Rate:

32 ratings

Views:10451

Target 1039

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:29:00 +1200

We get the hidden camera car cleaned in Hamilton. In 'Shame On You' Brooke looks at what the government and music companies are doing to combat piracy. Bikinis are put to the test in our 'Product Check'. And in 'Do It Right' we find out how you can complain and be listened to

comments: 37

Craig 29 Nov 00:12

don't blame piracy for lack box office sales for siones wedding... it was lacking because it was a shit movie

Ross Mason 28 Nov 00:13

Target has had a well earned reputation as a programme dedicated to consumer advocacy. It is very disappointing to see such a biased viewpoint on online media copyright. Perhaps Target would consider commenting on the extended copyright protection many countries have gifted their own media during the past several decades?

Gary 17 Nov 16:30

Your "PIRACY PIECE" was without a doubt the most biased piece of crap iv'e ever seen!.It was choka full of misinformation and outright industry lies!.

NO! SHAME ON YOU TARGET!!

Steve 11 Nov 08:30

A surprisingly biased item from a show I have previously viewed as a quality investigative and unbiased source. Usually Target would cut through the propaganda to give -all- the facts, and has always (until now) given a right to reply from the other side. There are a number of official organisations and a large number of artists who disagree with the opinions voiced on this show, surely they should also have spoken - otherwise it looks like propaganda.

Disappointed that the editors allowed this to go through in this form. You need to have a follow up next week.

Jesse 10 Nov 21:24

I just watched today's episode and was hoping for some kind of correction, amendment or even a polite comment about how horribly unbalanced this the Nov. 3rd piece on internet copyright infringement was. Nothing... I'm truly disappointed. There is little point in commenting as to the countless problems with this piece, please see most every comment made up until this point. All I can say is: Shame on you, Target!

J 10 Nov 13:39

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=431

Leigh Hunt 06 Nov 11:55

(Reposted, as first comment appears to have been lost in the ether) Whilst I do not condone piracy in any way, I was really rather surprised and disappointed at how one sided your report last night on piracy was. You make no mention of the significant risks to innocent Internet users should Section 92A of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 become law. This would put the onus upon ISP's and content hosting sites (flickr, youtube, etc) to investigate claims of copyright violation from content rights holders. In effect, these this would lead to termination of connections and taking down of content simply on the accuser's say so. Many people, regard Internet connectivity as a utility - to have this disconnected on the say so of a rights-holder is disproportionate. Especially when these rights-holders' methods are not reliable (e.g. MPAA issuing a DMCA takedown notice to a laser printer at the University of Washington). The potential for false positives, possibly malicious, is plain to see. Some have also used this legislation to effectively censor critics. Regarding the risks of downloading from file sharing sites, yes this is a risky activity, however, as Sony BMG illustrated in 2005 with their root-kit fiasco, you're not that much safer trusting media companies. Their installation of XCP spyware without notifying users prompted a United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team advisory, and forced a massive product recall and many government organisations to ban employees from playing audio CD's on company computers. There are many reasons that John Key to put Section 92 A on hold back in February - those reasons have not gone away. To not talk to anyone on the other side of the argument is inexcusable. At least please talk to someone from the Creative Freedom Foundation who organised the Internet Blackout Campaign in NZ earlier this year.

Leigh Hunt 05 Nov 11:53

Note to moderator:

Subsequent to my previous post, I have heard from Hayden Poole that he didn't take part in the campaign as I had believed.

My apologies to TV3 and Hayden for this inaccuracy.

Could the moderator please remove the last sentence of my earlier post referring to Hayden.

Joe Garlick 04 Nov 23:01

URL removed

"Online file sharers 'buy more music'"

If we were given more up to date and accessible legal options to buy TV shows and films like one downloads music perhaps there would be the same dichotomy. The old way of advertising in movies/tv is dying and to me this seems like an infomercial for that outdated business model. Adapt or be bypassed. An average 12" single costs over around €7-10 in europe and the same single brought digitally costs around €1-3. If film and tv also adapted this model then I guarantee you would see a similar scenario with tv/film buffs.

Malcolm Locke 04 Nov 20:37

How did this item make it onto Target? This show usually provides information *to consumers* to help them protect themselves against businesses, but for some reason here we have a piece entirely for the purpose of *big business* (and thats who's behind the S92A amendments) spreading propaganda. The arguments are not as simple as items like this make out. Does every downloaded item equal a lost sale? Is a download a theft, even though the person you took the item from still has it when you're done? More to the point, is it the same as stealing a SHIP?! We must be VERY wary of big business applying pressure to set our laws regarding copyright, the impact on creativity in our society could be huge. You can get a more balanced view on this subject by getting a book by Lawrence Lessig from your local library, you know, the place where you can steal copyrighted written material and read it for free. There's one just round the corner ... for now.

Post a comment

Name:
Email:	(Won't be published)
Comment:

Sort By