Greenpeace puppetmaster of Gareth Hughes

Little boy Gareth Hughes has a Member’s Bill in the Ballot called the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. Understandably no one has paid much attention to it. But they should.

Hughes wants to allow [Greenpeace] to have the legitimate authority to use other peoples’ copyright [Sealord, Cottonsoft, Shell, McDonalds etc, etc] in order to allow [Greenpeace] to take the piss out of them.

Under the guise of saying we should allow this because some other country allows this, Little Boy Gareth Hughes is forgetting New Zealand actually endeavours to respect the intellectual property and copyrights. And that respect is actually why companies invest in little old New Zealand.

To supposedly “promote an issue freely under our understanding of freedom of speech” Greenpeace has obviously had a little chat to Hughes and instructed him to put this Bill in the ballot. Of course the bill has the full support of Sinn Fein the Green party, the political wing of Greenpeace.

Clearly Greenpeace is worried that their continued mocking of New Zealand companies and little concern for New Zealand employees, might come back and bite them in the arse in the form of a multi-million lawsuit that would clean out their coffers.

Perhaps this is a devious effort by Greenpeace to legitimise their actions to support their lobbying to achieve charitable status again.

Make no mistake, the Greens’ Greenpeace puppet masters want the legal right to abuse businesses they don’t like. How Little boy Gareth Hughes thinks that “the Bill has the potential to increase public respect of copyright as an institution” is anyone’s guess.

  • Mitch82

    This is just Fair Use/Fair Dealings like most other countries have, which I thought we already had?

    It’s quite important for bloggers that use content from others in commentary, criticism etc., I would have thought you’d be behind this Cam?

    • johnbronkhorst

      mitch82=little boy gareth???? If not you sure write this reply in the first person….making me think you are.

      • st

        If Mitch82 was Gareth, why would he ask his first question, which Gareth knows we don’t have which is why he has put this bill forward?

      • Mitch82

        Ahh.. no. I hate alfalfa sprouts and those hemp undies chafed me like hell.

        I’m just curious about the whole Fair Dealing/Use thing because I’m setting up a website which I’ll need to follow the guidelines for, and it’s a sort of muddled subject, much like “reasonable force” is – open to interpretation. It’d be nice to have some rock solid guidelines to work by. WOBF is under Creative Commons, which means I could re-print articles from here, but news articles typically aren’t, which means you have to be careful reprinting without express permission. That’s how I understand it, anyway.
        If you’re re-producing news and such online, at times you can be treading a pretty thin line on what’s ‘fair use’ and what’s outright copy-paste copyright theft. I don’t know if there’s much precedence for it in NZ, but there’s been cases such as Reuters challenging what a blogger can re-print of their reporting when they’re not paying for the news subscription.
        While Cam is probably not pushing any boundaries (and it’s obviously for criticism, parody etc., which are all Fair Use), he does sometimes quote quite a lot of the body of an article. Say he does that with a Stuff.co.nz article – posts 80% of an article they publish, interjected with lines of commentary, he (and all bloggers) need to have a buffer line spelt out on what’s ‘Fair Use/Dealing’ and what’s copyright theft – so that Stuff doesn’t just ring up the lawyers and drag him into court on copyright theft for reprinting their work.

      • Mitch82

        My reply got lost in the either, but no, definitely not pretty enough to be Gareth. I’m all in favor of him putting up billboards, it’s more building material for me and less eyesore on the road to distract a driver doing 100 km/h.

        I’ve no idea if this is just Green Piss trying to be able to plaster their bullshit on billboards, couldn’t care less, nobody listens to them or the Greens. I’m thinking more about the blogging side of things. To me it seems that ‘Fair Use/Dealing’ is one of those vague guidelines, kinda like ‘Appropriate Force’. The boundaries should be set so cases don’t go to caught, rather than the boundaries being set by who’s been convicted of copyright theft for X amount of republishing. I’ve been building a website that’s gonna have to follow those vague guidelines pretty closely, and the best info I’ve been guided by is cases overseas where content providers have gone after bloggers for using their content.

        Cam’s not pushing any boundaries IMO, everyone knows his use of other peoples’ material is for the purpose of political criticism. But what if he reposted say, 80% of a Stuff article, perhaps sledging Fairfax, and they got the shits with him, sending the lawyers in to try out a copyright theft case?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=706456651 Nigel Sherrie Fairweather-Hunt

      are you serious? This is taking it to a whole new level. this would make what they did to national party billboards totally legal. and which by the way they should have been hammered for.

      • http://twitter.com/Inventory2 Inventory2

        Quite so Nigel. Where was Russel Norman’s call for a police investigation of THAT?

      • Mitch82

        I vaguely remember that, don’t really pay any attention to their crap. As with my above reply, I’m thinking in terms of how the bill seems to read, applying to things like bloggers republishing material like Cam does here.

  • niggly

    Also, aren’t there more important things for politicians to be spending their time on (at the taxpayers expense) like dealing with issues like the economy and jobs etc?
    Or does MMP and list seat’s mean that lobbyists like Mr Hughes can attain power to pursue personal and self-interest agendas?

  • AnonWgtn

    Greenpeace are pissed off their Tax Free Charity status has been withdrawn, so little Welsh twit wants to resurrect it, when next in Parliament with Labour and the Winston Party in 2014.
    For him nothing is more important than obeying his Greenpeace masters (or is that mistresses).

  • paranormal

    Seems the Greens have already forgotten how upset they were at the Act parody of their election advertising.

    At least they’re consistent in their hypocrisy.

  • Grand stream

    If there was ever any doubt that the greens had no idea about the economy and value creation, there here it is ! This piece of crap will no doubt get the support of idiots like Jane Kelsey and sue Bradford and other anti-business/TPP MOANERS. This sort of stuff stings even more when you think we, the tax payer, fund this little no-nothing shit.ggrrrrrrrrrr

  • Tristanb

    I’ve got to say I agree with the little sanctimonious twerp.

    I want to be able to take the piss out of something without being hamstrung by copyright law. I can handle Sealord, Shell and other companies being taken the piss out of.

    It allows for classics such as Alf Stewart’s Rape Dungeon, or the creepy Hey Dad to exist.

    Let the Greens/Greenpeace Inc. make parodies of ads. And let us make parodies of them. Fuck people trying to stifle free speech with copyright.

  • P.M

    Very surprised you’re against this, Cam. Dunno about the Greenpeace side of things, but parody and satire is an important part of free speech. It’s a very legitimate form of social and comedic commentary and has been for centuries.

    It’s usually something the right push for and was excluded in the Copyright Act by Labour.

  • Mully

    I’d be surprised if smelly Enviro-terrorists GreenPiss have any money to make satirical ads anyway in a couple of years.

  • Huh?

    I don’t see any clause that allows vandalism of private property. You guys are craaaaazy…

104%