Hard News: The Casino
578 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 24 Newer→ Last
-
Copyright is a capitalist institution. Socialists are more likely to think that all ideas belong to the state, or humanity (which they feel the socialist state is the perfect representative of).
Wow! What a thought!
I neither advocate nor deny it, I'd like to point out, but I am going to consider its implications. Just not right now.
Thanks Ben
-
A particularly illuminating term from Marxist discourse comes to my mind - objective alienation. Enforcing copyright on yourself in the privacy of your own home is exactly that, the internalization of society's rules, whether or not society could even find out.
Hang on a minute: I'm as much of a Marxist as the next fella but applying socialism to a single sector of society and not others in principle is unjust. Especially in the case of a useful sector of society. Wanna do it to investment bankers? You have my unreserved blessing.
-
I'd also argue that in NZ the reason why so many need a day job, not to put too fine a point on it, is being slightly too precious about their art, if you will, and plain laziness. NZ bands are notorious for playing irregularly and then complaining that there is no money in it.
Add to that the size of the traditional in-country market, which I believe is just too damn small to carry all the artistic weight we'd like it to. Which is why the best usually wind up in Sydney or London at some point. And I think this applies across the art sector, not just music.
-
I neither advocate nor deny it, I'd like to point out, but I am going to consider its implications. Just not right now.
Here walks a man who hasn't read Foucault's Discipline and Punish. Remedy that stat. I was thinking earlier today that you'd probably enjoy Levy's Collective Intelligence as well, if you haven't come across it before.
-
Did I say it was?
Well, that's how I read
Technically, artists who have their stuff pirated are victims of, shall we say, non-legality. Do you say that all crime victims should just "adapt or die" (rather than seek redress via the legal system?)
-
Foucalt is in my to read pile, but I haven't noted Levy before. Thanks. (wonder if I can download it? ;-)
-
But that diagram is awfully familiar. ;-)
-
That IEML stuff is very timely. I've been reading about Neurath's work with Isoptype, and thinking about universal language issues. I might have to promote all that up the to do list ;-)
-
You read me as you want to, Giovanni.
I most certainly do, and I'm not the only one who's unsatisfied with your approach. You have every right to stick to your guns, naturally, but not to claim that yours is a fair and balanced approach, while everybody else is an old thinker, or emotive, or ideologically biased, or partial. That's just crap.
For the last 40 years, copyright terms have been extended, and extended, and extended. Not because artists asked for it, but because the mouse was about to emerge from its private hole. I'd like a return to the status quo of around 1960. I'd see that as a good start.
It's funny how for some things you're willing to let the chips of technological progress fall where they may, and not conceive of any redress or counterbalance because it would be futile if not counterproductive, and for other things you'd like to wind the clock back fifty years.
See, there's that emotive stuff again. As you're self-admittedly) not an artist, I do wonder why you get so wound up over this, but never mind. I've written before about why this is.
I know why it is in principle, I just don't agree with the principle. I don't think I need to be an artist to feel this way.
-
But that diagram is awfully familiar. ;-)
If the authors of the digital strategy hadn't read Levy, I think we could confidently ask for our money back.
-
But, see, I know some of them...
-
It's funny how for some things you're willing to let the chips of technological progress fall where they may, and not conceive of any redress or counterbalance because it would be futile if not counterproductive, and for other things you'd like to wind the clock back fifty years.
I said I'd see winding the term of copyright back to what it was then as a good start. That has nothing to do with technological advance. You chip away at these little things and never address the substantive point in the next paragraph:
But it's not enough. I'd say to you that the world has changed. Copyright law was initially designed to regulate publisher to publisher conflicts. Now, everyone on the Internet is able to publish and republish. Technology now allows anyone to infringe, where once you needed a solid investment in plant. The game has changed and laws must change to reflect that.
then you said:
I just don't agree with the principle.
What are you offering as an alternative?
-
Mark H - care to clarify 'the best'?
There are rather a lot of ANZ artists - who did/ have spent limited time/s overseas but *dont *end up* in Sydney or London or where-ever - and never want to. Home is here, and here is where our kind of creation goes on. O, and apropos your 'rancid' comment - have you changed your mind on that?Work -exists. Fortunately, a lot of the time, it is copyright-protected, and not subject to your open-slather views.
Caught up with some of the latest shenaghans aproposDRM?
-
Technology now allows anyone to infringe, where once you needed a solid investment in plant. The game has changed and laws must change to reflect that.
In what way? The only suggestion you've given, if I'm not mistaken, is to reduce the length of the copyright term. If that is your way of addressing the fact that people can just infringe copyright laws at will these days, it seems rather peculiar.
And how's this for an emotive analogy: we invented guns that allowed to kill more people at greater distances. The response of the law wasn't "oh well, we should reduce the penalties for killing now. It's become just too easy and there's no turning back."
What are you offering as an alternative?
I'm not really suggesting anything an alternative, just thinking of the existing protections in a different way. I find hipocrisy in the idea an artist's reward should be conceptualised as something that society extends out of the goodness of its heart, as opposed to being inscribed in the same mercantile logic that governs the exchange of all other goods that people work to produce. When I buy a piece of cheese, I'm not subsidising the cheesemaker to make his next batch. I'm paying for the frigging cheese, on account of the fact that I want it. If an artist (say, JD Salinger) made a single masterpiece and then decided to pack it in, should s/he not be compensated for his or her work?
-
In what way? The only suggestion you've given, if I'm not mistaken, is to reduce the length of the copyright term. If that is your way of addressing the fact that people can just infringe copyright laws at will these days, it seems rather peculiar.
The law as written (in different ways in different parts of the world, but let's focus on New Zealand) was written for a different one-way paradigm, where consumers/end users/ call-them-what-you-will have no input to the system other then being a source of revenue. Now they have an opportunity to simultaneously be consumers, authors and publishers without the need for intermediaries. The millions of blogs and websites of the net testify to a growing need to be heard, whether or not you have something worth saying.
The law doesn't recognize this. It doesn't recognize that the way we reuse work has changed. We link and quote with gay abandon in ways that some copyright maximalists think is infringing. We don't generally accept that position. Once upon a time, reference to other works was limited to academia and journalism. Now, everyone's a potential journalist.
When one person copies something, it's an infringement. When everybody copies everyday, it's a cultural change.
I'm not really suggesting anything an alternative, just thinking of the existing protections in a different way.
I'd suggest to you that you're thinking in the same old way, based on 300 year old concepts that just don't apply any more, or on 40 year old concepts of "intellectual property" which never did work.
I find hipocrisy in the idea an artist's reward should be conceptualised as something that society extends out of the goodness of its heart, as opposed to being inscribed in the same mercantile logic that governs the exchange of all other goods that people work to produce
Sorry, but that's exactly what it is. It's a license to exclude others from gathering revenue for your work to encourage you to create more. It's not out of the goodness of society's heart - it's a trade off. The creator gets to benefit for a limited time, then society gets to benefit.
You seem to have bought into the idea that copyright is property. If that's the case, that's sad, as it limits the way you can think. I talked earlier about defining the debate. That's what maximalists have done in pushing the concept of "IP", conflating copyright with patents and trademarks. If we really wants to look at what the best benefit is to both creator and society, I think we have to step outside that paradigm and start afresh. I can't overstate that the game has changed radically.
If an artist (say, JD Salinger) made a single masterpiece and then decided to pack it in, should s/he not be compensated for his or her work?
For a limited time. That's the deal. Whether you choose to go on or not, that's the deal you and society sign up to. If you don't like it, don't publish.
-
Mark H - care to clarify 'the best'?
Context?
There are rather a lot of ANZ artists - who did/ have spent limited time/s overseas but *dont *end up* in Sydney or London or where-ever - and never want to. Home is here, and here is where our kind of creation goes on.
True, but there are also plenty who do, especially in the music business.
O, and apropos your 'rancid' comment - have you changed your mind on that?
Thanks to ME, I have a memory like a sieve. Where did I say that?
Work -exists. Fortunately, a lot of the time, it is copyright-protected, and not subject to your open-slather views.
You must have missed my mega-posts yesterday. I'm not particularly in favour of open slather. I believe in copyright properly applied, for a limited time. I know you don't agree, so let's not go over that. Just don't slander me as a pirate, please.
Caught up with some of the latest shenaghans aproposDRM?
You mean Vodaphone giving up on it? :-)
-
I find hipocrisy in the idea an artist's reward should be conceptualised as something that society extends out of the goodness of its heart, as opposed to being inscribed in the same mercantile logic that governs the exchange of all other goods that people work to produce
But the copyright system is only something that society extends out of the goodness of its heart.
And around the world the practical arts (making physical practical things) get little or no automatic protection. NZ is perhaps the most generous in the world, providing copyright for 3-D product design for a whole 16 years. A far cry from the sort of protection music artists get.
-
'the best'- your post today at 4.46pm
'rancid' .waaay back on the copyright thread which is how you described my work would go if it wasnt immediately available for instant replication in any form on the web (slight enhancement here, but I've thought of your word 'rancid' as the ultimate silliness in this kind of discussion ever since.)
Nope.
-
"The best" - in that context, the most successful
"Slight" enhancement?!? ;-)
I apologise if the word offended. I claim passion for the cause in my defense. "Static" would probably be a better word to use, as in "not growing". And I agree, it is a silly word.Thanks.
-
"The best" - in that context, the most successful
Revision: the most commercially successful
-
It's not just the art sector that end up elsewhere.
-
When everybody copies everyday, it's a cultural change
It's Lessig's key point again isn't it? Every single thing we do online involves copying. Every pageview is a copy - which leaves behind an undiminished potential to serve other perfect copies.
Our offline world is just not like that. This is a fundamental change and so the traditional references available to illustrate our discussions tend to be magical folk tales.
-
Wow! What a thought!
I neither advocate nor deny it, I'd like to point out, but I am going to consider its implications. Just not right now.
I'm going to run with the line that you're not being sarcastic.
-
Let's stipulate that the level of copyright infringement is high. Let's say there are 300 infringements an hour. How on earth do you prosecute that? As an individual, do you spend all your money and time trying to stop it, or do you change your business stratagy to minimise the impact? One path will cost and frustrate you, the other may lead to something.
I don't buy this argument (which I'll call the "it's happening too much to do anything about it" argument).
I also don't buy it for decriminalisation/legalisation of drugs.
If something is wrong, and its wrong enough to do something about, then the fact that its happening a crapload isn't a reason not to do anything. Particularly when it comes to illegalities where you can recover some of the costs from the perpetrators.
More valid to me would be "OK, it is illegal, but we actually don't care as long as you're sensible about it", or "it's illegal, but it's almost impossible to do anything about it".
Columbus set about a chain of events that led to a colossal exodus, but does that really make the discovery of America a quantum leap? Or the technology that led to it?
We once had a history lecturer candidate who came and gave their sample lecture on Columbus. When she came to talk about the technology that got him here, she said "I get lost in the bathtub, so I'm not going to talk about the boats much." She didn't get the job.
Advancements in boat technology enabled Columbus to get to the new world. And technology and disease enabled those that followed him to conquer it.
-
but there are also plenty who do, especially in the music business.
you're thinking of melbourne.
almost no one goes to sydney, only those who imagine that because its australia's biggest city its a good place to base a band.
actually if you're serious and have half a clue you skip australia altogether. to many acts have sussed it as a death pit before.but I distract you, please finish your book of mark.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.