Key DVD canned over Clocks fiasco

95 comments on “Key DVD canned over Clocks fiasco ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sam Dixon 1

   3 December 2007 at 2:52 pm

   Well, that’s $50,000 down the drain (plus legal costs to come no doubt)

   and all for a boring DVD.

   I thought Key was the canny money man who knows a good investment when he sees one? Appearently not.
2. Robinsod 2

   3 December 2007 at 2:54 pm

   I guess they got that cease and desist letter from EMI. First the Porirua market fiasco and now this. What has happened to the well oiled spin machine that was National of old? I almost feel sorry for them.
3. Gruela 3

   3 December 2007 at 2:56 pm

   How can National shift the blame to the production house if they first used the single at their Party Conference in August? Obviously they told the tech staff to use that particular song, and therefore it’s all got to land in the National lap.
4. Matthew Pilott 4

   3 December 2007 at 2:59 pm

   AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and all those stupid bastards were just posting that this was a load of rubbish!

   You guys rule.
5. IrishBill 5

   3 December 2007 at 3:00 pm

   “useless drunk”??? If I didn’t have a whiskey to finish and a wee kip to have I’d kick your arse Tane. Hic!
6. Billy 6

   3 December 2007 at 3:00 pm

   Even you guys must be getting a little bit bored with this by now.
7. the sprout 7

   3 December 2007 at 3:02 pm

   seeesh, how fucking incompetent can they be?
   i guess all the help National have been getting from the msm have lulled them into thinking they were good at PR.
8. Susan Deare 8

   3 December 2007 at 3:02 pm

   It’s just like Bill Ralston was told by John Key’s adviser “They’re much better at this than us”…. obviously. You think they’d try a bit harder, knowing that they suck and all.

   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=616
9. Robinsod 9

   3 December 2007 at 3:02 pm

   Not as bored as we’re getting with the right banging on about pledge cards, “paintergate”, speeding, blah blah blah …
10. Billy 10

    3 December 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Very revealing comment, Robinsod. Do you guys think you have stumbled on your very own pledge card.

    Good luck with that. Really.
11. Tane 11

    3 December 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Hi Billy, yeah I am kinda. But given the circumstances I felt the news was worth sharing. It’s not every day you knock over $50,000 plus of National Party propaganda.

    Any guesses on what will happen to the ‘heartland’ tour now that its audiovisual centerpiece has been taken out of action?
12. The Double Standard 12

    3 December 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Well, I guess congratulations are in order.

    No doubt there will be massive swing to Teh Party in the polls owing to to the huge public outcry and protest marches over this massive fuckup by the Nats eh?

    I see Sambo has shown his rather discredited face here again. How’s that skilfull Wikipedia editing going Sambo? Maybe we need a new verb, like fisking.

    How about dixoning – to link whore, divert, and misrepresent as a commentor on blogs while simultaneously wiki-vandalising?
13. Conor Roberts 13

    3 December 2007 at 3:09 pm

    I hear they also played Clocks at the National Party conference this year. I wonder if the party of privilege forgot to pay for that privilege too???
14. Robinsod 14

    3 December 2007 at 3:10 pm

    Billy – if the left is still flogging this on every thread in 12 months time in the same way the dullards on the right flog the pledge card then I’ll happily disassociate myself from the left. In the meantime how about you comment on topic?
15. Billy 15

    3 December 2007 at 3:10 pm

    Good point, TDS. Sam, are you denying involvement in vandalising DPF’s wiki page?
16. the sprout 16

    3 December 2007 at 3:11 pm

    i see Pansy Wong, aptly the Party spokesperson for Accident Compensation, is taking the lead on damage control.

    good luck with that one.
17. Billy 17

    3 December 2007 at 3:13 pm

    Robinsod,

    I will diarise accordingly. I have commented on the topic. About last Thursday.
18. Tane 18

    3 December 2007 at 3:14 pm

    Billy, TDS, please don’t threadjack. If you want to ask Sam about Farrar’s Wikipedia accusations there’s a perfectly good forum over here:
    http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/sam-dixons-lifetime-ban/
19. Robinsod 19

    3 December 2007 at 3:15 pm

    DPFDblStdClaws – Does that make you a dixoner? Stay on topic troll.
20. Billy 20

    3 December 2007 at 3:15 pm

    Sorry Tane. Will do.
21. Sam Dixon 21

    3 December 2007 at 3:19 pm

    Billy – I’m not sure why we would be.
22. outofbed 22

    3 December 2007 at 3:20 pm

    Well done the Standard despite DPF working the flanker with Sam its been a good day
23. Visitor 23

    3 December 2007 at 3:20 pm

    From Scoop:

    “John Key’s Press Secretary Kevin Taylor would not be drawn into making any comment until further notice. ‘We will make it clear later in the day’ he answered when asked to confirm whether it was the copyright issues surrounding the DVD.”

