Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill - Page 6

Lightspeed · 10th March 2010, 21:58

You're right fidigt, but keep in mind that this is in the environment where copyright is king. My point is that in the absence of copyright people will still want to make music (for example) and others will still want to listen to it.

And I think it's likely people who make stuff that a lot of people like will still get paid.

xpandnz · 10th March 2010, 23:05

We sold a lot at our EP release and subsequent shows where we had it on sale at the door. We sold 48 EPs in store around the country and for a band like ours which is unknown, that is pretty good. Our music video, which I don't really like, got played a lot and I received money from APRA for that.

We are still on itunes but I haven't heard anything about sales for a while since my band broke up.

Copyright is good for us right now because if some one rips off our single then I have something to fight them against. And maybe that is the principle of copyright is not so much to make a lot of money but to claim what money is rightfully yours.

fidgit · 11th March 2010, 01:13

I'm going to pause for a second here, because I've kinda been spun around in what my argument was. I also feel like I'm arguing against a couple of people that their shit sucks and they should feel bad for giving it a go. I'm in favour of the little guys being able to do their thing and selling EP's at gigs etc. I recall arguing what a great tool Youtube was for unsigned bands earlier this year in another thread. So to summarise, not anti-what you guys are doing.

Xpandnz, that's exactly what the point of copyright should be. Allowing someone to maximise the money they've made from something though, is analogous to allowing them to control the distribution or how it's used.

I still dispute lightspeed's claim that without copyright, we'd have the same thriving creative industries we do now. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't think we'll ever get to see it play out.

Of course, there's also nothing stopping a band releasing their music under a creative commons type license, allowing people to do what they want with it.

xpandnz · 11th March 2010, 01:33

The thing with the industry that I have been exposed to, and more recently since I'm doing more studio recording in coming months, is the point that the money made from the recording needs to go certain ways.

Right now as it stands is that if i get an advance from, say, a major label, and it went to recording an album then even though I might pay the money that was advanced to me back the master recordings of that album become property of this major label and I would have to get consent from them or pay to release it and distribute it myself.

It sounds fair until you look at the fact that it is an advance. If I did not pay the label back then fair enough, they own the masters since they paid to have them recorded.

So you have to divide the funds coming in with the label to pay for recording advance.

More and more bands are signing into what they call a 360 Deal. This stipulates that the label will receive a share of your income from all sources other than CDs/Digital Albums being purchased.

This is one way labels and artists are working together to find new ways to still provide opportunities for upcoming artists. Because once your main income source for funding has been taken away from you then you need to readjust your business model to accommodate for newer technologies that can diminish or boost said income.

CD's them selves have been partly blamed for this believe it or not. I mean I own shit loads of them but they are fragile, scratch easy and the cases are plain annoying. So no wonder the internet has changed the way we acquire music because its much easier carrying around a mp3 player then it is to carry around your entire collection in a bag.

But now since all the record companies are scratching their heads about what they can do to try and bring more money in, they decide to attack by using copyright as a grounds to blame us, totally ignoring the fact that people were transferring from vinyl to tape way before the word internet was even muttered.

CCS · 6th August 2010, 11:16

Disappointed the Herald hasn't covered this, but anyway...

Internet Ban Proposed for Serial Copyright Infringers
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3994...ght-infringers
http://torrentfreak.com/internet-ban...ingers-100805/

Quote:

Courts should be given the power to ban serious copyright infringers from opening new internet accounts when they are already subject to a suspension notice, says the New Zealand Law Society in a submission on the controversial Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill.

The commerce select committee heard submissions on the Bill at Parliament this morning.

"The Bill proposes that District Courts be able to order a six month suspension of a person's Internet Services Provider (ISP) account for serious copyright infringement," said the convenor of the society's intellectual property law committee, Clive Elliott.

"However, during this period, it appears that there is nothing to stop that person from opening an account with another ISP and immediately continuing illegal file sharing."

I assume that the suspension is only in the event that a court finds that there has been proven serious copyright infringement. So if someone is going to be suspended from one ISP, I suppose it makes sense that they're suspended from all ISPs. Sucks to be the infringer though. Seems a bit heavy handed.

