Discussion: On Copyright

738 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 26 27 28 29 30 Newer→ Last

  • Sacha,

    what angle are you looking for on this banker thing?

    Sheesh, it's only a page ago:

    leveraged lending and a regulated market advantage

    = the ability to lend the same funds more than once, and enabled by a regulatory framework that enforces market barriers to competition.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16599 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    sorry sasha, banking's not my field,
    i'll should stick to what i know.
    expand your idea for us. sounds interesting
    I knew some bankers in london who liked coke in a big way, musicians are reputed to be the same,

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Rob, not my field either and nor do I want to spend any more time trying to explain the same concepts. As you were.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16599 posts Report Reply

  • jon_knox,

    the ability to lend the same funds more than once, and enabled by a regulatory framework that enforces market barriers to competition.

    All that leverage was working so well, until reality hit and the fundamental importance of having enough assets to cover liabilities was "discovered".

    Am not quite however following the link to the music industry/IP/copyright here.

    Is it a case of when there is more illegally copied music than legitimate copies were have a Music Crunch?

    Osterreich • Since Nov 2006 • 460 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    Am not quite however following the link to the music industry/IP/copyright here.

    no, me either, but it seemed quite promising until we all admitted we didn't really know anything about it.
    from my limited understanding there seems something vaguely illegal about loaning the same money to different people. that's not what is happening with music and film. it has more in common with rented houses.

    all this focus on music and it will most likely be the film industry that will make or break things. much more money, power and profit involved there.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I suggested an example from another field to help show the difference between things that can be sold only once and more than once.

    Basically, a litre of petrol or a can of baked beans can only be sold once (ignoring the futures markets bolted on by financial traders). The way the banking system has evolved - with regulatory protection - means their business relies on lending out the same dollar more than once. As Jon notes, that leveraging behaviour is intimately linked with the current mess, but that wasn't my point. Nor does it require expert knowledge of banking to see the advantages or limitations of the metaphor.

    The culture industries in a digital age overwhelmingly deal with product which can be sold (or taken) over and over at little marginal cost, depleting only the associated resources of stakeholders like creators and distributors, and of the broader cultural market. "Overexposure" might be one way in to thinking about that last item, though I'm not holding my breath given response to me previously raising broader issues upthread. It goes back to Walter Benjamin and others later writing about the death of the author, if anyone is interested.

    Copyright is broken, and there are others here who know far more about that than me. It seemed relevant that selling culture is not the same as baked beans, but I've had enough making the same points over and over so I'm going to go do something else.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16599 posts Report Reply

  • JohnAmiria,

    the thread that will not die ...

    hither and yon • Since Aug 2008 • 215 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    just got to pick you up on a couple of points you're stating as uncontested fact again there sasha, no offense meant, but someone reading the end of this "threat that would not die" (© johnamiria)
    might think they were like actually real. (john, if you stopped reading a thread in the forest would it die? :))

    Copyright is broken,

    copyright enforcement is broken. it hasn't been established that it is unfixable, it's just a question of how far society is willing to go to enforce it.apparently it hasn't finished with messin' with people on this. we'll see what effect that might have in feb I guess. If I get a "stop downloading or we'll cut off your internet notice", guess what I'll be doing?
    I'll be really pissed off about it and I probably wont stop watching movies or tv, or listening to music.
    I'll also accept it as par for the course, inevitable and fair, how ever much I enjoyed the free for all. i'll probably also be thankful I got a warning and not a massive fine.

    culture industries

    That's a major stinker of a loaded phrase. I think I put up a fair argument for why those two words should never be said together. unless you're referring to trucking out dancers for visiting tourists.

    I can't speak for islander but I'm not in the business of providing my society with anything. I do what I do on an independent basis and if society wants to embrace that good on em, thanks for the recognition, but I am not doing it to define my society.

    isn't modern society about protecting the right of the individual, equally, how ever unsuccessful that might be. This whole stripping creatives of their rights just goes against the grain on that vibe.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Rob, dress it up however you want but dismissing my input as not "actually real" is offensive.

    You really do not seem to have a clue, despite the intensive efforts of many here to educate your ass. You cling to an old-fashioned understanding of the world that privileges "authors", you moan about losing money and then deny that you're part of an industry.

    Get over yourself, listen and learn before you go challenging the knowledge of others in areas you clearly know stuff all about. Until then you are simply unworthy of conversation.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16599 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    is offensive.

    You really do not seem to have a clue, despite the intensive efforts of many here to educate your ass

    kettle, pot, black.
    jesus....... you rude b'stard.

    maybe I do need to know what you're back ground is. tell us a bit about yourself sasha and why we should rate your opinions?

