Nats think “pretty legal” is good enough…

24 comments on “Nats think “pretty legal” is good enough… ”

• Comments are now closed

1. saveNZ 1

   10 March 2016 at 8:04 am

   +1
2. M. Gray 2

   10 March 2016 at 8:59 am

   Bunch of Hypocrites
3. Rosie 3

   10 March 2016 at 9:01 am

   Oh good. I’d been wondering when this trial was going to go ahead. Thanks for letting us know. The track was such a blatant rip off it it’s not funny.

   Bring on popcorn April.
   • Chooky 3.1

     10 March 2016 at 5:07 pm

     +100…hope they have the pants sued off them
     • Kiwi_Harry 3.1.1

       12 March 2016 at 2:38 pm

       I hope they don’t and that the case is dismissed.

       I use music from a number of production music libraries, including Beatbox, which is where the track was sourced from. We pay licensing fees to use the music from these libraries, and in our case we pay a yearly fee and file usage details on a regular basis. I’ve used a number of production music tracks where some parts sound similar to commercial music

       If this case were to proceed, then it would be extremely disturbing to everybody in the industry who uses production music, as it could mean any of us could end up being sued for using production music. I’m not just talking about the NZ industry either. Production music is used worldwide.

       As already highlighted, Eminem’s publishers are dragging the wrong people to court. They should be chasing the composer and Californian based Labrador Music who I understand own the rights to the similar sounding track. Labrador Music then licensed Beatbox to in include it in their library.
4. Roflcopter 4

   10 March 2016 at 9:29 am

   Eight Mile Style LLC and Martin Affiliated LLC are chasing the wrong party, and they will not be successful.

   National did not use the track because they “found it on teh interwebz and it sounded cool”, the agency responsible for putting together their campaign promo together purchased the right to use the track from a 3rd party library vendor.

   It is the responsibility for the 3rd party library vendor to ensure it has all the appropriate licensing in place for any stock it carries, and like photo libraries, it is their responsibility to ensure that if there are any special conditions attached to the stock item, then those conditions must be clearly displayed (e.g. “must not be used for right-wing political party campaigns”).

   When you purchase stock images/music, you are required to acknowledge any conditions attached, and also must state it’s intended use.

   So, if there were conditions applied to the track, and the 3rd party vendor didn’t make those clear, or licensing clearly wasn’t in place, then they are at fault and they are the ones the lawyers should be chasing big time.

   If the the 3rd party vendor has done everything correctly, and there were specific conditions attached which would have not allowed it to be used for National’s campaign, then the media agency is the one at fault, and they are the ones that the lawyers should be chasing.

   As far as The National Party are concerned, they have bought creative and media services in good faith, and it is wholly the responsibility of the agency they used to make sure all checks and balances are in place.

   The outcome will depend on whether the 3rd party library vendor had all licensing and conditions in place. If they did, the courts will throw it out, and if they didn’t then the courts will also throw it out and tell the lawyers to chase the 3rd party library vendor instead.
   • Sabine 4.1

     10 March 2016 at 10:00 am

     but that is not what Mr. Joyce said. He only said it was ‘pretty legal’ meaning overall legal? Somewhat legal? Kind a legal? We are confident its legal? We feel comfortable that it is legal enough?
   • Stuart Munro 4.2

     10 March 2016 at 10:41 am

     Can’t get good title from bad title though – M&M can chase the Gnats if he chooses, and win.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.3

     10 March 2016 at 10:43 am

     the agency responsible for putting together their campaign promo together purchased the right to use the track from a 3rd party library vendor.

     Both of which are probably a National Party Limited subsidiaries.
     • Chooky 4.3.1

       10 March 2016 at 5:09 pm

       yes that would cover their bases
   • Hayden 4.4

     10 March 2016 at 11:03 am

     As far as The National Party are concerned, they have bought creative and media services in good faith, and it is wholly the responsibility of the agency they used to make sure all checks and balances are in place.

