Same song? You decide.

119 comments on “Same song? You decide. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. nih 1

   2 December 2007 at 1:51 pm

   It’s obviously a remix of samples from the original Clocks song. It makes sense, if you’re going to steal a song, why re-perform it?

   There’s no other way to put this: National first wrongly accuses others of copyright infringement then goes and undertakes a huge infringement themselves.

   Incidentally, my partner is a musician and she says changing a song is considered much worse than reproducing it. You have to obtain permission from the original artist to alter his work. That’s when it stops being a royalties issue and becomes copyright infringement.

   No doubt Coldplay provide their song without the lyrics to licensees who require it, but as the National party have said, they sourced it from ‘a local “artist”‘ and not from Coldplay or their publishers.

   It’s time National ditched this de Joux person.
2. Gruela 2

   2 December 2007 at 1:54 pm

   Pretty damning evidence, I’d say.
3. nih 3

   2 December 2007 at 2:06 pm

   By the way, does this mean Coldplay are lickspittle nazi fascist communist spacefaring icepirates? How dare they exist and be stolen from, besmirching National’s name!
4. Gruela 4

   2 December 2007 at 2:13 pm

   Ice Pirates! Brilliant. I love that movie.
5. Visitor 5

   2 December 2007 at 2:19 pm

   From the Herald report: “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.”

   So … when did this “Auckland artist” compose the music? Was it before, or after, National used Clocks (the original) as John Key’s intro music at the party conference in August?

   THAT is the money question. It is a simple question of fact, and easy to establish. Surely National can answer it.
6. all_your_base 6

   2 December 2007 at 2:24 pm

   I wonder if Chris Martin will be pissed when he finds that his song has been ripped off – worse still, by the Tories.

   Martin opposed the war in Iraq (the one that Key wanted to jump into, and now claims is over), he supported climate change as a cause (the phenomenon Key dismissed as “a complete and utter hoax”) and supported John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

   Wikipedia reports that “the band has remained protective of how their music is used in the media, refusing its use for product endorsements. In the past, Coldplay turned down multi-million dollar contracts from Gatorade, Diet Coke, and Gap, who wanted to use the songs “Yellow”, “Trouble”, and “Don’t Panic” respectively. According to Martin, “We wouldn’t be able to live with ourselves if we sold the songs’ meanings like that.”

   I wouldn’t have thought that bodes well for John Key and National.
7. Mike 7

   2 December 2007 at 2:25 pm

   So how many copies of this DVD were produced?

   Still, this is not National’s fault as they’d outsourced the job of what went on their own DVD to someone else, therefore they are not accountable for it’s content.

   I’ll look forward to this approach to in our health and education sectors if they ever become part of a government again.
8. all_your_base 8

   2 December 2007 at 2:36 pm

   “Key is hoping to give away 10,000 of his DVDs”

   http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1464678

   If Key continues to hand out DVDs containing stolen music now that the issue is being investigated I’d consider him and National complicit.
9. Lee C 9

   2 December 2007 at 3:07 pm

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4303181a25948.html
10. Gruela 10

    2 December 2007 at 3:16 pm

    I’m shocked. A nicely balanced, well argued editorial from the msm

    Great link, Lee.

    (It really puts this one into perspective.)
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10479514
11. Dean 11

    2 December 2007 at 3:42 pm

    You can run the song through whatever sound analysis software you like.

    The fact remains that unless you are reasonably tone deaf, you’ll hear different notes at the end of each repeat of the melody.

    Seriously guys, you’re on a hiding to nothing claiming it’s the same song. Similar, yes. And it may be that it’s similar enough to warrant legal action, assuming no rights were paid, or if it’s different enough to be able to escape legal action entirely.

    But it’s not the same.

    I thought you guys were supposed to be into the arts and music? If you can’t tell the difference between the two songs, then I’d suggest taking up painting or pottery because quite clearly music just isn’t your strong point.
12. dave 12

    2 December 2007 at 4:06 pm

    Perhaps that “Auckland artist” was Chris Knox.
13. Insolent Prick 13

    2 December 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Nice attempt at a beat-up, except it isn’t Coldplay, any more than Good Charlotte’s Where Would We Be Now is Coldplay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRePAnS57w

    Or this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=aNfOujMlotE&mode=related&search=

    While you’re emailing Chris Martin, ask him if he agrees with Peter Van Wood’s claim that Coldplay stole Clocks from van Wood’s Caviar and Champagne. http://mycoldplay.com/home/index.php/2007/10/20/elderly-dutch-musician-accuses-coldplay-of-plagiarism/

    That will put a different spin on the widely accepted claim that Clocks was inspired by Radiohead’s Like Spinning Plates, if not ripped off entirely.
14. Lee C 14

    2 December 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Yes Gruela, I love a bit of balance.

    I wonder what Chris Martin would say about the EFB?
15. all_your_base 15

    2 December 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Great idea Dean. Poetry? Haiku perhaps?

    They needed a song
    but without artistic friends–
    they stole one instead
16. Insolent Prick 16

    2 December 2007 at 4:41 pm

    AYB:

    My last comment is apparently awaiting moderation.
17. r0b 17

    2 December 2007 at 5:10 pm

    DPF – “my musical talent is somewhere between retarded and non-existent so I can offer no opinion on whether it is too similar or not.”

    You mean there is a subject on which DPF is not an expert? My faith is sorely shaken!

    Someone who posts at kiwibog should pose him a legal question. Just hypothetically of course. Hypothetically, if it was legally found that Keylocks was a ripoff of Clocks, what, legally, would National be guilty of? What sort of penalty should be imposed? DPF should be fairly comfortable rendering a hypothetical legal / intellectual property opinion I would have thought.
18. Barnsley Bill 18

    2 December 2007 at 5:36 pm

    this really is puerile, you plums are reduced to a circle jerk over the tune. I would have thought there was much more fertile ground to be covered in the content of the film.
19. r0b 19

    2 December 2007 at 5:44 pm

    The issue isn’t “a tune”, the issues are intellectual property, breaking the law, trying to evade the law, and integrity.
20. all_your_base 20

    2 December 2007 at 5:49 pm

    Busy weekend Bill. We’re just warming up. You’re presumably not saying that copyright infringement should go unchallenged though?
21. Barnsley Bill 21

    2 December 2007 at 5:53 pm

    r0b, spot on. Those are without a doubt the most important issues in NZ politics today. Breaking the law, evading the law and integrity are three issues that hopefully will spur all level headed kiwis into throwing out the current mob of liars and thieves next year.
    Personally I doubt most kiwis have the intellect to realise how bad clarke and co are and will probably go with the party that offers the most bribes.
22. r0b 22

    2 December 2007 at 6:08 pm

    “Personally I doubt most kiwis have the intellect to realise how bad clarke and co are and will probably go with the party that offers the most bribes.”

