be sure every other artist around the world will be looking on following this court trial with keen interest. Kinda balloons out and mushrooms the more one thinks about it , L0L !

              Kind of makes Gosman’s efforts to minimize it all as NZ being a small ‘market’ kind of sound bullshitty , now , doesn’t it!!!

              • dukeofurl …
                2 May 2017 at 5:54 pm

                Its definitely world wide news, not of the earth shattering kind, but still newsworthy.
                From memory these sort musical copyright cases are interesting on many fronts. And Judges like them too, a chance to make a groundbreaking judgement

          • michelle 1.1.5.1.4
            2 May 2017 at 2:51 pm

            It’s not just about the money its about the principles the trouble is the gnats don’t have any

      • aerobubble 1.1.6
        2 May 2017 at 3:45 pm

        Naff Nats, rebranding effectively is the only way forward, declare National party bankrupt. Move to a new logo.

  2. Keith 2
    2 May 2017 at 8:57 am

    It’s wrong in law, yeah but fuck it, we’re the National Party and we’ve been getting away with it for years! We’re above it.

    And the Nats epitaph ; Make sure anyone else but the National Party takes the blame!

    Anyway they have 10’s of millions to spend, either from the gazillionaires/MP’s who run that business, i mean party, or from shadowy donors who just want to “support democracy”.

    • WILD KATIPO 2.1
      2 May 2017 at 2:03 pm

      The National party – being hung drawn and quartered by the very laws Obama passed over copyright – and to whom John Key slimed and ingratiated himself with to aid and assist in the ILLEGAL arrest of Kim Dotcom in order to have him extradited.

      This is getting so , soo , sooo incredibly RICH !!!

  3. Xanthe 3
    2 May 2017 at 9:16 am

    Where is the qcsb? where is the sis? Where are the armed police absailing from helecopters? Dont they know how we deal with (alleged) copyright infringers in this country ?

  4. saveNZ 4
    2 May 2017 at 9:22 am

    Sounds like musicians are getting sick of their music being used to promote political parties that they don’t support.

    Even worse, is a rip off of their music being used to promote political parties they don’t support.

  5. Enough is Enough 5
    2 May 2017 at 9:25 am

    Presumably National would have paid money for the alternative track. It would have been licenced to them in consideration for a fee.

    Unless they are fucking retarded, the contract between National and the company that sold them the song, would have had a standard warranty that the music does not infringe any third party intellectual property rights with a decent indemnity backing it up.

    So although National will lose in court, they should be able to rely on their contract to pass liability to the company that sold it to them.

    • dukeofurl 5.1
      2 May 2017 at 9:48 am

      Well that sort of contract would cost, maybe they took the all care no responsibility version for $500.

      This site has remixes for commercial uses
      https://www.audionetwork.com/track/searchkeyword?keyword=rap&page=2&size=3&sort=51

      • AsleepWhileWalking 5.1.1
        2 May 2017 at 10:45 am

        Maybe they had a “work for hire” contract which is common, suggested the music themselves (idk and can’t be bothered wading through the case) in which case all changes belong to them.

        *boom*

    • North 5.2
      2 May 2017 at 9:13 pm

      Oh E-in-E @ 5……..you can’t as a matter of law escape significant breach of property rights on the score that someone else gave you a warranty. Can you ? Best you could do surely would be to join that someone else as a party. Not my area but the principle makes sense. Otherwise there’d be a thriving ‘defence-by-warranty’ market. Where then the ‘sanctity’ of private property my right wing chums ?

      • Enough is Enough 5.2.1
        3 May 2017 at 9:46 am

        You are absolutely right. It is not a defence

        But if such a warranty was provided then National would have a claim against them for breach of that warranty.

        I don’t know if that warranty was ever given. But if you are purchasing music for a commercial purpose, you would be an idiot in the extreme to not ask for that warranty.

  6. Anne 6
    2 May 2017 at 10:22 am

    Confess to not following this case so:

    how will the outcome affect the Kim Dotcom case? If Eminem win, will it not send a message of gross hypocrisy to the voters? Dotcom is being done for copyright infringement (involving in the first instance, as Xanthe has noted, police hit squads, helicoptors and questionable surveillance) and now the the government are being tried for something similar?

    • WILD KATIPO 6.1
      2 May 2017 at 10:56 am

      That was something Draco mentioned in yesterdays thread about this , and at the time this broke was one of the first things I thought about , – I think Martyn Bradbury did an article saying the same thing shortly after as well,…

      So to honour Gosman , lets again have some wisdom about the whole affair,….

      John Oliver – Eminem vs NZ National Party – YouTube
      Video for ohn Oliver – Eminem vs NZ National Party – YouTube Video for John Oliver – Eminem vs NZ National Party▶ 1:44

    • xanthe 6.2
      2 May 2017 at 12:17 pm

      ahh nothing “questionable” about the surveillance of DotCom. It was Illegal!