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    despite the intensive efforts of many here

    and while we're at it can you outline the experience of your team of "many".
    I haven't notice the only other people who I know by reputation "educating my ass"
    ie islander and mr grigg,
    mr stowell i know and respect,
    don's input I respect, and I'm not sure we disagree entirely,

    My ass doesn't feel tenderised by any of those people,

    you're team seems to consist of mark- hmm -well - hard to know where to go with that, my laugh muscles still haven't recovered from this, but they will, he puts up a good argument however right or wrong he may be and doesn't get all emotional, got to respect that.

    introduce me to your scollarly crew of ass educators.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Kerry Weston,

    Actually, i think you've done a sterling job, rob. I don't much buy into that death of the author stuff - and, yeah, i have read my share of Barthes, Victor Burgin, Lacan, hell I've even done a couple of cultural studies papers. The thing is, it's a long way removed from the reality of being a "creator". And I've done that too.

    Severing the created work from the creator seems to me to a) make a plausible enough theory and b) serves the interests of everyone else who wants to appropriate the created work for whatever reasons, but usually to make a buck out of it eventually.

    I think in the end it is illusory. Funny how it still pisses off the theorist/critic community when artists won't talk about their work - case in point, our own Bill Hammond. Biggest selling, huge reputation living artist in NZ - refuses to be interviewed or discuss his work. He certainly does let his work "speak" for itself. Is it somehow liberated from Bill - and he doesn't matter anymore? Hell, no!

    And I think Bill Hammond's art says pretty much what he wants it to - and is received and codified pretty much the same. That's what makes him so good.

    I don't get what Sacha is going for with the banking analogy either - someone would have to translate finance/banking terminology and draw a simpler picture for moi. Methinks there is too many people in the productive chain now - between creator and audience who all want a say and a cut and a bit of control till it's all out of hand. Simple is best.

    Manawatu • Since Jan 2008 • 494 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    And Kerry, he's really effective with the legal back-up bit - like Graham Sydney...

    I suggest that we could/should all look really coolly at matters like
    *audio books/renditions thereof of any kind
    *any kind of electronic rendition of any kind of print (including drawings)

    - hey, I've been hassled by Microsoft!

    Rob, I respect your fight. I'm sideways in there. I am a working writer
    with * nothing* except my copyrights to continue my working life. I am not an academic. I do not have the dole. My only income is what my pen/keyboard provides. That is immediately important - but it is also long-tern important. And some of the examples -work going "rancid"? - given in this forum display a wonderful lack of knowledge about what being a working artist involves-

    as in, you have to make enough money for your morning coffee so you can work and if you dont, you * cant* make enough money for your morning coffee.

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    and then deny that you're part of an industry.

    I didn't deny I was part of an industry, I was rejecting your culture industry tag because it suggests creatives are the servants of all the other people in society.

    protect the rights of the individual except if they're creating something we might want to have. That's the vibe of this culture industry thing. its part of stripping rights from people like islander and I don't want to do that, and don't support any argument that forwards that stance.

    I notice most of the people pushing for reduced control to artists aren't artists fighting for reduced control of their own works. nothings stopping people giving their shit away if they want. forcing people to do it is another matter.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    thanks kerry and islander,
    I was thinking of it more as a discussion than a fight, and a good one, but I do object to being told that my experience as a creator means nothing and I don't know anything. I'd hope I had some view on creating and its value after 25 years of being involved in it a all levels.

    I freely admit there are more qualified people than me in many fields, I wouldn't dream of challenging mr encyclopedia of music industry on most points, or the issues writers face, but I have a fair idea of the problems facing musicians from many sides of the picture, as a consumer, writer, publisher, producer, master, slave, lippy bugger and a few other perspectives.

    Thanks for your insight into what being a working writer entails too Islander.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Kerry Weston,

    I suggest that we could/should all look really coolly at matters like
    *audio books/renditions thereof of any kind
    *any kind of electronic rendition of any kind of print (including drawings)

    - hey, I've been hassled by Microsoft!

    What happens when you sign a publishing contract - are all rights, like audio books, film, play, whatever covered in that immediate document or is that negotiated later? And is it like, really a negotiation, or more of an "accept this because this is what we're offering, take it or leave it?" I imagine it's that way for first-time published authors - you get more clout later?

    My practical experience is in painting and sculpture. I did ok in selling work,except it was hard it not being regular paycheck - but couldn't find the balance between making readily sellable stuff and more personal work that I *really* wanted to pursue. Clients want you to keep making the same stuff....and you find you do, to keep getting paid. Of course, having kids to support really blew it. otherwise I don't mind being a fringe dwelling, oily-rag sniffing, Bohemian throwback, who really ought to get over herself ;-)

    Manawatu • Since Jan 2008 • 494 posts Report Reply

  • jon_knox,

    I don't get what Sacha is going for with the banking analogy either

    I was trying to get Sacha to explain his ideas a bit more. I had my own ideas about his analogy, but was more interested in his than my own.....(But now I'm over that and I'm back to being interested in my own)

    Sacha is putting an idea out there, trying to get us to consider it with a different perspective.