    You have a depressing take on life BB, and a low opinion of your fellow Kiwis. I hope you are able to find some happiness somewhere along the line. (I know, I know, when the evil KKKlarke is overthrown etc – no, I meant real happiness).
23. Barnsley Bill 23

    2 December 2007 at 6:32 pm

    r0b, your concern for my personal happiness is touching. Have no fear, we live a very full and happy life up here in the Bay of Islands.
    My low opinion of my fellow kiwis is what it is. Any country that continues to re elect such brazen liars and thieves deserves everything it gets. Luckily for me and mine we are not economic hostages to NZ and have the means and wherewithal to jump the ditch if our quality of life is affected by Labour. So far Clarke and Cullens malfeasance has not effected us, we were in front of the curve on investment property and term deposits and were smart enough to move the bulk of our assets out of the teachers grasp prior to the 2005 election swindle.
24. redbus 24

    2 December 2007 at 6:37 pm

    “Personally I doubt most kiwis have the intellect to realise how bad clarke and co are and will probably go with the party that offers the most bribes.”
    – Well if most Kiwi’s are like you, and God help us if they are, then they certainly wouldn’t have any intelligence. Considering you can’t spell the Prime Ministers surname, then one could comfortably presume your intelligence belongs with the idiocy that I like to call, the ‘faithful commenter’s at Kiwiblog’.
25. Barnsley Bill 25

    2 December 2007 at 6:52 pm

    I see you have successfully completed the “attack blogging for leftie bloggers” redbus.
    Rule #1. Nitpick, obfuscate and mock your opponent.
    Rule #2. Never ever respond to the point of the comment, always avoid debating labours criminality (you cannot win).
26. Dean 26

    2 December 2007 at 6:56 pm

    allyourbase, that haiku was much, much better. I can see you have a sense of humour.

    Just stick at your poetry, because it’s a lot better than your ability to hear different tones.
27. redbus 27

    2 December 2007 at 7:09 pm

    “I see you have successfully completed the “attack blogging for leftie bloggers” redbus.”
    – That doesn’t make any sense. Are you trying to say that there is a course somewhere that offers that as a subject?

    “Never ever respond to the point of the comment”
    – You loosely (very, very, loosely I might add), related your first paragraph to another comment. Altogether your comment was utterly pointless, there was nothing other than your incessant babble (I didn’t bother addressing that by the way) and odd spelling of the Rt. Hon. Helen CLARK’s surname.
28. Insolent Prick 28

    2 December 2007 at 7:11 pm

    I see that none of the people who claim it is a coldplay song have yet commented on the following:

    Nice attempt at a beat-up, except it isn’t Coldplay, any more than Good Charlotte’s Where Would We Be Now is Coldplay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRePAnS57w

    Or this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=aNfOujMlotE&mode=related&search=

    While you’re emailing Chris Martin, ask him if he agrees with Peter Van Wood’s claim that Coldplay stole Clocks from van Wood’s Caviar and Champagne. http://mycoldplay.com/home/index.php/2007/10/20/elderly-dutch-musician-accuses-coldplay-of-plagiarism/

    That will put a different spin on the widely accepted claim that Clocks was inspired by Radiohead’s Like Spinning Plates, if not ripped off entirely.
29. Barnsley Bill 29

    2 December 2007 at 7:12 pm

    utterly pointless! But still had enough of a point to dog whistle you into commenting.
30. nih 30

    2 December 2007 at 7:13 pm

    Dog whistling only works on dogs, Bill. Hey, and there you are. Whosagoodboy?
31. burt 31

    2 December 2007 at 7:16 pm

    So if National stole the song will you guys be supporting them if they want to validate that theft using retrospective validation?
32. Barnsley Bill 32

    2 December 2007 at 7:18 pm

    They also paid for the whole thing with money they did not filch from the public purse.
33. Billy 33

    2 December 2007 at 7:50 pm

    Day four of the most pointless beat up in NZ political history.
34. r0b 34

    2 December 2007 at 8:03 pm

    And here’s Burt with his favourite word again – “retrospective” . We’ve been over this a couple of times Burt and I – he never replies to the following.

    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.
35. burt 35

    2 December 2007 at 8:08 pm

    rOb

    Can you show us where you first posted that ?

    Because I did reply, as I commented on:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=782
36. r0b 36

    2 December 2007 at 8:08 pm

    BB – “They also paid for the whole thing with money they did not filch from the public purse.”

    Whether or not they “paid for the whole thing” is exactly the question, as you’re well aware…
37. burt 37

    2 December 2007 at 8:11 pm

    rOb

    So have I got this correct, the govt would have been illegal and the only remedy was to validate it?

    Guess a fress democratic election was out of the question – as was allowing Darnton Vs Clark to proceed.

    Still waiting for that original link so I can show how you only read your own posts then claim other don’t answer you.
38. Barnsley Bill 38

    2 December 2007 at 8:15 pm

    Good point r0b, although the basis for your argument is pretty thin I will concede that if they pinched the tune then they should pay for it. But while we are trying to find common ground you should surely agree that stealing the money to pay for a pledge card and then shamelessly passing legislation to validate that theft is a lot more serious.
    your point (3) asserting that labour did not know they were stealing is a crock. media reports at the time stated that H2 forced this through despite receiving a warning not to.
39. r0b 39

    2 December 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Can you show us where you first posted that ?
    Because I did reply, as I commented on:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=782

    Your reply in that thread was three days later – I missed it. And in any case, by a “reply” Burt, I mean something of substance.

    So have I got this correct, the govt would have been illegal and the only remedy was to validate it?

    After the Auditor-General’s rulings in 2005, government and other party’s spending since 1989 was of questionable legality. Treasury advised the validating legislation. Retrospective validation of government spending was in any case standard practice.

    There’s nothing hard about this stuff Burt, it only reads like a vast left wing conspiracy if you get all your opinions from Kiwiblog.
40. r0b 40

    2 December 2007 at 8:38 pm

    BB – “Good point r0b, although the basis for your argument is pretty thin I will concede that if they pinched the tune then they should pay for it.”