    • McFlock 6.3
      2 May 2017 at 12:45 pm

      And if the nats lose and there are damages to pay, even if the music library company accepts the liability and pays out, wouldn’t that still count as a massive financial donation/expense to the nats’ election compaign?

      • WILD KATIPO 6.3.1
        2 May 2017 at 1:16 pm

        Interesting point. It could be said if it was part of the total costs of National party campaigning for this election … is there a ceiling set for expenditure / donations during an election campaign and would they have breached it ?

        • McFlock 6.3.1.1
          2 May 2017 at 8:47 pm

          Yes and quite possibly

          Election expenses
          Expenditure limit

          A registered party’s election expenses during the regulated period for the 2017 general election (23 June to 22 September) must not exceed $1,115,000 (including GST) plus $26,200 (including GST) per electorate contested by the party.

          If a registered party does not contest the party vote, its total election expenses cannot exceed $26,200 (including GST) for each electorate candidate nominated by the party.

          The candidate election expenses regime does not apply to people who are list candidates only. Any spending by those candidates promoting the party is an election expense of the party and must be authorised by the party secretary.

          Party limits are separate from the expense limits applying to electorate candidates.
          Election expenses

          A party’s election expenses are the costs of advertising in any medium that:

          may reasonably be regarded as either encouraging voters to vote for the party or discouraging voters from voting for another party, or both (whether or not the name of the party(s) are mentioned)
          is published, or continues to be published, during the regulated period, and
          is promoted by the party secretary or any person (including a registered promoter) authorised by the party secretary. [See section 206 of the Electoral Act]

          Party election expenses include:

          the cost incurred in the preparation, design, composition, printing, postage and publication of the advertisement
          the reasonable market value of any materials used for the advertisement, including materials provided to the party free of charge or below reasonable market value
          the apportioned costs for advertisements that promote two or more parties, or a party and a candidate. [See section 3E of the Electoral Act]

          The costs of food, hall hire, surveys or opinion polls, free labour or replacing materials destroyed through no fault of the party are not election expenses. Nomination and party list deposits are not election expenses.

          The cost of any framework that supports a sign (other than a commercial framework) is not an expense.

          The costs of broadcasting election programmes paid for out of the broadcasting allocation by the Commission are not election expenses.

          I wonder if their legal fees will count if they lose?

  7. Peterh 7
    2 May 2017 at 12:28 pm

    No it was pretty legal. dot coms laughing all the way to the bank

    • WILD KATIPO 7.1
      2 May 2017 at 12:58 pm

      Actually the warrant to arrest Kim Dotcom was flawed thus making the arrest and thus making the freezing of Dotcoms assets – AND – the denial of a phone call to contact lawyers while in prison , ILLEGAL.

      As was the ILLEGAL spying on 88 other NZ citizens and residents ( including Dotcom) conducted by the GSCB at the time.

      And so retrospectively – under guidance from both the USA and Britain’s 5 eyes branches , John Key retrospectively changed the laws governing GSCB and SIS surveillance and greatly advanced Police powers in those areas as well .

      However , we notice he didn’t drop the process to have Dotcom charged in our courts at a foreign nations behest that does not have any jurisdiction in this sovereign nation. And that was because the FBI was acting on behalf of the Hollywood Motion Picture Industry which was a body charged to draw up terms for the TTPA to be ratified in Congress.

      So not only is anyone who says the treatment of Kim Dotcom was / is either justified or legal ,- they are also talking out of a hole in their arse , not aware of the facts , and are conveniently in denial in order to advance their own surreptitious right wing agendas.

      AND aligning themselves with America’s NSA which was found in court to have been illegally conducting surveillance of all American citizens electronic communications.

      AND have recently been in the news again trying on the same sort of stunt all over again for a second time around.

  8. mosa 8
    2 May 2017 at 1:06 pm

    That famous Joyce phrase ” pretty legal ” just about sums up the how they view the law and how it’s applied when it gets in the way of them being held accountable for their crimes, in other words let’s bend the law as much as we can and hope we get away with it.

    No wonder Key slipped under the radar with his behaviour and misdemeanours.
    And that’s the ones we know about !

    The National party believes it’s only illegal if you get don’t get caught !

    What a way to run a country.

    • WILD KATIPO 8.1
      2 May 2017 at 1:12 pm

      Well , we’ve already had common assault by John Key,

      Pike River ,

      The illegal arrest of Kim Dotcom ,

      And now this ,- the National party being done in our courts for copyright infringements of a popular USA rap stars music.

      Sweet revenge for Mr Kim Dotcom.

      • mosa 8.1.1
        2 May 2017 at 1:28 pm

        Yes it makes a mockery of John Key’s statement ” The government i lead will be a government of good standards ” .