    It’s not exactly trivial when the party cancels planned events and the leader’s press secretary has to make a statement to the media.
24. dancer 24

    3 December 2007 at 3:20 pm

    just back to the point – do you think this is a good look for the Nats website:
    “Sorry, the video you have requested is currently unavailable. Please check back soon.”
    so how did he spin it before it all started to fall apart?
    John Key: “The central message is this is what a National government would look like, this is what we think New Zealand is capable of achieving,” he told Newsroom. (27 Nov 2007). Right. Feel really reassured with that then John.
25. The Double Standard 25

    3 December 2007 at 3:21 pm

    Tane – Well, I try to restrict myself to commenting on one inane lefty blog at a time. My day is too busy to cover all the bases.

    I look forward to your continuing effort to keep comment threads on-topic.

    I suppose I could also comment on KB as well.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/the_wikipedia_vandal

    Robbo – do try to stay on topic old chap.
26. the bean 26

    3 December 2007 at 3:23 pm

    ahaha i could be here all day with this one…

    did the “lights go out” on this dvd?

    the dvd that couldn’t be saved

    the tide obviously swept this dvd away

    the confusion of what national is doing with this dvd never stops

    they obviously realised this dvd was part of the disease
27. the bean 27

    3 December 2007 at 3:27 pm

    billy, before you say it, yes these did take me a weally WEALLY long time to come up with.

    and yes tds i do write my own stuff. despite the obvious shortcomings i did not have to pay $50,000 for it and then pull it so i really don’t give a shit if it sux or not
28. The Double Standard 28

    3 December 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Still, better to get this issue sorted now rather than in November next year eh?

    Robbo sez “if the left is still flogging this on every thread in 12 months time in the same way the dullards on the right flog the pledge card then I’ll happily disassociate myself from the left.”

    I’ll have to bookmark that one. I’m sure someone will still be banging on about it!
29. the sprout 29

    3 December 2007 at 3:34 pm

    tds, you cna be sure clocks will be ringing for jonkey for a long time yet. hope it doesn’t drive him crazy again.
30. Insolent Prick 30

    3 December 2007 at 3:34 pm

    Speaking of political parties spending a lot of money on propaganda, I note that the Labour Party has a new website. I’ve talked with friends in the website making industry, and they have calculated that it would take seventeen people approximately 42 days to build that new website. They have estimated that the costs of the new website to be $51,000.00

    And yet, not a single new policy announcement! When is Labour going to produce any policy? Why is it that the sustainability link is broken? Does Labour not have a sustainability policy?

    Looks like a fizzer, that piece of Labour Party propaganda.
31. the bean 31

    3 December 2007 at 3:39 pm

    ahaha insolent prickle “tell him he’s dreeeeaming”! unlike in national, labour have these people called volunteers. funnily enough they have reeeeeaaally smart volunteers too. so they don’t have to shell out fuck loads cos people actually want to help out for what labour supports.
32. Matthew Pilott 32

    3 December 2007 at 4:01 pm

    IP,

    A website is a vehicle used to deliver information. Did you know that it can be updated when the Labour Psrty decides to do so? Unlike a pre-recorded DVD, for example.

    It’s a desperate comment you’ve made there, I like it.
33. the sprout 33

    3 December 2007 at 4:04 pm

    “estimated that the costs of the new website to be $51,000.00”

    hehe, excellent – sounds like when the police say “5 grams of cannibis with an estimated street value of $50,000”.

    no wonder you Nats overspend with quotes like that. seeing’s how you have no talented volunteers and have to buy all your material, you should at least try going to independent suppliers instead of only ever enlisting your mates’ companies – everyone knows their key business is ripping people off.
34. Gruela 34

    3 December 2007 at 4:08 pm

    “their KEY business is ripping people off.”