APRA/AMCOS (cocks):

Quote:

argued that "ISP's are both central to the problem and the solution" because they gain revenue through file-sharing, even if copyright holders do not.

Wat? ISPs gain revenue from people having accounts with ISPs. Nothing to do with file sharing. Srsly, APRA/AMCOS, lrn 2 ntrnt pls.

Quote:

"ISP's must play a significant role in the proposed process that reflects the volume of illegal peer-to-peer traffic utilising their services," APRA/AMCOS said.

What role would that be? Block all p2p traffic? Snoop on all p2p traffic? Patrol the internet on behalf of copyright holders and alert them to potential infringements? CAN THE ISPS BE THE INTERNET STASI?! Woops, getting carried away.
Cocks.

crocos · 6th August 2010, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Wat? ISPs gain revenue from people having accounts with ISPs. Nothing to do with file sharing.

Not quite correct: Any ISP that charges based on traffic (Hi Xnet!) effectively earns more from unrestricted file-sharing. Agree with your other points though.

Mr_Hahn · 6th August 2010, 11:39

The role that ISPs will be playing is unfortunately that of making sure the infringer receives the infringement notices and putting this information in a database so they (the ISP) know how many notices in what period the particular infringer has received.

The Telecommunications Carriers Forum is putting forward a submission regarding the issues around the way the bill is currently structured and how it will affect on ISPs negatively.

Take a look.

I'm sure it's going to end up being a pain in the ass for ISPs regardless of how good any further amendments will be. Fun times ahead for all involved

Waldo · 6th August 2010, 11:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Hahn

The role that ISPs will be playing is unfortunately that of making sure the infringer receives the infringement notices and putting this information in a database so they (the ISP) know how many notices in what period the particular infringer has received.

The Telecommunications Carriers Forum is putting forward a submission regarding the issues around the way the bill is currently structured and how it will affect on ISPs negatively.

Take a look.

I'm sure it's going to end up being a pain in the ass for ISPs regardless of how good any further amendments will be. Fun times ahead for all involved

ISps the world over will be creating new /dev/null buckets for all the infringement notices....ohh the work load.

Mr_Hahn · 6th August 2010, 11:46

Sure, if they want to be held liable for the infringements of their users themselves.

CCS · 6th August 2010, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocos

Not quite correct: Any ISP that charges based on traffic (Hi Xnet!) effectively earns more from unrestricted file-sharing. Agree with your other points though.

Sure, they're making money from traffic - any traffic - and they charge all traffic at the same rate. They're not exactly profiting directly from pirating. APRA/AMCOS's suggestion is like saying that petrol stations are profiting from cars being used as getaway vehicles so petrol stations should be held partly responsible. "No petrol for you!"

^BITES^ · 6th August 2010, 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Sure, they're making money from traffic - any traffic - and they charge all traffic at the same rate. They're not exactly profiting directly from pirating. APRA/AMCOS's suggestion is like saying that petrol stations are profiting from cars being used as getaway vehicles so petrol stations should be held partly responsible. "No petrol for you!"

Good analogy.

Jodi · 6th August 2010, 12:54

Punishment for file sharing should be fines and/or jail time. You don't disconnect people from electricity just cos they used it to grow weed, or cos they played their music too loud. You certainly don't prevent them from getting electricity from their new place just cos they had it disconnected before.

Like it or not, but the net is turning into a utility service in the modern world. You can't just disconnected it because they used it to do illegal stuff. Just fine/jail them like any other crime.

fidgit · 6th August 2010, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jodi

Punishment for file sharing should be fines and/or jail time. You don't disconnect people from electricity just cos they used it to grow weed, or cos they played their music too loud. You certainly don't prevent them from getting electricity from their new place just cos they had it disconnected before.

Like it or not, but the net is turning into a utility service in the modern world. You can't just disconnected it because they used it to do illegal stuff. Just fine/jail them like any other crime.