        The cover ups are just as bad and the Mike Sabin affair is a case in point.

        https://yournz.org/2015/02/16/what-we-know-about-mike-sabin/

        • WILD KATIPO 8.1.1.1
          2 May 2017 at 1:36 pm

          And about as slanted as the mans son who worked for TV3 as a political reporter and his counterpart colleague over at TV1 who set up the framing , misleading reporting of Kim Dotcom in order to smear and discredit and divert attention from Internet / Mana political party policy’s at their launch.

          Not all of us have short memories.

          Dishonest Right wing shitheads would do well to remember that …

          • mosa 8.1.1.1.1
            2 May 2017 at 2:11 pm

            Yeah it seems that when it comes to enforcing the law like the illegal raid on Nicky Hagar’s home and the K.D.C fiasco the National government are quite prepared to do what’s necessary to punish its or a foreign powers enemy.

            John key sacked Richard Worth for his behaviour towards women in 2009 yet did not resign over his treatment of a waitress that happened multiple times.
            Key said ” if he had not resigned i would have sacked him ” shame he did not have the mana and do the same.

  9. Sacha 9
    2 May 2017 at 3:57 pm

    Expert witness compares the rip-off with the original song – and story includes clips of both: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11848563

    • McFlock 9.1
      2 May 2017 at 4:02 pm

      lol nice – it’s a copy, but a bit shit as a copy.

      Has anyone actually pointed out the elephant in the room that “Eminem-Esque” is the freaking name of the track? How will they argue that’s a coincidence, I wonder?

      • Chris 9.1.1
        2 May 2017 at 8:38 pm

        The issue isn’t about whether it’s a coincidence. They’ll say that what they bought was a sound recording that broadly resembles the music of Eminem therefore it cannot be said it’s similar enough to a specific work. That is what they’ll argue.

  10. Andre 10
    2 May 2017 at 4:25 pm

    Interesting that the defense is trying the argument that they’re different enough that there’s no infringement. Maybe they’re hoping Led Zeppelin’s recent win bolsters that argument. But “Eminem-esque” is a hell of a lot closer to “Lose Yourself” than “Twist and Shout” is to “La Bamba” or “Eminem-esque” to “Kashmir”. Hell, National’s ad even includes a little piano riff at the end which is very similar to the piano riff a couple of minutes in to “Lose Yourself”.

    I’m also curious if anyone else has used “Eminem-esque”. And whether it was pre-existing in a library or created after National showed interest in buying something.

  11. Cinny 11
    2 May 2017 at 6:23 pm

    Wondering why those on KiwiBlog seem to not want to discuss this lawsuit that the outgoing government is embroiled in?

    After all it involves their preferred political party being sued by the most famous rapper on the planet. I would have thought it was very topical, it’s made news all over the world, again.

    RT
    BBC
    Rolling Stone
    Fox
    BillBoard

    • WILD KATIPO 11.1
      2 May 2017 at 6:32 pm

      I think because those on KIWIBLOG prefer Richard Wagner’s classical music rather than rap.

    • Chris 11.2
      2 May 2017 at 8:25 pm

      Notice how the poms describe the issue accurately. “Eminem has taken New Zealand’s governing party to court over a music track it used for a campaign ad.” Refreshing to see.

    • North 11.3
      2 May 2017 at 10:50 pm

      Goodness does this mean that ShonKey might be a little bit eschewed around the truly marvellous world of elite-corporate globalism ? For acting like a wide boy. Or are they all the same ?

  12. Anne 12
    2 May 2017 at 7:45 pm

    I know what your getting at but nope… not possible. They would think Richard Wagner was the name of a whisky brewed somewhere in Northern Britain. Actually, I’m not sure they would even be able to cognate that…

    • Cinny 12.1
      2 May 2017 at 10:39 pm

      Lmao 😀

      TBH I had to google Wagner, and once again have expanded my knowledge via the standard, so thanks for that WK
      I did discover that Wagner and Eminem have a couple of things in common, controversial lyrics and a political party starting with N using their material.

  13. Ross 13
    4 May 2017 at 10:43 am

    David Farrar must be concerned because he’s blogging about the case despite saying he wouldn’t until it was over.

    What’s funny is that the Tories got into strife in 2007 about its use of a Coldplay song. It was warned by lawyers acting on behalf of EMI and subsequently recalled copies of the relevant DVD. What’s also funny is that at the time, David Farrar announced that “I think I can safely predict it won’t happen again!” The Tories just don’t learn.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10479448
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/national_recalls_dvd.html

  14. Slim 14
    6 May 2017 at 12:15 pm

    Stan 3 Limited? Surely a giant pisstake given the Nats production company is named in reference to Stan the 3rd track on the Eminem Marshall Mathers LP. Well done Glenn Jamieson. Giant gormless fool.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.