    Jolly good BB, I appreciate the reasonable approach.

    “But while we are trying to find common ground you should surely agree that stealing the money to pay for a pledge card and then shamelessly passing legislation to validate that theft is a lot more serious.”

    I certainly agree that it would have been far more serious if that is what had actually happened. But Labour did not steal money. They followed the same procedure as in previous elections. When this was – to use Burt’s fave word – retrospectively found to be improper, they paid the money back (although they were not required to do so). Hardly theft.

    “(3) asserting that labour did not know they were stealing is a crock.

    That’s not the point addressed by (3) at all.

    I’ve been invited out to dessert (hurrah!) so I might have to catch any replies to his later on…
41. Lee C 41

    2 December 2007 at 8:40 pm

    Hey R0b – those idiots that wrote the editorial for the Sunday Star Times are evidently in need of some information from you about the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ and A ‘level playing field’ to put them straight, their attitudes towards the EFB sound remarkably like some of mine:

    “The trouble is that the minor improvements in the bill do not outweigh the wider harm. The hapless Mark Burton hatched this measure in secrecy. He discussed it in dark rooms with other politicians for a long time before revealing it to the public. He and his Labour colleagues never even tried to put the case for state funding and a ban on donations, the only really plausible means of reforming election finances. Instead they cobbled together a shambolic bill that has needed changing up till the last minute of its ignominious life.

    The public has, quite rightly, disliked this stealth and was, quite rightly, alarmed by some of the early and wildly anti-democratic clauses limiting real freedom of speech. This is not the way to make important constitutional changes. The voters will remain deeply hostile to these changes and nothing the politicians now say will change their minds. Labour must therefore scrap the bill and do it the hard way. Call a Royal Commission and investigate from the ground up, slowly, and allow a proper debate about all the issues not just those sparked by a hopeless, nasty, bungled bill. Then trust the people and their representatives to make a wise decision.”

    Or is the VDS going to call this down by quoating a left-wing academic’s accusation that the SST of becoming a ‘propaganda organ ofg the National Party’ like they did to the Herald?
42. burt 42

    2 December 2007 at 8:58 pm

    rOb

    Yeh sure my reply to your post of “he never replies to the following” was a few days later, but the original replies were not. So you can find the comment to cut-and-paste it but you can’t provide a link.

    That’s very sad. Shooting the messenger using lies makes you look really silly rOb.

    How about that original link where according to you I never replied, shall I go digging for it for you?
43. Pacman 43

    2 December 2007 at 9:26 pm

    Do you guys really think that John Key got onto his copy of apple garageband and whipped up this tune? If it was an infringement wouldn’t it be the sole responsibility of the production company who made the DVD (unless John said “I want that clocks tune in the intro”). If the production company used a pirated copy of software or maybe the credits used a font that they had illegally downloaded would this also be John Key and National’s fault?
44. burt 44

    2 December 2007 at 9:27 pm

    rOb

    Here we are: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=733#comment-5368

    Oh look, my reply was all of 6 minutes later…..

    And you just sidestepped my question in my reply by denigrating me. But since you want to bring it back up again, lets see if you can attack the message rather than the messenger this time.

    “Hey tell me, if I file 14 years worth of illegal tax returns can I just pass laws to validate it? Can I wipe out any court cases that are in progress because of it ? Furthermore if I use tax money to finance an advertising campaign can I get as long as I like to pay it back without penalties or UOMI interest.

    The points you make and are comfortable with under the banner of “such is politics” is why people like you get called Labour apologists.
45. Robinsod 45

    2 December 2007 at 9:58 pm

    Oh I can see you righties have been having a right little time of it tonight.

    Burt – you are a fool, you’ve been spouting the same shit from here since you made your first post. People respond to you with reasoned arguments and facts and you ask the same question again. Here’s a tip Burt – if you behave like a troll you will be slapped down like a troll. Though I’ve got to say I like you more than Bill – frankly that guy gives me the creeps, at least you’re just a good old fashioned bigot.
46. Gruela 46

    2 December 2007 at 10:26 pm

    An interesting question remains, and it was brought up by Visitor at the beginning of this thread: Do National use Coldplay’s Clocks at their party conference in August? If so, then there’s no hiding behind the ‘it was outsourced to a production company’ argument.

    Does anyone have any evidence to answer this question, either pro or con?
47. burt 47

    2 December 2007 at 10:47 pm

    rOb

    (1) It is standard practice for NZ governments to retrospectively validate their spending – this happens most years.

    OK, that was news to me. Can you support this with some links, how much and typically for what reasons would be most interesting. Clearly if it’s ever happened before with election spending then there is no excuse for what happened in 2005. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for us common people and being a recidivist brings harsher penalties.

    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.

    Hence the 14 years of illegal tax returns analogy. Is it just me who wonders why retrospective legislation was drafted in such a way that the offenders had no liability for their actions whatsoever? Just being able to legislate the books legal again with no consequences is something that shouldn’t be reserved for the politicians, Enron would have loved that power!

    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.

    Ignorance is no excuse, I’ve never heard “unless you are a politician” quoted after that, but this seems to be what you are implying? It was hysterical when Labour were clambering around saying the electoral laws were difficult to understand, as if that makes it OK!
48. Robinsod 48

    2 December 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Burt – this bollocks has been answered again and again. Stop being dull.
49. Tane 49

    2 December 2007 at 11:12 pm

    For all the right complains about lefties jacking threads, they do seem to have a habit of trying to turn every single thread into a debate about the pledge card and the EFB, no matter how tenuous the link.
50. outofbed 50

    2 December 2007 at 11:16 pm

    So what happens now about the nicked music ?
    Anyone any ideas ?
51. A Lawyer 51

    2 December 2007 at 11:18 pm

    Hello everyone, I am A Lawyer.

    burt, I must tell you that everything rOb has said on this post has been completely correct as regards current New Zealand statutes, and that your arguments are groundless.

    Thank you for your time.
52. burt 52

    2 December 2007 at 11:18 pm

    Gruela

    If John Keys marketing ‘team’ have breached copyright laws they somebody should face the consequences. Pretty simple really.

    Perhaps rOb being the pillar of non partisan thinking might come up with something like.

    1. They had used the track before and nobody had complained, then there was some unusual rulings made, you know the referee changed the rules on them.

    2. Their marketing campaign’s had always been funded to this level and therefore they were just doing what they had always done – we should just move on and stop harping on about the fact it was $50K .

    3. It was in the publics best interest to ignore it, National are the opposition and a parliament without an opposition is undemocratic, we simply can’t have them facing legal proceedings. It will be valid to squash and legal proceedings against them.

    The progress on this subject is great.

    IrishBill – Shock horror it’s Coldplay.
    Tane – Oh my god they paid for clocks
    all_your_base – You decide.
53. Visitor 53

    2 December 2007 at 11:18 pm

    Gruela

    Click on this pop-up video of John Key at National’s conference. Wait approx 15 seconds, and you will hear Clocks.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1272067

    Perhaps the mystery Auckland composer could tell us if this is his/her work too.
54. outofbed 54

    2 December 2007 at 11:26 pm

    Burt forgive me but you seem to be really really angry I do know you have been making improvements though You did used to say Labour good National bad a lot. Now ist EFB related . Change is good
    You don’t want to end up like d4J
    look after your self
    I love you despite everything
55. outofbed 55

    2 December 2007 at 11:29 pm

    I didn’t mean in a girlyman sorta way
    I meant a sorta son of god sorta way
56. burt 56

    2 December 2007 at 11:31 pm

    A Lawyer

    Excellent, so something was required to be done. Yes that’s obvious. Something was done. No argument with that.

    I’m disappointed that nobody (even a Lawyer like yourself) seems to engage in debate on what was done, rather than the fact it was necessary and it was done.
57. A Lawyer 57

    2 December 2007 at 11:31 pm

    outofbed

    That was nice. I love burt too. He cares deeply.
58. Gruela 58

    2 December 2007 at 11:34 pm

    Whoops

    That last post by A Lawyer was supposed to be under my nickname. I think I just busted myself.
59. deemac 59

    2 December 2007 at 11:35 pm

    if you are the party of business, you should be able to understand the concept of intellectual property and why it is important to check you have the right to use material
    some of the NP defenders here sound ever more bitter and twisted – failing to respond to actual points and repeating their pledge card soundbites
    they really seem to believe that their rich and powerful friends have a natural right to be in government
    indeed, some of them are so angry about the perceived unfairness of the situation that it makes you worry about their blood pressure…
60. Gruela 60

    2 December 2007 at 11:35 pm

    Sorry, burt. Couldn’t help myself.
61. Tane 61

    2 December 2007 at 11:35 pm

    Tane – Oh my god they paid for clocks

    Burt, what I said was:

    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.

    And, if National are paying out royalties to one of the world’s biggest bands on top of the $50,000 plus in other expenses, how much have National’s secret backers paid out for this 13 minute homage to John Key’s ego?

    I stand by what I said. The theme song on Key’s DVD is Clocks. It may be a cover, it may be a remix. It may be a cover of a remix. But one way or another, it’s Clocks. And from what Graeme Downes had to say, National are probably liable for royalties.
62. r0b 62

    2 December 2007 at 11:41 pm

    I took one link out of this so it doesn’t get caught in moderation. Moderators, no need to post the copy or copies in the moderation queue – sorry ’bout that…

    Burt – “Here we are: [link] Oh look, my reply was all of 6 minutes later.”

    As I said Burt, by “reply” I meant something substantive, not nonsense about kids with chocolate on their faces.

    “lets see if you can attack the message rather than the messenger this time”

    This is your standard line whenever you lose an argument Burt.

    “Hey tell me, if I file 14 years worth of illegal tax returns can I just pass laws to validate it?”

    No you can’t. Is that relevant?

    Now, in your later post you get on to something a bit more like coherent debate. Bravo!

    (1) It is standard practice for NZ governments to retrospectively validate their spending – this happens most years.

    “OK, that was news to me. Can you support this with some links, how much and typically for what reasons would be most interesting.”

    My source here is Hon Peter Dunne, who said “That is standard practice, and Parliament passes similar legislation virtually every year to validate various expenditures caught this way, often to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.” The link is here: http://www.laws179.co.nz/2006/10/validating-legislation-peter-dunnes.html

    As to an annual breakdown for the last 50 years, that I can’t provide you Burt, I’m really not that much of a politics geek. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader.

    “Is it just me who wonders why retrospective legislation was drafted in such a way that the offenders had no liability for their actions whatsoever? Just being able to legislate the books legal again with no consequences is something that shouldn’t be reserved for the politicians, Enron would have loved that power!”

    The Auditor-General’s ruling retrospectively called spending since 1989, which had previously been seen as legal, into question. A law change retrospectively re-established the legal status quo so that the government could continue to function.

    You condemn the law change because it applied retrospectively, to be consistent you should also condemn the Auditor-General’s ruling because it applied retrospectively.

    Or, looked at another way, a “crime” was retrospectively created and retrospectively abolished again. No puppies were harmed in the process. Kiwiblog sold you one fanatical side of the story without the other.

    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.

    “Ignorance is no excuse, I’ve never heard “unless you are a politician” quoted after that, but this seems to be what you are implying?”

    You are misunderstanding the point the “moral imperative” argument. It is not proposing that ignorance is an excuse. It is a moral argument against laws that retrospectively create crimes. My point was that the government’s legislation was OK because it was not an example of a law that created crimes / punished people. Although it now occurs to me that it is actually an argument against exactly what the Auditor-General did.

    Goodnight Burt.
63. outofbed 63

    2 December 2007 at 11:44 pm

    Burt
    Arse meet plate
64. outofbed 64

    2 December 2007 at 11:51 pm

    I just want to apolgise to those people who believe in The son of God stuff

    I’m sorry if it caused offense

    I don’t really think I am Jesus
    All though my father was a chippie
    And my Grandmother was Jewish
65. Gruela 65

    3 December 2007 at 12:01 am

    rOb

    Wow, that was a great post. One day, when I’m grown up, I’d like to write as clearly and instructively as that.

    Hopefully now even burt will get the point.
66. a_nerd 66

    3 December 2007 at 12:04 am
67. Dean 67

    3 December 2007 at 12:35 am

    Tane said:

    “I stand by what I said. The theme song on Key’s DVD is Clocks. It may be a cover, it may be a remix. It may be a cover of a remix. But one way or another, it’s Clocks.”

    No, no it’s not.

    Now, look. I understand that you may not have the best musical appreciation or even the best hearing. It is indeed very similar to “Clocks” by Coldplay, but the exact same song it is not.

    As I previously said, National may very well be liable for legal action on this, certain circumstances pending. But to claim it’s the same song is just ludicrous.

    Seriously Tane, you need to stop talking about this before you start to look silly. There are plenty of better things to take the National party to task over compared to this.

    By the way, what’s your opinion of Mallard’s outburst as pertaining to employment rights?
68. nih 68

    3 December 2007 at 1:59 am

    From musical appreciation to Mallard in one post, you certainly are a whirlwind of nonsense.

    Of course the song is Clocks, you’d have to be deluding yourself to think otherwise. And that really is the key here, isn’t it dean?

    I think the erstwhile readers who can’t be here every day are going to get confused. Do us a favour and just use the one account, eh champ?
69. Dean 69

    3 December 2007 at 2:42 am

    And here we go again with the “one account” accusations.

    That’s a whirlwind of nonsense if ever there was one.

    And I am sorry if you are tone deaf, but that’s just the way it is. You can keep deluding yourself to think otherwise, but that really is the key here, isnt it?

    Here’s a hint, since you’re finding it so hard to understand. The notes – those are things that make up an octave – are different in both pieces of music.
70. nih 70

    3 December 2007 at 5:03 am

    Here we go with the endless repetition of the same false statement. You’re starting to make me wonder if you really do work for the National party. Nobody else would defend such obvious theft so tirelessly.

    And yes, it would be entirely farcical to accuse you of only using one account.

    Astroturfing, for when your cause just isn’t fucked enough.
71. r0b 71

    3 December 2007 at 8:06 am

    “Wow, that was a great post. One day, when I’m grown up, I’d like to write as clearly and instructively as that.”

    Cheers Gruela. But I do go on a bit. I’m a big fan of your razor sharp and pithy contributions.

    “Hopefully now even burt will get the point.”

    There are signs that Burt may be trying to engage with the facts. We live in hope.

    My post last night did oversimplify a bit. If I am interpreting Hon Peter Dunne correctly, the validating legislation restored the legal status quo with respect to the historical situation (spending since 1989). It did not absolve parties of consequences following the election (e.g. although not legally required to, parties paid back funds).
72. Lee C 72

    3 December 2007 at 8:28 am

    As posted on the other blog repeated here for balance:

    “There is a brilliant irony that the Standard set out to be a more civilised forum to discuss issues, yet its commenters seem hell-bent on reaching all new levels of creepiness.”

    Well I’d argue that the VDS was set up to run a smear and chatter campaign. It purports to be for the ‘Labour Movement’ and yet I have seen litle outrage expressed when a worker is sacked, bullied from Parliament, or (another) factory closes.
    Nothing about all the shortages of doctors, nurses or teachers, just lots of outrage about every little minute picky little detail of anything to do with John Key. It’s going on right now, in the face of the recent protests and editorials about the EFB – silence.

    But ask them about the copyright issue around the soundtrack to Key’s DVD and man, they are really ‘on it’!
73. Robinsod 73

    3 December 2007 at 8:40 am

    Lee – there are plenty of industrial stories on the standard. You’re doing that thing where you make stuff up again. As far as creepy – IP is referring to my personal campaign to out him. It’s good to see it’s getting under his skin ‘cos it’s exactly the sort of bullshit he’s been pulling for years. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – you right wing folk need to take a long hard look at the way you behave. I seem to recall threads on the bog where you posted repeatedly about the sexual inadequacies. Creepy, anyone?

    Oh and Lee – did you actually make it to the anti EFB march this time or were you too busy to take a stand against this “fascist bill” again?
74. r0b 74

    3 December 2007 at 8:41 am

    I believe the usual response to this kind of criticism, Lee, is as follows. If you don’t like The Standard, start your own blog…
75. Robinsod 75

    3 December 2007 at 8:46 am

    That should be “the sexual inadequacies of left wing commenters”
76. Insolent Prick 76

    3 December 2007 at 9:00 am

    Robinsod,

    Given that most of the contributors to this blog, and kiwiblogblog, for that matter, use pseudonyms, I hardly think you’d be getting a whole lot of support in your creepy campaign to stalk me.

    I do hope DPF gives Sam an opportunity to apologise unreservedly for defacing DPF’s wikipedia entry.
77. The Double Standard 77

    3 December 2007 at 9:26 am

    I’ve got a great idea – why doesn’t the standard start an online petition calling for strict enforcement of copyright laws against NZ’ers.

    I’m sure you’d get at least 5000 sigs eh, just like you didn’t for the pathetic “war is over” attempt.

    Perhaps you’d like to organise a march down Q street to support the rights of coldpay as you interpret them? I’m sure at least 5 people would show up.

    I’m sure you standardistas think you on to something exciting here, but really – is that the best you can do? Perhaps Teh Party could fund G Downes to perform an in depth study for our edification? I’m sure they have a little taxpayer funds handy.

    Meanwhile, out in the real world, beyond The Standards pathetically cozy little self-reinforcing dreamtime, life goes on…..

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10479722
78. Billy 78

    3 December 2007 at 9:46 am

    Robinsod:

    “you right wing folk need to take a long hard look at the way you behave.”

    Sam, care to respond to this?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/wikipedia_vandalism.html#comments
79. Robinsod 79

    3 December 2007 at 10:14 am

    Billy – I think you’ll find that compared to the attacks Clark’s page has suffered on wiki this is very minor. For the record I don’t condone it but I’d be interested to see where DPF stands on the right wing wiki vandals he allows to comment (I’m sure there are more than a few).

    DPFDbleStdClaws – “standardistas” nice – I liked it when you called me Robespierre too. Why did you stop?

    Prick – Squirm all you like. You know you’ve had this coming for a while now and so does everyone else. That’s why nobody (left or right) is supporting your “grievance”. Suck it up.
80. Insolent Prick 80

    3 December 2007 at 10:19 am

    I’m not squirming, Robinsod. I think it’s excellent that you’re showing your true creepy colours. For a guy who at various points claims that I’m a nobody, you sure are putting a lot of effort into exposing who this nobody is.

    First we have Sam being exposed as a wikipedia vandal, and now you are stalking other bloggers. It really isn’t a very uplifting day for the Left online, is it? It’s a sad moment, really: so obsessed, bitter, and envious are kiwiblogblog and the Standard with the success of the National Party, that they have no time to trumpet the achievements of this tired and hollow Labour Government.

    But nice try justifying your creepiness, Robinsod. Let’s have a snapshot of some of the bile you’ve posted in the last six weeks:

    #

    Nov 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 am
    And Lee do you still beat your wife. Don’t you have a job or something?

    Nov 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
    IP – quick take that story to the herald, your facts are obviously watertight! You’re full of shit prick.

    Nov 14th, 2007 at 7:37 am
    Bill you psychopath – I’ve been getting a good night’s sleep. You should try it some time. It may reduce your psychosis.

    Nov 14th, 2007 at 9:21 am
    Yes Bil, just as well. I’m sure Whale’s respect for you will increase now – he may even acknowledge you on the street. When you act like Whale’s sycophant you really show how much you are on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe, Bill.

    Oct 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
    Wodge, why would I bother talking to you – you’re just a punter for crying out loud.

    Oct 19th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
    Burt – you’re a pugnacious bastard, I’ll give you that. Obtuse for sure but pugnacious. You’re not a computer programme are you?

    Nov 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
    IP – I’d charge you but I don’t think you could afford to pay me out out of your benefit. Go back to punter-land son.

    Oct 14th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
    Burt you are the most consistently disingenuous commenter I’ve seen for a while. Have you considered Ritalin for your problem?

    Oct 31st, 2007 at 10:05 am
    Claws – I said “Fuck off”

    Oct 15th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
    Burt – you’re wrong. You’ve asked this shit before and you don’t listen to the answers. Fuck off and take your Ritalin.

    Nov 15th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
    Really DPF claws? Not at all like how you scored the exclusive polling contract for National?

    Nov 15th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
    Question time in the house today was frustrating as Labour sought to lie about why the were not releasing the papers from the Ministry of Justice.
    Are you frustrated Monty? You could always try wanking. It won’t really make you go blind (and that’s not the only lie your mum told you). Go on monty – it’ll make you feel calmer and it’s better than spraying your vile lickspittle juice over the pages of the standard. For true bro.

    Nov 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
    DPF Claws – Fuck off (that should give you the victim-fix you’re after)

    Robinsod (moderator)
    Nov 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
    DPF Claws – Of course I took my smart pills (hint: you can tell ‘cos I’m smarter than you). Did you take your neuroleptics? I’m sure they’re helping with your multiple personality disorder.
    19 Tane
    Nov 7th, 2007 at 10:35 am
    ‘sod bro, stop being a dick. You’re not a moderator. Nobody in their right mind would let you moderate anything – you can’t even moderate your own behaviour.

    Oct 31st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
    .and Clem (nah he’s old isn’t he) and Chester and Pansy (I quite like her) and Georgina whoops she’s still on the party shit-list for being brown isn’t she (oh and it was so funny when Gerry was Maori spokesman wasn’t it? and there’s.

    Oct 31st, 2007 at 9:35 pm
    What like you?? Get real santa and/or fuck off.

    Oct 31st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
    Yo Santa – I was just concerned for your education, there’s no need to come over all catty. Oh yeah – Fuck off (I think I forgot last time)

    Nov 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
    Bryce – you’re an arse. I’ve been following your comments on this blog for a while and (surprisingly for me) keeping my mouth shut but someone from the libertarian left has to say this mate – you’re living in a dream world if you think bagging Labour with Tory lines (‘cos that’s what you’re recycling) is going to make things better.

    Nov 13th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
    Bill you old psychopath – they let you out! How’d you get away with it? I hear you carved your initials in her corpse – is that true bro?

    Nov 13th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
    Bill – you sound like you’re losing it. Don’t hurt anyone and try not to sent anymore hate mail to Helen – the SIS is gonna have to stop being understanding about it at some stage, ok?
81. Robinsod 81

    3 December 2007 at 10:31 am

    Prick – Cheers bro, I’d forgot how damn funny I am. But this is the last time I answer you boy ‘cos all of your fake indignation trolling is getting dull.

    Oh and Prick, I’m getting closer…
82. Insolent Prick 82

    3 December 2007 at 10:35 am

    Sure you are, stalker.
83. Tane 83

    3 December 2007 at 10:39 am

    Robinsod: TDS didn’t even invent standardistas – a left commenter invented it a while back and I even replied that I liked it. Let him use it I reckon.

    As for your feud with IP, I suggest you both back off and stop the childish nonsense. How about you both stop trying to out people and focus on the issues instead? That’ll be a lot more fun for everyone, yourselves included.
84. Robinsod 84

    3 December 2007 at 10:50 am

    Tane – Fair enough bro. Posting seems to have slowed down – when are we gonna see a new one?
85. The Double Standard 85

    3 December 2007 at 10:57 am

    “TDS didn’t even invent standardistas – a left commenter invented it a while back and I even replied that I liked it. Let him use it I reckon.”

    What you think I read everything on the internet that you right, just so I can parrot it here? Well, I guess if it makes you feel intellectually superior or something go ahead? You’re getting as bad as Robbo (who is still waiting for the guillotine to fall on him)

    cap: “$3 each insults” ??? Why pay when you can get insulted for free here?
86. Tane 86

    3 December 2007 at 11:01 am

    Sorry ‘sod, I’ve got a lot of work on and just don’t have the time. If any of them are reading, it’d be a good time for some of my fellow standardistas to pick up some of the slack.
87. Robinsod 87

    3 December 2007 at 11:08 am

    What you think I read everything on the internet that you right, just so I can parrot it here? Well, I guess if it makes you feel intellectually superior or something go ahead? You’re getting as bad as Robbo (who is still waiting for the guillotine to fall on him)

    Ok bro – from the start: there should be some punctuation after “what” such as an n-dash or a comma. You also mean “write” not “right” and there should be a full stop instead of a question mark after “go ahead” (hint: it’s not a question). Well done on the correct use of the apostrophe in “you’re” though.

    Now I’m not saying I feel intellectually superior to you bro… No, scratch that, I am… I’d struggle not to when you write “right” instead of “write”.
88. Billy 88

    3 December 2007 at 11:10 am

    Yeah guys. Concentrate on the real issues.

    Is it Clocks or not? This is the greatest issue facing our New Zealand. We have a right to know.
89. SweeetD 89

    3 December 2007 at 11:12 am

    This blog has gone to the dogs. Little boys (and you know who you are), there are many more important issues to discuss than the a song by Coldplay. I would me more concerend abouts NZ’s falling position in the OECD.

    This all reminds me about Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

    Stick to the important issues and we might see Labour’s polling go up, eh?!?!
90. Robinsod 90

    3 December 2007 at 11:13 am

    Billy – that’s the issue of this thread. If you don’t want to discuss it comment on another thread or another blog.
91. PhilBest 91

    3 December 2007 at 11:30 am

    The only people making any sense here are Dean and the others who actually know a bit about music.

