After more reading, I'm struggling to find fault in the reporting. The judge is part of a pressure group who are anti the Trans Pacific Partnership, a deal which seem bent on forcing US interlectual property law on NZ.
From the NBR report I linked
>>District Court Judge David Harvey said New Zealanders had to realise the TPP would affect their everyday lives, too.
He gave the example of how, today, many DVD players let you play discs designating for other regions – a practice that is legal under the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 but which would be criminalised under the TPP.
(Some may find Judge Harvey's sustained attack on the US negotiating position intriguing in the light of the fact he is also a pivotal player in the Kim Dotcom extradition saga).
An Australian government representative gave another potential everyday example from the floor: low-cost, third-party inkjet printer refill cartridgess becoming illegal.
All af the above examples could occur if the US gets its desired section (or "chapter") on IP (intellectual property) included in the final version of the TPP.
Judge Harvey summed up, "We have met the enemy, and he is the US"<<
Have you got a source for that? Tvnz news, NBR and the herald are all saying the same ("U.S.") and obviously that's hugely wrong if that's not what he said.
I know all three of those sources can be terrible (well, herald and NBR anyway), but I don't think it's incorrect what they are saying...
"There are all sorts of ways this whole thing is being ramped up and if I could use Russell [Brown's] tweet from earlier on: we have met the enemy and he is [the] U.S."
Judge Harvey's remark is a play on the line "we have met the enemy and he is us" by American cartoonist Walt Kelly.
----
Actually, Judge Harvey's remark WAS the line "we have met the enemy and he is us". The '[the]' is annotated to show it was inserted by the editor, and obviously the punctuation on 'us' was inserted as well. Very deceptive editorial spin in order to justify the entire article's existence.
Russell Brown's take. I think youre right, but Im not sure... Could it be that he meant what was quoted, but was misquoted? He was being tongue in cheek?
More specifically: "we have met the enemy and he is U.S."
This guy knows what he is doing when it comes to unravelling the totalitarian psyche.
Most authorites right now are just guzzling it down and pissing it around.
He gave the example of how, today, many DVD players let you play discs designating for other regions – a practice that is legal under the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 but which would be criminalised under the TPP.
(Some may find Judge Harvey's sustained attack on the US negotiating position intriguing in the light of the fact he is also a pivotal player in the Kim Dotcom extradition saga).
An Australian government representative gave another potential everyday example from the floor: low-cost, third-party inkjet printer refill cartridgess becoming illegal.
All af the above examples could occur if the US gets its desired section (or "chapter") on IP (intellectual property) included in the final version of the TPP.
Judge Harvey summed up, "We have met the enemy, and he is the US"<<