It what world is file sharing being punishable by jail time a punishment even remotely fitting the crime? The punishment for file sharing should be fines, based on a reasonable determination of the value that was lost by the holder of the copyright. I stopped keeping up when it became obvious we're just going to implement what ever the US tells us to, but I don't believe the dollar amount for proposed fines have been set out yet. Unfortunately, what we'll probably see will be a single movie download with a fine of $100,000. Because the copyright holders will get to set the fines based on how much they want to make, not how much anyone can show they've lost. If we must follow the US led route of maintaining "offline" mindsets to copyright distribution, set the fines at $100 a song, hand them out like parking tickets, people'll soon get the idea and stop infringing, and those that don't are going to be a damn sight more likely to be able to pay your fine.

crocos · 6th August 2010, 13:22

The thing I find most amusing about all this guff is it has come about mainly to justify the seriously massive tax write-offs that the MPAA, RIAA, (etc) put down for loss of earnings. This is them "proving" they are actively trying to prevent this "loss of income due to copyright infringement". Their business model has become significantly based on this, creating huge profits for the shareholders.

If I get the time (and remember) I'll dig up the 3rd party review of one of the recent RIAA profit/loss statements.

Deadmeat · 26th September 2010, 23:53

22nd September 2010

Quote:

ACS:Law, the firm of solicitors being investigated by authorities over thousands of threatening letters to alleged unlawful filesharers, was attacked by net activists linked to 4chan overnight.

The firm's website was brought back online at about 10.45am, following a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) strike.

It follows similar action against music and film industry websites over the weekend under the auspices of "Operation: Payback Is A Bitch", coordinated over IRC by members of 4chan, the anarchic message board.

Andrew Crossley, the head of ACS:Law, told The Register the attack was "typical rubbish from pirates".

"Big whoop," he added.

25th September 2010

Quote:

After prank telephone calling Crossley in the middle of the night during the week, it now seems that 4chan are aiming to tear his professional life apart, as they have obtained and are distributing a 350mb file of the company’s website which includes countless company emails.

So how were they obtained?

“Their site came back online [after the DDoS attack] – and on their frontpage was accidentally a backup file of the whole website (default directory listing, their site was empty), including emails and passwords,” a leader of the attacking group told TorrentFreak. “The email contains billing passwords and some information that ACS:Law is having financial problems.”

link

Waldo · 27th September 2010, 10:03

heh, good times.

Lightspeed · 27th September 2010, 15:24

Boosh!

?>Superman · 27th September 2010, 17:55

lol what waldo said tbh

madmaxii · 27th September 2010, 20:41

Karma

Brave Warrior · 28th September 2010, 10:22

So, umm, LANs might become popular again?

So, admitting that I know very little on the _whole_ subject and haven't read all the hard out comments in this thread (and there are a few

), what about this theoretical scenario? Off-shore leech box in timbuktu performing all manner of P2P sharing with the global community 24/7, the contents of which are being downloaded to your NZ host (host to host) via an encrypted tunnel?

Or is my simpleton scenario flawed?

^BITES^ · 28th September 2010, 12:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brave Warrior

So, umm, LANs might become popular again?

So, admitting that I know very little on the _whole_ subject and haven't read all the hard out comments in this thread (and there are a few

), what about this theoretical scenario? Off-shore leech box in timbuktu performing all manner of P2P sharing with the global community 24/7, the contents of which are being downloaded to your NZ host (host to host) via an encrypted tunnel?

Or is my simpleton scenario flawed?

Wait people aren't doing that already?

I sure as fuck am.

Brave Warrior · 28th September 2010, 14:17

Sweet, so what's the problem again?

Trigger · 23rd March 2011, 12:14

and now, for something completely different

Record Companies Seeking $75T in Damages from Lime Wire

that's $75 trillion

yep... yep yep yep...
makes sense?

xpandnz · 23rd March 2011, 12:20

And I wonder how much of that would ever go back to the artist.

Waldo · 23rd March 2011, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trigger

and now, for something completely different

Record Companies Seeking $75T in Damages from Lime Wire

that's $75 trillion

yep... yep yep yep...
makes sense?

lol, whoever came up with that number is smoking some good shit.

Mokoro · 23rd March 2011, 12:35

So, are they saying that everyone who downloaded songs off limewire, had limewire not been available, would have bought cd's instead? Riiiiiiiiiight

xpandnz · 23rd March 2011, 12:37

If it was not downloaded, I would have just copied the cd in nero.

crocos · 23rd March 2011, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpandnz

If it was not downloaded, I would have just copied the cd in nero.

... Which would require you to have a copy of (or at least access to) the CD, thus showing you missed the whole point.

They're not trying to go after individual copyright infringers here (not saying they don't, but...), they're trying to shut down forms of mass access to music that are not controlled by them.

Trigger · 23rd March 2011, 15:37

I think the point is: record companies are fucking morons and "damages" claimed from copyright infringement laws are dumb

^BITES^ · 23rd March 2011, 15:48

Maybe Limewire can counter sue for the amount of fake files and viruses the same companies distributed in that virus ridden hell....

madmaxii · 23rd March 2011, 20:12

Dear Record Companies

Fire your fucking lawyers and invest the budgeted amount into:

Artists

Production

Delivery technology

And while you're doing that fire the dumb pricks who can't adapt.

Oh, wait.......................................

fidgit · 23rd March 2011, 22:25

What could they possibly hope to achieve by making up such an awesomely high number for how much they've lost? Honestly, I think the RIAA has given up, if they're reduced to doing crazy shit like this to get people's attention.

The number of ways a musician can make a living off their art continues to grow, without any further assistance from these clowns. ITunes, bandcamp, usable micropayment systems, crowd sourced record funding - the artists have moved on. Time for the MSM to start covering success stories, instead of focusing on (and feeding) the RIAA lead campaign to pretend digital never existed.

crocos · 23rd March 2011, 22:40

RIAA, MPAA & their non-US ilk: I'm thinking their business model nowadays is based off tax rebates due to "losses". It's in their interest (not that of the artist though) to blow the impression of rampant music piracy well out of proportion and be seen to do so. That's where the lawyers come in - the lawyers are part of a big tax scam against the government of every country where the RIAA (etc) operate by making it seem like they are trying to stop pirates, when in fact they don't really give a shit either way as long as a handful of souls get prosecuted per year as justification and the majority of sales go through channels where they can cream off the top.

$75 trillion? Bah. That's just an imaginary number thrown out there as justification for tax right-offs & to be used as a pry-bar against limewire to ensure that if they DO win, whatever amount it is will likely shut limewire down + everything unrecoverable goes to tax write-offs.

A Corpse · 24th March 2011, 00:01

CCS · 24th March 2011, 10:23

Trigger · 24th March 2011, 11:04

makes sense,
damn those pesky MP3 thieves!

[WanG] Wandarah · 13th April 2011, 16:28

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...rushed-through

chubby · 13th April 2011, 16:52

WHAT?
sneakily rushing through pro-business legislation as if our lives depended on it?

well i never.....

GM · 13th April 2011, 17:19

Will this bill be read 3 times today? No select committee hearings?

Democracy be damned eh.

Ab · 13th April 2011, 18:09

11th March 2010, 01:13	#203
fidgit Always itchy	I'm going to pause for a second here, because I've kinda been spun around in what my argument was. I also feel like I'm arguing against a couple of people that their shit sucks and they should feel bad for giving it a go. I'm in favour of the little guys being able to do their thing and selling EP's at gigs etc. I recall arguing what a great tool Youtube was for unsigned bands earlier this year in another thread. So to summarise, not anti-what you guys are doing. Xpandnz, that's exactly what the point of copyright should be. Allowing someone to maximise the money they've made from something though, is analogous to allowing them to control the distribution or how it's used. I still dispute lightspeed's claim that without copyright, we'd have the same thriving creative industries we do now. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't think we'll ever get to see it play out. Of course, there's also nothing stopping a band releasing their music under a creative commons type license, allowing people to do what they want with it. __________________ 4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36°

27th September 2010, 10:03	#216
Waldo Pornstar	heh, good times. __________________ Its Business time

23rd March 2011, 12:14	#223
Trigger Laserman	and now, for something completely different Record Companies Seeking $75T in Damages from Lime Wire that's $75 trillion yep... yep yep yep... makes sense? __________________ Are you slow? The alleged lie that you might have heard, me saying, allagedly moments ago... That's a parasite that lives in my neck.

23rd March 2011, 15:37	#229
Trigger Laserman	I think the point is: record companies are fucking morons and "damages" claimed from copyright infringement laws are dumb __________________ Are you slow? The alleged lie that you might have heard, me saying, allagedly moments ago... That's a parasite that lives in my neck.

23rd March 2011, 22:25	#232
fidgit Always itchy	What could they possibly hope to achieve by making up such an awesomely high number for how much they've lost? Honestly, I think the RIAA has given up, if they're reduced to doing crazy shit like this to get people's attention. The number of ways a musician can make a living off their art continues to grow, without any further assistance from these clowns. ITunes, bandcamp, usable micropayment systems, crowd sourced record funding - the artists have moved on. Time for the MSM to start covering success stories, instead of focusing on (and feeding) the RIAA lead campaign to pretend digital never existed. __________________ 4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36°

10th March 2010, 21:58	#201
Lightspeed	You're right fidigt, but keep in mind that this is in the environment where copyright is king. My point is that in the absence of copyright people will still want to make music (for example) and others will still want to listen to it. And I think it's likely people who make stuff that a lot of people like will still get paid. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

10th March 2010, 23:05	#202
xpandnz	We sold a lot at our EP release and subsequent shows where we had it on sale at the door. We sold 48 EPs in store around the country and for a band like ours which is unknown, that is pretty good. Our music video, which I don't really like, got played a lot and I received money from APRA for that. We are still on itunes but I haven't heard anything about sales for a while since my band broke up. Copyright is good for us right now because if some one rips off our single then I have something to fight them against. And maybe that is the principle of copyright is not so much to make a lot of money but to claim what money is rightfully yours. __________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas

11th March 2010, 01:33	#204
xpandnz	The thing with the industry that I have been exposed to, and more recently since I'm doing more studio recording in coming months, is the point that the money made from the recording needs to go certain ways. Right now as it stands is that if i get an advance from, say, a major label, and it went to recording an album then even though I might pay the money that was advanced to me back the master recordings of that album become property of this major label and I would have to get consent from them or pay to release it and distribute it myself. It sounds fair until you look at the fact that it is an advance. If I did not pay the label back then fair enough, they own the masters since they paid to have them recorded. So you have to divide the funds coming in with the label to pay for recording advance. More and more bands are signing into what they call a 360 Deal. This stipulates that the label will receive a share of your income from all sources other than CDs/Digital Albums being purchased. This is one way labels and artists are working together to find new ways to still provide opportunities for upcoming artists. Because once your main income source for funding has been taken away from you then you need to readjust your business model to accommodate for newer technologies that can diminish or boost said income. CD's them selves have been partly blamed for this believe it or not. I mean I own shit loads of them but they are fragile, scratch easy and the cases are plain annoying. So no wonder the internet has changed the way we acquire music because its much easier carrying around a mp3 player then it is to carry around your entire collection in a bag. But now since all the record companies are scratching their heads about what they can do to try and bring more money in, they decide to attack by using copyright as a grounds to blame us, totally ignoring the fact that people were transferring from vinyl to tape way before the word internet was even muttered. __________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas Last edited by xpandnz : 11th March 2010 at 01:36.

6th August 2010, 11:39	#207
Mr_Hahn	The role that ISPs will be playing is unfortunately that of making sure the infringer receives the infringement notices and putting this information in a database so they (the ISP) know how many notices in what period the particular infringer has received. The Telecommunications Carriers Forum is putting forward a submission regarding the issues around the way the bill is currently structured and how it will affect on ISPs negatively. Take a look. I'm sure it's going to end up being a pain in the ass for ISPs regardless of how good any further amendments will be. Fun times ahead for all involved

6th August 2010, 11:46	#209
Mr_Hahn	Sure, if they want to be held liable for the infringements of their users themselves.

6th August 2010, 12:54	#212
Jodi	Punishment for file sharing should be fines and/or jail time. You don't disconnect people from electricity just cos they used it to grow weed, or cos they played their music too loud. You certainly don't prevent them from getting electricity from their new place just cos they had it disconnected before. Like it or not, but the net is turning into a utility service in the modern world. You can't just disconnected it because they used it to do illegal stuff. Just fine/jail them like any other crime. __________________ "I distinctly remember leaving my God at home in my room where he won't interfere with my life." -Quan Zee Teng

6th August 2010, 13:22	#214
crocos	The thing I find most amusing about all this guff is it has come about mainly to justify the seriously massive tax write-offs that the MPAA, RIAA, (etc) put down for loss of earnings. This is them "proving" they are actively trying to prevent this "loss of income due to copyright infringement". Their business model has become significantly based on this, creating huge profits for the shareholders. If I get the time (and remember) I'll dig up the 3rd party review of one of the recent RIAA profit/loss statements. __________________ Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 6th August 2010 at 13:23.

27th September 2010, 15:24	#217
Lightspeed	Boosh! __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

27th September 2010, 17:55	#218
?>Superman	lol what waldo said tbh

27th September 2010, 20:41	#219
madmaxii	Karma __________________ Carpe Diem

28th September 2010, 10:22	#220
Brave Warrior Terellah Seven	So, umm, LANs might become popular again? So, admitting that I know very little on the _whole_ subject and haven't read all the hard out comments in this thread (and there are a few ), what about this theoretical scenario? Off-shore leech box in timbuktu performing all manner of P2P sharing with the global community 24/7, the contents of which are being downloaded to your NZ host (host to host) via an encrypted tunnel? Or is my simpleton scenario flawed?

28th September 2010, 14:17	#222
Brave Warrior Terellah Seven	Sweet, so what's the problem again?

23rd March 2011, 12:20	#224
xpandnz	And I wonder how much of that would ever go back to the artist. __________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas

23rd March 2011, 12:35	#226
Mokoro	So, are they saying that everyone who downloaded songs off limewire, had limewire not been available, would have bought cd's instead? Riiiiiiiiiight

23rd March 2011, 12:37	#227
xpandnz	If it was not downloaded, I would have just copied the cd in nero. __________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas

23rd March 2011, 15:48	#230
^BITES^	Maybe Limewire can counter sue for the amount of fake files and viruses the same companies distributed in that virus ridden hell.... __________________ , ______ /l ,[____], l---⌐¬-0lllllll0- ()_) ()_)--o-)_)

23rd March 2011, 20:12	#231
madmaxii	Dear Record Companies Fire your fucking lawyers and invest the budgeted amount into: Artists Production Delivery technology And while you're doing that fire the dumb pricks who can't adapt. Oh, wait....................................... __________________ Carpe Diem

23rd March 2011, 22:40	#233
crocos	RIAA, MPAA & their non-US ilk: I'm thinking their business model nowadays is based off tax rebates due to "losses". It's in their interest (not that of the artist though) to blow the impression of rampant music piracy well out of proportion and be seen to do so. That's where the lawyers come in - the lawyers are part of a big tax scam against the government of every country where the RIAA (etc) operate by making it seem like they are trying to stop pirates, when in fact they don't really give a shit either way as long as a handful of souls get prosecuted per year as justification and the majority of sales go through channels where they can cream off the top. $75 trillion? Bah. That's just an imaginary number thrown out there as justification for tax right-offs & to be used as a pry-bar against limewire to ensure that if they DO win, whatever amount it is will likely shut limewire down + everything unrecoverable goes to tax write-offs. __________________ Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 23rd March 2011 at 22:42.

24th March 2011, 00:01	#234
A Corpse talkative lurker	__________________ Broke my addiction! Bye bye Eve, hello Minecraft. Wait... >_<

24th March 2011, 10:23	#235
CCS Stunt Pants	__________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

24th March 2011, 11:04	#236
Trigger Laserman	makes sense, damn those pesky MP3 thieves! __________________ Are you slow? The alleged lie that you might have heard, me saying, allagedly moments ago... That's a parasite that lives in my neck.

13th April 2011, 16:28	#237
[WanG] Wandarah	http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...rushed-through

13th April 2011, 16:52	#238
chubby	WHAT? sneakily rushing through pro-business legislation as if our lives depended on it? well i never..... __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."

13th April 2011, 17:19	#239
GM	Will this bill be read 3 times today? No select committee hearings? Democracy be damned eh.