    I don't necessarily agree with the use of the banking industry as an example of a non-depletable asset, but I do like the attempt to make the anology and like that it's a little creative. (Though I've not knowingly met Sacha, he's probably a pretty good problem solver)

    I don't think that banks have viewed that dollar as entirely non-depletable, as probably the Risk and Treasury functions of the bank would have an idea of what amount of reserves need to be carried to prevent a loss of confidence & liquidity crisis....The banks may have just forgotten about rules of solvency for a patch (perhaps that is one advantage of NZ's relatively high interest rates meaning a constant supply of overseas investors looking to take advantage of NZ's high interest rates...in that the Local Banks really had no need to get creative to create credit, whereas overseas banks may have been more highly motivated....I better see if Gareth Morgan has covered this in the Listener)....now heading back towards this thread in a less subtle way.

    Is it correct to think of as a music CD, as a non-depletable asset? I think that perhaps that view is to become a bit myopic regarding marginal utility (sorry I just had an economics flashback...ick) and conveniently puts aside the broader impacts such as the impact on the rights of the creator. ( I think this notion is the one that the Banking analogy importantly misses...but I suspect there are other parts where Sacha's analogy & views hold more relevence...such as that his view tends to perhaps represent society that is not so tied up in the creation process themselves.)

    If there is a continuum with the rights of the creator at one end and the rights of society at the other end, if we wear both hats associated we begin to understand that it's important to strike some middle ground. Rob's mention (a few days ago) of downloading & watching Dexter, to me is an example of this.

    What I've seen in business, is that you have to think about the incentives that are being created when any change is implemented. I would suggest that pushing responsiblility for enforcement onto any 3rd party creates an incentive for the "sharing via internet" phenomenon to use another means. So ISP's won't push the data around, people will share by other means, such as loading up their 250gb USB devices with data, or by more actively trading DVD's on the likes of Trade-me or other examples of networks that don't actually push data over the domain of the ISP.

    This is one of the reasons that I see an attempt just to regulate, as likely to have limited impact, even though some of the proposed changes attempt to address the current lack of respect/control/consideration being affored to creators.

    I also see the move as a barrier towards to encouraging investment in broadband. (getting them to build all that bandwidth to handle a smaller volume of data and with much greater responsibilites/costs).

    There is temendous opportunity to improve the situation, to bring a new set of ideas forward, rather than just getting stuck in the traditional view.

    Osterreich • Since Nov 2006 • 460 posts Report Reply

  • JohnAmiria,

    FYI -

    full reuters story here

    A new technology that essentially allows content owners to profit from piracy will get a high-profile test this month from MySpace and MTV Networks.

    Instead of triggering the usual take-down notices, copyright-infringing footage of select MTV Networks programing uploaded by MySpace subscribers would be automatically redistributed with advertisements that would generate revenue for the companies. MTV Networks is the parent company of such channels as MTV, BET, Comedy Central, Spike and Nickelodeon.

    MySpace is turning to third-party tech firm Auditude to deliver the technology through a combination of patented assets: a sophisticated ad-serving platform with a video-fingerprinting system that cross indexes billions of seconds of TV and online footage in seconds.

    "This is a game-changer," said Jeff Berman, president of sales and marketing at MySpace. "We're going from a world of no to a world of yes while protecting the rights of the copyright holder."

    hither and yon • Since Aug 2008 • 215 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    people will share by other means, such as loading up their 250gb USB devices with data, or by more actively trading DVD's on the likes of Trade-me or other examples of networks that don't actually push data over the domain of the ISP

    and I think media creators will consider that enough of a difference to be acceptable. sharing by copying off a friend is a world away from free access from strangers. its back to the situation of home taping from your friends.

    I also see the move as a barrier towards to encouraging investment in broadband. (getting them to build all that bandwidth to handle a smaller volume of data and with much greater responsibilites/costs).

    expanding networks to accommodate pirated content isn't the best motive I've seen put forward for development. its akin to nz post expanding their network for small packages cos more people want to send drugs via post.

    however......I think we're going to see more viewing via the net and if they do it right I'll be able to 'watch' the latest episode of dexter on the day it is released for a price, just like the rest of the world. That's going to have a massive impact on current sellers of the product such as tv and cable networks, cos they'll want to keep selling ads and or subscriptions to their services.
    We're already seeing nztv smarting from the internet bypass with programs like private practice only an episode or 2 behind america where as previously they'd be happy to let it sit for a good few months to let the price drop.