    Bah ha ha ha!
35. Insolent Prick 35

    3 December 2007 at 4:08 pm

    bean:

    By volunteers, do you mean paid union organisers? Because with as few exceptions as you can count on one hand, every Labour Party candidate at the last election was a union organiser. Hardly voluntary work when they’re on the payroll of an organisation that is affiliated to the Labour Party, is it?
36. the sprout 36

    3 December 2007 at 4:11 pm

    Impotent, as a National/ACT creature you clearly don’t understand the meaning of volunteer. and in leftwing parties, there are also volunteers who aren’t candidates.
    which i guess is why you’re so freaked about the EFB really isn’t it?
37. Gruela 37

    3 December 2007 at 4:15 pm

    Now we have this:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10480032

    but I still want to know if they played the same music at their conference in August and, if so, how they can blame the production co.
38. Matthew Pilott 38

    3 December 2007 at 4:25 pm

    The Sprout,

    If IP does not understand that the Labour Party website can be updated in future how on earth would he understand the concept of volunteering? Or that people will work on their own time… I am not sure the Right could deal with such a concept.
39. Insolent Prick 39

    3 December 2007 at 4:32 pm

    Sprout,

    An interesting claim. Except Labour’s membership amounts to less than four thousand party members. National’s membership exceeds 30,000 members. Every office holder person, from branch, to electorate, to region, to national office holder, is a volunteer, with the single exception of the Party President. In an election day, National has around five thousand people, nation-wide, volunteering for the Party.

    Try as you like, but National’s membership base makes it one of the largest volunteer organisations in the country.
40. The Double Standard 40

    3 December 2007 at 4:36 pm

    IP – Since the new Party website has the govt crest on it, it must be taxpayer funded. I guess they needed to get the update in before passing the EFB. Norty Norty!
41. Tane 41

    3 December 2007 at 4:37 pm

    Prick, you’re lying about Labour’s membership. I can tell you that for a fact.

    As for your brag about National’s membership, the trade union movement has 370,000 members. That’s ten times, my friend.
42. the bean 42

    3 December 2007 at 4:43 pm

    ahahahaha insolent prickle. keep dreaming. national may well have 30,000 members. it is just a pity they are all dead, made up, eb members or play in a band called ‘coldplay’.
43. Lampie 43

    3 December 2007 at 4:45 pm

    diarise

    What does that mean?
44. Billy 44

    3 December 2007 at 4:48 pm

    “To put in one’s diary.” It is quite a common word around my way, Lampie.
45. The Double Standard 45

    3 December 2007 at 4:50 pm

    “Prick, you’re lying about Labour’s membership. I can tell you that for a fact.”

    You mean he is over-estimating it?
46. nih 46

    3 December 2007 at 4:53 pm

    It is quite a common word around my way

    I knew it!
47. nih 47

    3 December 2007 at 4:54 pm

    By the way, according to the largest dictionary for all languages that ever existed, it’s not a word.
48. Lampie 48

    3 December 2007 at 4:55 pm

    An interesting claim. Except Labour’s membership amounts to less than four thousand party members. National’s membership exceeds 30,000 members. Every office holder person, from branch, to electorate, to region, to national office holder, is a volunteer, with the single exception of the Party President. In an election day, National has around five thousand people, nation-wide, volunteering for the Party.

    Try as you like, but National’s membership base makes it one of the largest volunteer organisations in the country.

    Got any proof to these claims, as any idiot can say that.
49. the sprout 49

    3 December 2007 at 4:58 pm

    “National’s membership exceeds 30,000 members”

    ho ho ho, that is funny. you’ve studied your Goebbels’ Big Lie well Impotent.
50. Billy 50

    3 December 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Nih, you got me. Brilliant.

    Is “homophobe” in there?
51. Insolent Prick 51

    3 December 2007 at 5:02 pm

    And I can tell you, Tane, that the membership of Federated Farmers is 17,000, and the AA is larger than the entire union membership. What is your point? Since when is every member of a trade union automatically a member of the Labour Party?

    Are you giving us a preview of an intention by the Labour Party to not require union members to vote, and simply add another 370,000 votes to Labour’s election total?