     The outcome will depend on whether the 3rd party library vendor had all licensing and conditions in place. If they did, the courts will throw it out, and if they didn’t then the courts will also throw it out and tell the lawyers to chase the 3rd party library vendor instead.

     I would have thought so, but apparently a bunch of lawyers think they have enough of a case, so who knows?
   • shorts 4.5

     10 March 2016 at 11:08 am

     I’d suggest that by going after the National Party the lawyers are getting as much publicity for the alleged infringement as possible – if as I suspect the hearing will determine that Eight Mile Style LLC and Martin Affiliated LLC need to go after the Aussie vendor they will, however in the meantime they’ve got some pretty sweet publicity that their client takes his IP very very seriously
     • Roflcopter 4.5.1

       10 March 2016 at 1:41 pm

       This is probably the case.

       Interestingly, it’s not even the actual song that was used… it was a riff generated by someone else, based on the song.

       Doing this involves it’s own licensing regime, as it was created to generate revenue, prior to it even being able to be hosted by the 3rd party library vendor.
5. repateet 5

   10 March 2016 at 9:29 am

   The Nats think “pretty legal” is good enough…

   Go on to the redneck blogs and find how they back that up. “Pretty legal” and matters where judgements have to be made about situations, like the TV3 reporter getting a gun, don’t come into it.

   The law is the law and must be enforced, there are no gray areas, no in-betweens, that’s the law , throw the book at them, lock ’em up and throw away the key is the mantra.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     10 March 2016 at 10:38 am

     The RWNJs throw the full force of the law at everyone except themselves. If it was them breaking the law then it was all right and nothing should be done.

     You see this hypocrisy from them all the time.
   • Jones 5.2

     10 March 2016 at 10:42 pm

     Plenty of grey area in law… wherever you see the word “reasonable”.
6. adam 6

   10 March 2016 at 9:59 am

   Steven Joyce (aka Mr Fuxit) aka dildo baggins
7. mac1 7

   10 March 2016 at 10:00 am

   “Pretty legal.” There is to be had an academic study for some researcher for the future, “going forward”, of the use of language by this National government, where words are carefully used to confuse and mislead.

   There’s another study for the future on how and why the media allowed these techniques of misinformation to prosper.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     10 March 2016 at 10:41 am

     There is to be had an academic study for some researcher for the future, “going forward”, of the use of language by this National government, where words are carefully used to confuse and mislead.

     It’s been pointed out before that the RWNJs parties of the world have been abusing language for quite some time. Shifting the meaning so as to cause confusion and misdirection. The invention of the term politically correct is one such instance.
8. plumington 8

   10 March 2016 at 10:20 am

   I remember JK actually saying (in a self righteous moment )law breakers should expect to be accountable for thier crimes
   I wonder who is funding the defense in this court case and who will be held accountable if found guilty?
9. Neil 9

   10 March 2016 at 11:47 pm

   The hypocrisy emanating from Key & the national party is a big joke, considering the lengths they went to, to arrest Dotcom for the same thing. I hope Key & the national party are found guilty & that the tax payers of NZ don’t get lumbered with the bill if they are found guilty of copyright infringement. Also it wont go down to well with Warner Bro’s etc., should Key & the national party are found guilty.
10. mosa 10

    11 March 2016 at 8:40 am

    pretty Illegal Pretty corrupt Pretty dishonest Pretty devious Pretty dirty Pretty underhand Pretty sly Pretty obnoxious Pretty arrogant Pretty obscene Pretty rotten
    Pretty dangerous Pretty undemocratic pretty untrustworthy pretty nasty Pretty greedy Pretty ruthless Pretty hypocritical to name a few
11. Cemetery Jones 11

    11 March 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Looks like DJ Fuxit’s reality remix won’t be getting a 2017 re-press. In fact, the only 7″ vinyl he’s getting is the one which bounced off his face at Waitangi.
12. sam 12

    11 March 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Hmmm A constant reminder of the advert that was used as part of the campaign to decimate Labour at the polls. I’m not sure this is a good thing for the left in NZ.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS