Discussion: On Copyright

738 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 14 15 16 17 18 30 Newer→ Last

  • robbery,

    Rob that's not a good way of ensuring a respectful conversation, surely.

    be fair sasha, marks hardly been the pinnacle of respect and I did say fucking with him a little on saturday, ie the trent reznor bit, and even that had a point to it.

    I've taken a few less than fair comments in a good natured way, surely team freeload can do likewise?

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    We've pointed out how you're wrong many times lately.

    with all due respect robin, you've had your ass handed to you on a plate. by simon through superior knowledge and skill with words.

    I haven't seen any clear 'right' put forward by you mark or don.

    interesting discussion though. glad to see it talked about in a public forum.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    you really couldn't give a damn about the result.

    where'd you pull that from. apparently I clearly could give a damn about the result, and I've stated what I think that result should be, and i've actually got something invested in said result.

    And what you've consistently failed to acknowledge is that I have no interest in taking away any rights that accrue to you now.

    so you're not for shorter copyright terms, reduced artists control over their works etc?. if so I apologize. I got the impression from the way you had a go at Keir, simon, and myself that your agenda was the opposite of what we've said, but maybe you were just fucking with us for shits and giggles.

    mark, don, lyndon , and robin seem to have a tenuous grasp on the machinations of music production and distribution. you've all said as fact things that quite clearly aren't true, and simon or myself would know that being the only 2 people engaged in this discussion that actually have worked in that industry for over 25 years.

    you keep shouting how you've shown me or one of the others to be wrong, but you haven't proven anything. you've just said your piece as you have a right to do, but it doesn't make it fact.

    all good fun though isn't it?

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    Simon

    DRM is gonna be a what-were-they-thinking museum piece in a year or two, it's largely academic now anyway.

    Which is why it is such a pity it has been enshrined in legislation. Along with a whole lot of other technical "solutions" that will soon be outdated. This is of course our biggest beef with Minister Tizard's law.

    robbery, I don't think Simon has been trying to hand our arses on a plate. He has made several points, many of which I agree with, one of which I don't (extension of term. Robin's point about the optimum economic point being 14 years is pretty valid. And I suspect that with the distributed production system that is peering and the internet that optimum is falling not increasing).

    It is worth remembering that Copyright and Patent law applies to many fields of endeavour, yours is just one of them.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1616 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    simon or myself would know that being the only 2 people engaged in this discussion that actually have worked in that industry for over 25 years.

    You know what they say about old dogs. You are failing your industry, robbery.

    Robin is right, you clearly don't understand what he is doing for "your" industry nor have you attempted to to comprehend his very lucid comments and links. That is a shame and to the detriment of the people you claim to represent, IMHO.

    Now a little something from Peter:

    http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=m3oKEMdhJEg

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1616 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    I don't think Simon has been trying to hand our arses on a plate.

    of course not, but he did reign a few people in on some very clear and proven points through real knowledge.

    You know what they say about old dogs. You are failing your industry, robbery.

    gee don, you're a real charmer.
    I'm not sure why you've been so offended by creatives pushing for more control over their works. I've said I can understand it and have compared it with other examples in the real world. This seems to have deeply offended. All I can say is I'm sorry, I'm just saying how I feel honestly.

    I've gone back and re read som of the earlier pages of this discussion which I had to skim and I'm really glad I wasn't the guy who told the internationally acclaimed award winning author of the bone people essentially to get a real job. That's got to cause pangs of embarrassment for years to come. classic, you couldn't make that shit up if you tried :)

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    Now a little something from Peter:

    I hope you're not lumping me, simon, Keir, islander, or anyone else who has spoken for artists in with a move to prosecute without proof anyone. no one here has argued that.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    no one here has argued that.

    Yes you have, both here and on other threads where DRM has been discussed.

    What else should I read into this statement:

    I'm not sure why you've been so offended by creatives pushing for more control over their works.

    How that "control" has been enacted in legislation is invidious.

    I'm really glad I wasn't the guy who told the internationally acclaimed award winning author of the bone people essentially to get a real job.

    Except that is not what was said, by Mark. Jesus, now only "famous" people are allowed a say.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1616 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    Yes you have, both here and on other threads where DRM has been discussed.

    ok you show me the bit where it says anyone here is pushing for prosecution without proof.

    What else should I read into this statement:

    ah, well there's your problem right here don me old cheese. you've been reading shit into someones simple wish to have people leave their work alone.
    keri not wanting people to take her characters and put them on a space ship shooting a porn movie seems like a pretty reasonable request to me, i'm not sure why you'd want the right to do that.
    That is certainly what mark has been saying he should have the right to do. many people on this list have said.... why? (rob stowell, keir, me, kyle etc etc). its seems you desire control of other people stuff, where as other people just want to be left alone. what does that say about you?

    How that "control" has been enacted in legislation is invidious.

    yeah, I read those bits. the old evil giants bit. having worked in this industry for a while I've never met one in this country. I have read about them overseas but your argument is based on fear of things that people hold up as shocking examples. no label owner in nz is like that and I know many of them. when you push for rules that aim to constrict the perceived evil based on part fact and part myth you constrict everyone, including the bulk of the standard real people out there. this has been pointed out before but not sunk in.

    Except that is not what was said, by Mark. Jesus, now only "famous" people are allowed a say.

    mark is famous. he's the guy that told the world famous author they should have thought of a better career than writing cos of the country they live in and that this country owes her nothing. that is famous. I can't wait to see what he's going to say to that guy "p jackson".
    but more importantly don, even with your dour sense of humor, surely you can see the funny side of that, I had tears of laughter rolling down my face from that.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1616 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    yeah, nice link but where does it say prosecution without proof?

    read it all if you want but I think you'll find it doesn't.

    I'll highlight that key term there again for you

    prosecution "without proof"
    something no one has said is a good idea. are we clear on that or do you still want to keep arguing that creative types want that.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    robbery - that is very clear. Can you please front up to Judith Tizard, as a creator and someone who understands the industry, and give her that message.

    Because that is exactly what she has enacted, supposedly on your behalf, and it stinks.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1616 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    robbery - that is very clear.

    finally, thank you.
    yes I will say that to her.
    I've met her before, and have her email.

    That said I do expect to get stopped in my downloading of copyright material. section 92a should say "disconnected on demonstration of proof". How they get that proof is another matter which is where the whole invasion of privacy bit comes in and no one wants to think about that but they should.

    I get the feeling that some people want to offer creatives as a sacrificial lamb in order to maintain their own convenience. That's not doing anyone any favours and doesn't solve anything.
    I guess we all could get real jobs though, Islander, how are you at making salads?

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I thought I'd better weigh in ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18991 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    That said I do expect to get stopped in my downloading of copyright material. section 92a should say "disconnected on demonstration of proof". How they get that proof is another matter ...

    Through due process would be best.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18991 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    Through due process would be best.

    perfect,

    (next sentence not in reference to you russell)
    so can we stop demonizing creative types now, bite the bullet and get a workable solution for all involved.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    __Through due process would be best.__

    perfect

    But:

    Recording Industry Association chief executive Campbell Smith said that would not be acceptable as it would require copyright holders to sue infringers to prove their guilt. "That is just impractical and ridiculous. I don't think that is what was intended."

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18991 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    bite the bullet and get a workable solution for all involved.

    Please do. Tell Tizard you don't approve of the legislation as it stands. I have done that personally on a number of occasions and it would be good to have your clear statement of position as well.

    so can we stop demonizing creative types now,

    Never have.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1616 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    From what campbell is saying he feels people are expecting the industry sort it out, without giving them the power to realistically do it. a team effort might help.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Recording Industry Association chief executive Campbell Smith said that would not be acceptable as it would require copyright holders to sue infringers to prove their guilt. "That is just impractical and ridiculous. I don't think that is what was intended."

    The guilty until proven innocent theory? Nice.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6207 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    The guilty until proven innocent theory? Nice.

    I don't think that's the meaning of what he's saying.
    he's saying under current conditions the onus is on copyright holders to inforce their rights.
    perhaps he's looking for a little more help, perhaps not as much help as prosecution without proof, somewhere inbetween?

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg,

    Which is why it is such a pity it has been enshrined in legislation. Along with a whole lot of other technical "solutions" that will soon be outdated. This is of course our biggest beef with Minister Tizard's law

    I have to be honest Don, I'm not keeping up with the flow of this in NZ but I am going to try and get my head around it today. Distance tends to limit the amount of stuff you can absorb from half a world away but this is clearly of interest to me, if only as a copyright owner / administrator in NZ. What I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree that the three strikes, as written in the law, seems to me to be both draconian and Luddite in it's application and understanding

    robbery, I don't think Simon has been trying to hand our arses on a plate. He has made several points, many of which I agree with, one of which I don't

    No, plates and arses in any form were and are not part of my intended discourse.

    It is worth remembering that Copyright and Patent law applies to many fields of endeavour, yours is just one of them.

    Agreed but these are often used in different ways and it's unrealistic to apply blanket rules. There seems to be a failure in Robin's logic to factor in the changes in the use of music in recent years (20-30) beyond pointing to a site where one can download free an album or two.

    A couple of points:
    a) when copyright terms were first envisaged and applied to recorded music the lifespan of a recording was limited. It generally lasted a few short years. This was the case up until the 1980s. In 1975 all the Beatles and Rolling Stones albums from the 60s were unavailable in New Zealand..deleted as obsolete. Same with the first two Pink Floyd albums. Records had a short lifespan. The digital revolution starting with the CD and moving online changed all that. Coupled with an aging population, music had a much longer lifespan..it's intrinsic value and potential earning power increased by decades, which drove extensions in copyright.
    b) Creative Commons and the like are great but effectively, regardless of the volume available...10,000 albums free etc...reduce the amount available to you as it becomes a swamp with nothing standing out. Pop music (and that's what it all is regardless of how alternative or underground you may percieve it to be) survives by hype and momentum. You take that away and the excitement that drives it goes and it all turns into a grey morass. That hype and momentum is driven by copyright and the potential return from that copyright.
    c) Like Rob, I've yet to see a reasonable argument why the physical property in the recording industry (and don't confuse the song with the recording..they are two different discussions), the master tape should not be considered physical property constructed from a series of ideas in the same way a house or car is. Just because I want to sample them is not a good enough argument but I've seen little else.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3208 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    the master tape should not be considered physical property constructed from a series of ideas in the same way a house or car is.

    The master tape is physical property, I agree. It's yours forever. You can lock it away and never take a copy from it again. But, to use your own example, don't confuse the recording with the song. It's the song I'd like to see subject to time limitation, not your tape.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    You can lock it away and never take a copy from it again

    But Mark, the problem is precisely that you can't stop people making unlimited numbers of copies, as soon as one copy is publicly available. Lockin' it away is stable door, oops, the horse is already dogfood.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 1579 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg,

    The master tape is physical property, I agree. It's yours forever. You can lock it away and never take a copy from it again. But, to use your own example, don't confuse the recording with the song. It's the song I'd like to see subject to time limitation, not your tape.

    But you are still confusing two completely different and independent copyrights that have different uses and different implied and statutory rights. The song is just the idea that is used to create the master. The owner of the master, which is a physical result of the implementation of the idea has the right to exploit and derive income from that result, just like the owner of a house has from the thing built from a blueprint or idea. You've yet to successfully argue why that's not the case and why that right should expire unlike a house. Why should that owner have to lock it away?

    As I said earlier in the thread, the song / idea is effectively in the a form of public domain the moment it's released..anyone can then use it without restriction to make another physical property. The only time limitation on the song is the obligation to pay a fee to a performing rights organisation who then distribute it to the owner.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3208 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 14 15 16 17 18 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.