    There is tremendous opportunity to improve the situation, to bring a new set of ideas forward, rather than just getting stuck in the traditional view.

    there has been for sure, for almost 10 years now, and yet we've seen one instance of radiohead and a whole bunch of advertising and not much else.
    the thing about the traditional view is it is the way all other business in the world is done, you have something, you sell it and you stop people from stealing it under protection of the law.
    yes there are modifications of this as in bars letting people in to see bands for free in order to sell them drinks or interweb services that let you use their product for nix in exchange for exposure to advertising, other than that though, not much. I personally would prefer we didn't all go the product placement advertising route for everything.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • jon_knox,

    So take ISP's out of the equation for sharing data. About 10 minutes later every university is going to have some variation on an (informal) mesh (peer to peer WIFI) network pushing exactlythe same data around spontaneously popping up, with some snappy little file sharing WIFI application whipped up by the next Tech wunderkid. 2 days later it will spread to high schools and about 6 months later it will propogate into the rest of society. The amount of money and investment in WIFI and similar technology increases (particularly those that increase the range), file sharing decreases for a while in countries that implement the ISP responsibility clauses, but really the incentive to use alternative forms of network or to encrypt data are perhaps the only real outcomes (leading to an increase in the use/reliance of/on 'fair use' type clauses in contracts between ISP's and their customers & whitelist requirements for WIFI as end node for internet usage).

    John's example for MTV's content being streamed with ad's is good example of trying to make the situation work for the content providers, though streamed content is generally of much lower quality than the content being shared by bittorrent. I don't know what the relative volume differences between streamed views and bittorrent views are currently.

    for almost 10 years now, and yet we've seen one instance of radiohead and a whole bunch of advertising and not much else

    I agree there has to be a better way than simply inserting advertising and or using product placement. I'm fairly sure that a radio type model, with compensation based on usage is not practical without a someone/thing fullfilling the role of broadcaster. I'm also fairly sure that the IRD will be keen to get a slice of any action and am a little surprised that the tax angle hasn't been pushed as one of the drivers for change.

    How could introducing a usage based data levy via the ISP's work? How would allocation/remuneration be determined? What are the implications of the global nature of filesharing? At what level of funding would a levy type situation become attractive to content providers/artists...? Perhaps a prepaid levy model, with an requirement that bittorrent & internet applications (...etc) support the use of a content levy (akin to diesel road user charges....do these still exist/do these get used/abused?) is the way to go...</brainfart ends>

    Osterreich • Since Nov 2006 • 460 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    I'm also fairly sure that the IRD will be keen to get a slice of any action and am a little surprised that the tax angle hasn't been pushed as one of the drivers for change.

    The IRD assesses your total income, including your bank accounts. It's your responsibility to charge and collect GST where appropriate, and pay same to the department, and if you don't, they will take action. They don't monitor your till in a shop, either - they rely on you to be honest about it in the knowledge that they will duff you up if they catch you evading your tax responsibilities. And that's harder to consistently do than you might think ;-)

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    A new technology that essentially allows content owners to profit from piracy will get a high-profile test this month from MySpace and MTV Networks.

    interesting development. wonder how that works for small players. ie people who have one off movies. you have to have something you want to advertise, and all income can't be paid in advertising, some of it has to be real money to pay for the production costs.

    more what I had in mind was dexter.com and you go there and get out your credit card and you buy an episode and watch it. I'm imagining it bypasses the ISP usage detectors cos it comes from a registered 'media' site which they'd know cos they know where you're visiting etc.
    maybe there's a $1 episode which is riddled with mind numbing ads and a $2 episode which is pristine ad free.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Kerry, a contract for a writer will contain a list of options the publisher wants from the proprietor under "Subsidary Rights" -those that are desirable to the Publisher aside from the basic right to publish your work for a specified term in hardback and/or softback trade or B formats. (NB: this is not the same as selling *copyright* in the work.) Subsidary Rights can include audio, electronic, and dramatisation (in any medium.)

    Because I had the benefit of advice from the wonderful members of Spiral Collective 5, I have never signed a contract that required me to alienate these rights - I uniformly strike them out of all contracts, including foriegn language contracts.

    And certainly, they can be separately negotiated at a later date - if the conditions are right (e.g. the conditions will never be right for self or my trustees to allow the making of a live film of a certain novel.)

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Kerry Weston,

    Thanks for that, Islander. If it's not too intrusive a question, may i ask why "conditions will never be right ... to allow the making of a live film of a certain novel.' ? I often wondered why it had never happened...I imagined directors/producers being pretty keen on it.

    Manawatu • Since Jan 2008 • 494 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Kia ora Kerry- I gave up counting approaches from film-makers in the early 1990s when the ones offering contracts reached plus 300- you see, my classic wave-away went, there are stories that work in front of your eyes, and stories that work best behind your eyes- my novel works best in your mind.

    cgi wasnt around then, and the best multilayered films I know about are cgi's...regrettably, I dont have the geeky skills- later, some of my family may-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 26 27 28 29 30 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.