    “Clocks” by Coldplay, consists of one four-bar chord sequence: Tonic; Dominant minor; Dominant minor (again), Supertonic Minor.

    And that’s it, for several mind-numbing minutes, which is how anyone with any REAL musical taste will regard any Coldplay song.

    There have been ample legal precedents for what does or doesn’t constitute a breach of copyright on a song. The song “My Sweet Lord” by George Harrison, was held to be identical, over a reasonably long and distinctive sequence of chord changes and melody, to “He’s So Fine”, by the Drifters. Harrison himself agreed with the verdict, although most people were prepared to accept his assertion that the original song must have been in his subconscious since childhood, and his “plagiarisation” was unintentional. It would be unthinkable for artists of Harrison’s status to do this sort of thing deliberately.

    A similar situation occurred with “Feelings” – identical to an earlier song called “Dime”. However, someone who had a go at the BeeGees over “How deep is your love” did not succeed, only because of a very minor difference.

    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.

    Graeme Downes might like to make a fool of himself over this, as of course it is a typical leftist ploy to extract mileage out of a framed-up political charge in the knowledge that by the time the record has been set straight, the ignorant public has well and truly got the false idea embedded in their tiny minds. (Like “Bush Lied”, same sort of thing.)

    Chris Martin of Coldplay would be very, very stupid indeed to buy into this, because the same precedents that would protect the John Key video, protect Chris Martin himself from being sued over “Clocks” itself, as the clear-headed “Dean” has pointed out above. The examples given by Dean are all comparatively recent, and I have no doubt that musicologists that go back further will be able to trot out dozens of such examples, where the “Clocks” theme has BEEN DONE BEFORE.

    Any real music buff is just plain derisive of how the pop music industry recycles the most inane catchy themes over and over for the ignorant teenagers and the tin-eared rockers. I always thought that people on the the hard left were frequently devoid of 1: Faith in a supreme being, and 2: a sense of humour. Now, I seem to find, they’re musical dumb-arses too.
92. Tane 92

    3 December 2007 at 11:36 am

    I would me more concerend abouts NZ’s falling position in the OECD.

    I’ve actually been meaning to comment on that article. Again, lack of time. I’m sorry I can’t blog full time for your benefit, but contrary to rumour I’m not paid full time by the Labour Party to do so.
93. Billy 93

    3 December 2007 at 11:41 am

    Godd suggestion, Robinsod. If I did want to comment on this pressing “Clocks crisis” I could comment on any of the three posts in the last five on devoted to the topic.

    But I don’t.

    And nor, it appears, does anyone else.
94. Robinsod 94

    3 December 2007 at 11:47 am

    Well you could always comment on a different blog… But I know what you mean Billy, they’ve kinda flogged this one to death – that’s why I was asking Tane for a new post. I’m interested to see the response to the other frontpage story in the Weekend Herald.
95. Insolent Prick 95

    3 December 2007 at 11:51 am

    That is an astonishingly lucid response, Phil. It smacks the Standard’s lame claims out of the park.

    I suggest you repost that every time either the Standard or Kiwiblogblog lies about the Coldplay song.

    It’s ironic that Coldplay is currently being sued over the origins of Clocks.
96. Matthew Pilott 96

    3 December 2007 at 11:53 am

    I can only take it as a solid compliment, to the The Standard bloggers, from the likes of Billy, Lee C and co that are always demanding more content from this blog – you guys just can’t get enough eh? I know how you feel.
97. outofbed 97

    3 December 2007 at 12:04 pm

    PARANOIAC POST OF THE DAY ( so far )THE BOG

    # Yvette Says:
    December 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 am

    I’ll make the obvious comment: it is of course ironic that these medals are stolen in the same week as the EFB returns to Parliament to erode the democratic rights these New Zealanders fought for – and watch: the medals will receive much more hysterical media coverage while the EFB will pass pretty well unnoticed by the general public, indicating indeed that “Lest we forget” is rather forgotten, which most unfortunately will relegate the medals to the real importance in which they are held – as much a display and PR occasion as Helen Clark’s Paschendale observations.
98. Robinsod 98

    3 December 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Graeme Downes might like to make a fool of himself over this

    Phil – you’re obviously a reasonable musically educated amateur but Downes holds a doctorate and teaches this stuff. I have to say I’d take his opinion over yours. (If it makes you feel any better I’d take your opinion on this over many of the people making comments on this thread – though your random “higher power” comment make me a little suspicious of your judgment).
99. Daveo 99

    3 December 2007 at 12:16 pm

    True the standard have given a lot of attention to Clocks but then they did make the front page of the Herald with it so full credit to them. I’m glad to see blogs breaking out into the mainstream media, although it would have been nice to see the standard given some credit.
100. outofbed 100

     3 December 2007 at 12:21 pm

     I am on the left and I believe in a supreme being
     http://www.venganza.org/
     One of the fastest growing churches in the world
101. The Double Standard 101

     3 December 2007 at 12:28 pm

     “I’d struggle not to when you write “right” instead of “write”.”

     I do try to toss you a bone occasionally Robbo

     🙂

     Anyway, that’s what I get for rushing a post when heading out the door. Unfortunately I don’t always have time to get my copy of Strunk and White down from the shelf.
102. Matthew Pilott 102

     3 December 2007 at 12:53 pm

     PhilBest, what do you think of the general concept of making vague alterations to a song on order to sidestep paying any royalties?

     (try to get off your musical high-horse, if that’s do-able, and look at it from a different point of view. Pick your favourite song, and then imagine it bastardised so a third party can avoid having to give any credit to the original artist, despite the fact that it would be fully obvious that it is a rip-off and was deliberately intended to sound just like the original to a listener’s ears, with only enough changes to make a legal difference, and a minimal one from a music perspective).

     Would you be down with that hypothetical situation PB?
103. Insolent Prick 103

     3 December 2007 at 12:53 pm

     Daveo,

     Have you got any response to Phil Best’s comments above?
104. the bean 104

     3 December 2007 at 12:55 pm

     Diary of a song search

     Day one: (some time before National Party conference, we struggle to remember policy etc so actual dates are fucked)

     Murray: hey John, now you are leader of our wonderful party you get to make the REALLY tough decisions. So what song do you want them to play when you come running downs the aisle of the most expensive hotel in town, trying to pretend you are a mainstream man of the people whilst surrounded by a crowd of bald, middle aged rich whities in suits?

     John: jeeze muzza, that is a tough one! Do I have to make this decision? It took me all that time to decide what suit to wear when I played volleyball with all those darkies. I dunno if I should be trusted with this choice.

     Murray: ok john, I have the perfect solution

     John: yes muzza.

     Murray: we will put it on your website and let other people decide. That way we can’t be accused of supporting it or being against it- the people will have chosen. We also thought we might try this later with any possible “policy”. http://www.johnkey.co.nz/index.php?/archives/174-VIDEO-Journal-14-Suggest-a-theme-song!.html

     John: shit that is a good idea muzza, lucky you are the brains of this outfit

     Muzza: outfit? Don’t talk fucking clothes again john, people will think you are vacuous.

     Day Six:

     John (calls): Bronaghldkiweur! How do I work my webpage honey bunch?

     Oooo look coldplay clocks as a suggestion! I like them. Their songs really speak to my heart and I wanted to name my kid “apple”

     (points at picture of Chris martin beside desk and squeals) twins!

     Day of National Party conference:

     John (waltzing down the aisle of conference singing): Am I part of the cure or am I part of the disease (stops finger to lips) ooooooo that is like sooooo deep and stuff.

     Day 10: National Party future planning day

     Murray: so John, what kind of future do you want for the National party? Plans? Ideas? Policy

     John: Coldplay, “Clocks”

     Murray: no, no John we need policy. Like how will we run the country etc whatever

     John: I WANT CLOCKS!!!!

     Murray: Fuck Gerry, he is going a bit purple. We better get him that song before he lies on the floor and kicks

     Gerry: but what about copyright Murray?

     Murray: fuck that Gerry, NZers are dumb enough to fall for Brash’s orewa speech. I bet they don’t even know what copyright is. Change a couple of notes and they will be none the wiser. Kind of like what we are doing with this policy document I dredged up titled “Ruth’s ten ways to screw NZ”
105. Billy 105

     3 December 2007 at 1:08 pm

     Same post? You decide.

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

     Bean, have you been working on that since Thursday?
106. the bean 106

     3 December 2007 at 1:46 pm

     awww thanks billy, you think my comment is soooo good it must have taken me four and a half days to write. *blush*
107. The Double Standard 107

     3 December 2007 at 2:04 pm

     Hey Bean, are your writers on strike too?
108. the bean 108

     3 December 2007 at 2:07 pm

     na the writers are scabs DUH
109. the sprout 109

     3 December 2007 at 2:08 pm

     that wasn’t entirely fair Beany, when jonkey played volleyball wit da bros, he did un-tuck his Armani shirt. certainly had me fooled he was just a regular guy.
     just like when he went on that fake spontaneous tour with Aroha from McGehan Close, who’s mum and nana wewre both patients of Dr Jaqui Blue, and who jonkey just happened to spontaneously bump into.
     hmm come to think of it, i understand Aroha’s mum has since got a spontaneous job in jonkey’s electorate office.
110. Robinsod 110

     3 December 2007 at 2:10 pm

     Baen – you’re back! Thank god, we’ve all got a little nasty while you’ve been away. Please spread your calming influence here. I’ll try to be more civil if it helps…
111. the sprout 111

     3 December 2007 at 2:10 pm

     oh and as for the original thread topic, the fact that so many people have assumed it’s a coldpaly song is precisely why a copyright case would see National pinged.
112. Matthew Pilott 112

     3 December 2007 at 4:06 pm

     Insolent Prick,

     Are you going to ask PhilBest if he has a response to my question above?

     Seeing as you did the same to Daveo… I thought you might be being the enforcer here, lift your game, boy!
113. PhilBest 113

     3 December 2007 at 7:05 pm

     Only just got around to looking at this again, Matthew Pilott. Only too glad to respond.

     MY favourite song would be distinctive enough that if someone ripped it off, it would be obvious. If some band did a song that sounded like “Happy birthday to you” that actually became extremely popular, and a politician gave ME the job of writing and recording something similar, I would have no hesitation in doing it, I would regard it as “fair game” and would be confident that no copyright lawyer could touch me.

     I note that I am not the only music buff to have made this argument, but we are obviously outnumbered on the politics blogs by people with no interest in music. That goes for Farrar too. Tane is right, the man is only too N-i-i-i-i-ce. No leftwing blogger would fold so easily. Here’s what I just posted on Farrarblog:

     # PhilBest Says:
     December 3rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm

     Fa Pete’s sake Farrar, redbaiter and me are right about you and the Nats folding at the first sign of a fight. Haven’t you been READING the posts from all the guys who know ANYTHING ABOUT MUSIC? I told Tane at the Standard today that I was coming to the conclusion that lefties were Musical dumbarses as well as everything else I already thought of them. Now I suspect that that applies to ALL political stuffed shirts whatever the stripe. READ MY POSTS ON YOUR EARLIER THREADS ON THIS ISSUE, WIMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
114. PhilBest 114

     3 December 2007 at 7:27 pm

     outofbed: you DO have a sense of humour, and the “big spaghetti in the sky” site did make me chuckle too, but your attitude is unfortunately typical of that of leftists to religious believers.(So much for multiculturalism and tolerance). I note that not one of the regular contributors has raised his hand to say “hey, I’m a bible-believing Christian (or whatever)”.
115. Matthew Pilott 115

     4 December 2007 at 5:21 pm

     “ If some band did a song that sounded like “Happy birthday to you” that actually became extremely popular, and a politician gave ME the job of writing and recording something similar, I would have no hesitation in doing it”

     I dislike Coldplay and that made me laugh.

     Sorry for such a late reply to you, but –

     Still, my point is it’s more the principle – the spirit if not the letter of the law, and National wasn’t left with any choice, especially since they’d made their intent obvious by using the song at their conference. Different I know – but it was sure meant to sound like it…

     I also noted that if it was trying to sound like Clocks (to the uneducated or no) then the DVD could be in breach of the fairtrading act!

Links to post

1. Trading on someone else’s creativity? « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 2 December 2007 at 8:19 pm
2. What If They Threw A War And Nobody Came? « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 3 December 2007 at 11:55 am
3. Graciousness as spin « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 4 December 2007 at 12:13 pm
4. The definition of irony at The Standard 2.01: posted on 20 June 2008 at 6:56 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS