[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I know, reading your posts it seems to me that you have become very confused.

I have spent years doing this type of stuff for a living in a number of countries and the people I deal with have no difficulties at all in understanding me, so I can only draw my own conclusions as to why you have a difficulty.

However, I will not be using my time poorly by engaging with you again.

I'm not sure what you qualify as "this type of stuff," although I'd love to know precisely what you mean by that--are you a lawyer? An executive? A CEO? What, exactly?....but I've spent 30 years in international development and business, as a Sr. Veep, with companies ranging from Japan to Australia--to New Zealand, the US, Mexico, Carribean countries, Europe, etc., and I've never had any problems understanding anyone. Ever. I've run business development deal closings for 5-star hotel projects that used 6 lawfirms, 3 main insurers, 3 coinsurers, 8 banks, of which half were international, and their lawfirms, and somehow, closed all those deals with no delays or issues. I've written and read, and to this day, 30 years later, retained 225-page lease, development and construction/contracting documents--and I could still tell you what page the provision about X is on, and where to find the attornment clauses. But you think that somehow, I can't keep up with you???? Is that right?

You took several positions. First, you posited a scenario in which some pirate's cookery inspired 6 other people to run out and buy a book, and wanted to know if that would mean that the pirate was a benefactor to the author--and then insisted, when I asked you the same question about whether or not the bank thief was a benefactor of the bank, that you didn't mean that the pirate was doing a "good thing." I'm still waiting to hear why you came up with that scenario, if that wasn't your take. What's the point of that hypothetical, if you are NOT trying to come up with a scenario in which piracy is good?

Then you asserted, flatly, that not only is copyright a "complete gift" but that:

It is also known that copyright presents a cost to the overall economy so private and public investment suffers, as does public expenditure (e.g. on health, to use an emotive example ) - this is the case in my own country, it has been analyzed by Government and its choice has been to remain at the cheapest convention choice of Life+50.

(underscore emphasis added)

And, in response to that, I asked you, politely, for the citations for that statement of "fact." In response, you've come back, relayed a story about how New Zealand was entering into a Trade Deal, in which, apparently, the duration of copyright was also being discussed; the US withdrew from that deal (what that has to do with any of this, only God knows); that the analyses to which you have referred (apparently) had to do with the TRADE portion, and it seems, had nothing whatsoever to do with copyright--and when I ask you about this--because surely, that's not what you actually meant--and ask you to specifically cite the portions of the analysis, that discussion a) copyright and investment, b) how copyright deleteriously affects investment, c) how copyright is a "cost" to the economy, and d) how investment suffers--your response is to imply that I'm stupid?

You ARE talking about the TPP, right? The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade deal? Do you mean the copyright period accession, about which, mind you, the National Interest Analysis, (downloaded from the New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade office) dated 25 January 2016 stated:

Under "Advantages and disadvantages to New Zealand of WCT entering into force and not entering into force for New Zealand":

"New Zealand already substantially complies with the WCT so the new obligations it would place on New Zealand would not create direct disadvantages."

AND, under that same provision:

"New Zealand creators and distributors also enjoy these rights in most key markets as a matter of practice. Acceding to the WCT would, however, provide additional assurance that the rights New Zealand creators and distributors of content currently enjoy would not be removed."

AND, speaking of "costs":

The costs to New Zealand of compliance with the treaty

"The Government would be required to fund a delegate to attend the WCT Assembly, which meet in ordinary session once every 2 years in Geneva, Switzerland. The WCT Assembly takes place at the same time as the WIPO General Assemblies that a New Zealand representative already attends, so in practice there would not be any extra cost in attending the WCT Assembly. (This was also considered as part of the TPP National Interest Analysis.)"

(underscore emphasis added)

Hmmmmm....let's see. No discussion whatsoever about "investment" or investment being diminished, or suffering. No discussion whatsoever of additional "costs" to the economy. No discussion about how public expenditure would suffer, either, from this increased term. In fact, the paper seems to state--and I'm sure you're going to tell me I'm too stupid to understand THIS, too--that the benefits outweigh any non-existent costs--the COST being the "requirement" that you send a DELEGATE to the WCT assembly. WOW, yeah, you're right, that's a HUGE cost to the economy, sending that delegate, but, hey, you already send one!

Or, is it another trade deal, that was proposed, in which copyright terms were being discussed, that the US pulled out of, that you meant?


Hitch