    4,000 members is a reasonable estimate of Labour’s current membership, Tane. If you’d like to correct me with an actual figure, I’d take your word for it.

    TDS, that is good spotting!

    Tane, since you seem to have been so obsessed with how much of its own money National spent producing a DVD with no new policy in it, I expect you to come up with a similar obsession on how the Labour Party is spending so much taxpayers’ money on a website with no new policy in it.

    My estimate so far is $51,000. The best responses so far from Standard commenters is that it was built with voluntary support. Except, if it had been, then Parliamentary services wouldn’t have paid for it, would they?

    No. This was paid for with taxpayers’ money. Or is it only propaganda paid for with private money that you care about?

    Is this just the thin end of yet another pledge card rort next year?
52. Eddie 52

    3 December 2007 at 5:03 pm

    Well if the Exclusive Brethren have finally formally affiliated with the National Party then yes, those numbers stack up.
53. the sprout 53

    3 December 2007 at 5:09 pm

    wft? so “the membership of Federated Farmers is 17,000, and the AA” means automatic membership to the National Party?
54. Pascal's bookie 54

    3 December 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Where’s PhillBest at, to tell you what a bunch of thickies you are?

    Well done guys.

    Cop-E-rights in UR Kam-Pains eeting all UR FunZ

    Captcha: awesome a
    🙂
55. Insolent Prick 55

    3 December 2007 at 5:21 pm

    No, Sprout. My point is that membership of the union movement has as much relevance to membership of the Labour Party as membership of the AA or FF has to do with membership of the National Party. Membership of a union is the selection of an employment advocate. Membership of the Labour Party is a political choice, and a commitment to vote for Labour.
56. the sprout 56

    3 December 2007 at 5:25 pm

    got it. well then you make a fair-ish point IP, although surely you would agree that if union members belonged to any party, they would most likely belong to Labour, and would be highly unlikely to belong to National/ACT
57. Benodic 57

    3 December 2007 at 5:43 pm

    IP- Unions have a large membership and are naturally left-leaning. This membership provides plenty of volunteers at election time to help with Labour’s campaigns. Some unions are even affiliated to the Labour Party, but nearly all put in an effort during election campaigns. Their members make a huge difference to elections. The same can’t be said of AA.
58. Gruela 58

    3 December 2007 at 5:49 pm

    Are you guys seriously doing a “My Party’s Bigger Than Your Party!” routine?
59. Insolent Prick 59

    3 December 2007 at 5:52 pm

    Oh, I don’t disagree, Sprout and Benodic. Unions are left-leaning. They do provide enormous amounts of resources to the Labour Party. 370,000 people who are members of unions have a choice to join Labour if they wish to do so. Only 4,000 New Zealanders choose to join the Labour Party. Many of them are unionists. Most of them are union activists. In fact, without the very active participation by paid union officials in the Labour Party, there wouldn’t be a Labour Party.

    It really does make you wonder, doesn’t it, about the morality of so heavily restricting the rights of opposition parties, and third parties, to campaign during an election year, when the Labour Party, through its unions, are so flush with resources.

    It really does make the efforts of the EB seem pretty trivial, don’t you think?
60. the bean 60

    3 December 2007 at 6:04 pm

    so yeah how about that freakin national party video huh. played the song at conference but complete coincidence that its body double turned up on the national party propaganda. doh

    what a waste of money and a completely hollow exercise
61. the sprout 61

    3 December 2007 at 6:08 pm

    not really IP, as you say unions represent over a thrid of a million NZers, and they’re upfront about their political stances. the EB are a tiny, largely non-participatory minority whose views are way out of whack with most left and right.
    the vast numbers of unions and their overt support is also why they aren’t comprable with those whose influence the EFB seeks to reign in – another covert wealthy minority.
62. The Double Standard 62

    3 December 2007 at 6:20 pm

    Spout – so if I’m reading you right you are saying that only those who’s views are “in whack” with the majority should be able to participate in politics?
63. the bean 63

    3 December 2007 at 6:23 pm

    nope…but it should follow the democratic principle of one person one vote. those with more money should not have more influence than those with more support but less money. keep up
64. the sprout 64

    3 December 2007 at 6:25 pm

    clearly you are evidence that that isn’t so.
    i think you’ll find this govt isn’t trying to stop even extremists participating, it’s just that they shouldn’t have any covert influence disproportionate to any other group of whackjobs.
65. Historian 65

    3 December 2007 at 6:34 pm

    John Key is preparing for government, judging by his performance on TV news. Basically he said “I blame the people that work for me.”

    Plus ca change …
66. The Double Standard 66

    3 December 2007 at 7:17 pm

    Gruela

    “Ms de Joux confirmed the original Coldplay song was used at the National Party conference this year – but it had got one-off user rights for that.”

    So there you go – you can sleep happy tonight knowing that coldpay haven’t missed out. And obviously the band (or likely more correctly the copyright holder – EMI) isn’t too fussed about which causes their music is used with, provided they are paid for it.
67. Gruela 67

    3 December 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Okay, thanks Dblstnd.
68. r0b 68

    3 December 2007 at 7:34 pm

    “Are you guys seriously doing a “My Party’s Bigger Than Your Party!” routine?”

    Just above we were arguing about the sizes of our dictionaries. It’s a dict size war…

    And as to the topic of the thread, congratualtions to The Standard for raising this issue, and sticking to your guns in getting it out there.
69. r0b 69

    3 December 2007 at 7:34 pm

    “Are you guys seriously doing a “My Party’s Bigger Than Your Party!” routine?”

    Just above we were arguing about the sizes of our dictionaries. It’s a dict size war…

    And as to the topic of the thread, congratualtions to The Standard for raising this issue, and sticking to your guns in getting it out there.
70. r0b 70

    3 December 2007 at 7:35 pm

    Again with the double post? Does this happen to anyone else?
71. Historian 71

    3 December 2007 at 7:38 pm

    The Herald report (with Jo de Joux’s quote) supports what has been argued here all along:

    1) National used Clocks at the conference (legally).

    2) The production company / composer was then asked to provide the music for the DVD.

    3)John Key’s appearance at National’s conference forms part of the DVD (with soundtrack).

    4) The music for the DVD was a direct rip-off of Clocks (this is no longer in dispute).

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10480032

    So the question is: How did a composer come up with this tune? By accident? By coincidence? They just happened to come up with a copy of Clocks?

    Or by following instructions, to reproduce the music of the conference? If so, whose instructions?

    Blaming the company (as Key has) won’t wash.
72. Lampie 72

    3 December 2007 at 9:03 pm

    nih

    Guess these made up words something that National will introduce into the education system to replace the txt in exams…. opps nope…..as schools would become commerical operations.
73. Lampie 73

    3 December 2007 at 9:08 pm

    Blaming the company (as Key has) won’t wash.

    Otherwise known as passing the buck!!!

    Since they would have to approve the final draft like anyone else does before parting with money, yeah think they can share some blame there.

    Just remember, if this is their level of compantence management, imagine them running the country!!!

    Just remember, it’s easier to snipe from the cheap seats as we know all the best All Black coaches are sitting at home watching rugby.
74. The Double Standard 74

    3 December 2007 at 9:13 pm

    “Just remember, it’s easier to snipe from the cheap seats”

    Yup, we watch you doing it every day.
75. Lampie 75

    3 December 2007 at 9:22 pm

    Nih, you got me. Brilliant.

    Is “homophobe” in there?

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobe

    Billy, I have a spare shovel to help you with that hole your digging
76. Lampie 76

    3 December 2007 at 9:30 pm

    Yup, we watch you doing it every day.

    Keeping watching and we just keep laughing at you

    Hope none of you are University grads. as well… you sux big time with logic, references, research and generally forming arguments.

    And for the retarding thinking ever, you come here? Bored of porn sites already? or has mummy put nanny safe on?
77. Lampie 77

    3 December 2007 at 9:35 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10480032

    This really does make people who said “nothing like Cold Play” look like retards.

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=788
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=786
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=782

    Your too gutless to admit you might be wrong. Your egocentric mind shows your irrational thinking.
78. Visitor 78

    3 December 2007 at 11:57 pm

    John Key, interviewed in the Herald back in August:

    “His first conference as Leader of the Opposition is coming up, and his theme song is something by Coldplay …”

    But of course, that was before he needed to blame a production company for his own personal choice of music.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=49&objectid=10455692
79. The Double Standard 79

    4 December 2007 at 7:20 am

    Lampie – I think you meant to link to this story?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10480130
80. Lampie 80

    4 December 2007 at 8:29 am

    Nope TDS as different issue and opinion pieces are crap, regardless for or against as not a balanced view. Preys on the uneducated like polls (as about 3-5% of the population actually understand statistics as grads in Statistc BSc are very low). So you will not see me jumping up and down for polls and opinion pieces.
81. Matthew Pilott 81

    4 December 2007 at 9:26 am

    Hehe Helen C quoting Kiwiblogblog and Standard?

    “I have not seen the thing, but I hear it’s a bit on the vacuous side”

    I think “Ambitious? Vacuous more like” was a KBB post title 😉
82. PhilBest 82

    4 December 2007 at 10:37 am

    Lampie, I don’t think anyone said that the music was “nothing like Coldplay”. Myself, and some guys with the following handles: Paul, Peter, Pascal, Dean, Boomtownprat, and Insolent prick, all said that it is NOT “Clocks” by Coldplay. Pop music is all about soundalike themes being reused, and some of us named some earlier songs that Coldplay could just as likely be said to have been ripping off when they did “Clocks”.

    “Historian”, unlike the tin-eared induviduals who have been claiming that the music on the John Key DVD WAS “Clocks” by Coldplay, you make perfect sense. I still stand by what I’ve said earlier, that music with a simple enough theme CAN be altered, even only slightly, and re-done with a different title, (and different lyrics) without fear of copyright infringement. If this was not the case, the whole pop music industry would collapse in a flood of litigation suits. (I am not saying that this would be a bad thing!).

    I could easily believe that an “Auckland musician” did this, completely cynically, knowing that HE was safe from big lawsuits. But when politics is involved, and the trial is by media, in the court of public opinion, now that is a different thing altogether. Of course the great unmusical majority was going to think that this music WAS “Clocks”, and only people with more acute musical ears like myself and those named above were going to pick the differences.

    I have made a strong argument on this site that the music was a different recording of something different ENOUGH to “Clocks”, to give the lie to accusations that the Nats were up for copyright infringement by using someone’s “song” without their permission. EMI are probably being opportunist in leaning on the Nats, everyone knows they are a powerful corporation that could cost anyone a lot in a legal fight. In those circumstances, it makes sense for the Nats to just pay a small fee, or withdraw the video, or whatever EMI is asking. Note that this is the sort of “Big Corporate” behaviour that would earn the condemnation of “The Standard” in the normal course of things.

    I still think the Nats COULD have issued a statement right at the start, in conjunction with the “Auckland musician”, to the effect that they were quite within their rights to use music even this similar to “Clocks”, and that the recording company could get lost. But they would probably still stand accused in the eyes of the majority who believed that the music WAS “Clocks”, and of course the recording company might have made it expensive for them before their action finally failed.

    Now if the “Auckland musician” could prove that the music was composed by him or someone else 20 years ago or something, that would change everything, even in the court of public opinion. But if John Key or someone else in the Nats DID give instructions that they wanted music LIKE “Clocks” but without paying a royalty, that would be a very POLITICALLY inept thing to have done, but even so would still not amount to an infringement of copyright.
83. Lampie 83

    4 December 2007 at 10:55 am

    Doesn’t matter if it was slightly altered or not, it was enough for EMI lawyers to think otherwise. It doesn’t justify theft.
84. Insolent Prick 84

    4 December 2007 at 1:00 pm

    Lampie,

    You’ve entirely missed the point of Philbest’s post. It was NOT Clocks. It would be interesting, however, if you relied on a majority opinion as to whether it sounds like Clocks. Because just last month a majority of listeners to an Italian radio station agreed that Clocks was a rip off of Peter Van Wood’s Caviar and Champagne. Coldplay are presently being sued for copyright infringement by Van Wood.

    National’s decision to pull the video has nothing to do with the legal ownership of the music. Clearly, the Party felt that the political liability was more significant than the legal liability.

    John Key was smart to pull the song. It’s a non-issue that doesn’t need to be made into a big issue. If only Helen Clark had the intestinal fortitude to withdraw potentially politically damaging actions by her Party, perhaps fewer people would detest this Government.
85. r0b 85

    4 December 2007 at 1:07 pm

    “National’s decision to pull the video has nothing to do with the legal ownership of the music”

    That’s not what John Key said on TV1 and TV3 news last night.
86. Lampie 86

    4 December 2007 at 1:28 pm

    Coldplay are presently being sued for copyright infringement by Van Wood.

    Theft is still theft! You saying if you nicked a particular item and then I nicked it, I’m innocent??? Thats what your saying. Haven’t you heard two wrongs don’t make a right.

    As in pulling it, if there wern’t grounds for legal liability then they wouldn’t NEED TO RECALL IT!!!!
87. Insolent Prick 87

    4 December 2007 at 1:40 pm

    No, Lampie, that’s not what I have been saying. What various people have said is that the music is not Clocks, and that Coldplay don’t own the sound. What they have in common is a very brief sequence of chords, and the same beat. The instrumentals are different, the entire sequence of chords is considerably different. As Phil Best says:

    “Now in the case of the above songs, they were quite distictive regarding both chord sequence and melody, over as much as sixteen consecutive different chords. No-one has EVER established a legal copyright over a sequence of 3 chords. The legal precedents involve that this would be impossible and ridiculous. Could someone copyright the chord sequence for “Happy Birthday to You”? Or establish a copyright over the idea of painting a bowl of fruit, not just one particular painting, but of any painting of ANY bowl of fruit?

    “The riff in the John Key video is NOT “Clocks”, performed by Coldplay. It is the same chord sequence, played on different instruments and with a duple bicord rythmic motive instead of a 3-note arpeggio. That is different enough for the purposes of this debate. The “Auckland artist” may well have known what he was doing. ”

    Now, EMI may have a cause to dispute the origins of the song. Their motives for disputing it are as much about promoting EMI than protecting copyright law. That doesn’t mean they would be successful, by any measure. John Key would have to be particularly stupid to allow any legal action to interfere with his core message. He isn’t stupid. He’s pulled the DVD to avoid legal action, and focus on his message.

    I haven’t yet seen a single Standard blogger retract their earlier, incorrect line that the song is Clocks. It isn’t Clocks, and you’d have to be a moron to continue to claim that it is.
88. Lampie 88

    4 December 2007 at 2:33 pm

    Bottom line prick, they shouldn’t have got into this situation. Possible new campagin manager needed? Guess one production company’s image now crap 🙂
89. the sprout 89

    4 December 2007 at 2:37 pm

    your laboured efforts to support your leader jonkey are admirable IP, if not misplaced. despite your best attempts at obfuscation however, the law states it has nothing to do with any number of chords, notes or motifs – the piece fails the copyright test of “passing off”, as evinced by the prior use of Clocks by National at their conference, and more tellingly still, the considerable confusion over the piece’s provenance until it was eventually clarified that it was merely an imitation of Clocks.

    the other failure you admit implicitly, is that Key was an incompetent knob for signing off on it (or at best employing whoever signed off on it) and a fool for then trying to pass the buck on responsibility for the error of judgement.
90. Visitor 90

    4 December 2007 at 3:14 pm

    This got buried in the trolling on t’other thread, so I’ll just point out again:

    Dom-Post online today:

    “Mr Key said the first he knew of the problem was Friday night”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4311912a6000.html

    That is three whole days after he launched the DVD, with much fanfare, urging us to watch and get to know him.

    Therefore – and there is no other conclusion possible from his comments in the Dom-Post – he was handing out a DVD to the public of New Zealand that HE HADN’T ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO LISTEN TO.

    I hope he takes the time to read National policy before putting his name to it!
91. the sprout 91

    4 December 2007 at 4:41 pm

    absolutely hilarious, the guy couldn’t lie straight in a bed
92. gobsmacked 92

    4 December 2007 at 5:01 pm

    The Clocks are ticking for John Key …
93. the sprout 93

    4 December 2007 at 5:03 pm

    what’s that i hear? why i think it’s the sound of back-bencher knives a-sharpening

Links to post

1. Graciousness as spin « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 4 December 2007 at 12:14 pm
2. National’s spin doesn’t stack up at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 31 December 2007 at 10:42 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS