Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 41 42 43 44 45 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
so are you saying everyone is a zax.
what makes someone not a zax for you? -
Or we could step to one side..
Ha. Good luck with that.
-
Touche :)
-
so are you saying everyone is a zax.
what makes someone not a zax for you?That they know when to let it go.
-
That they know when to let it go.
come on man, can't I enjoy the moment :)
its not as amusing as when mark told islander to get a real job but it's still has its merits -
3410,
I also withdraw my comment about Smith and the burgers. I agree, he did not specifically mention that Bic Runga was flipping burgers, and I apologise for any offense my comment may have caused.
Me too.
-
The Herald begins its article like this:
"The manager of top singer-songwriter Bic Runga says eight of his "high-profile" and "major" New Zealand artists have been forced to take second jobs as illegal digital downloads kill the music industry."
and places that paragraph next to a photo of Bic.
If Bic Runga isn't 'major' and 'high-profile' then who is?
-
Thanks Don, I was afraid for a moment that we had stopped quibbling about that one.
-
If Bic Runga isn't 'major' and 'high-profile' then who is?
The point is creative freedom and others have been attacking Campbell and RIANZ on the grounds that Campbell makes stuff up and sited the example of him saying bic runga had to take a job flipping burgers.
so far the public record shows no such thing so rather than discount everything Campbell says re copyright infringement and the plight of artists based on this dubious twisting of words we could perhaps see serious consideration of his comments, in particular his Q&A with geekzone readers where he pleaded a fairly reasonable case for copyright holders. He did make one mis step but addressed a lot of commonly mis represented points demonstrated a willingness to work to make a fair system and that he had been listening to concerns and taken them on board. An acknowledgment of that would be a pleasant change.
-
and places that paragraph next to a photo of Bic.
If Bic Runga isn't 'major' and 'high-profile' then who is?
Interestingly, the nastier comments in the Your Views thread at the time appear to have been culled. I'm quite sure there was more than that there.
This isn't the only time she's had trouble with the paper: in 2004 she arrived home to this crazy front-page story about her comments about racism in New Zealand. I interviewed her on the radio shortly after she got back and she was quite upset about it.
-
The Q and A came from questions from geekzone readers apparently. it says it at the top of the article.
The questions did indeed come from Geekzone readers, and the whole Q&A was posted and published on Lovemusic.co.nz without permission.
That's now rectified, but suggests RIANZ needs some education itself into the matter it's so vigorously campaigning about.
-
Ah, brilliant! You should have contacted their ISP under s92C :-D
-
quote>and the whole Q&A was posted and published on Lovemusic.co.nz without permission.</quote>
Which raises a swag of copyright issues and contradictions in itself.Does Campbell have the right to publish his own writing?
The questions were directed and given to him, What are his rights?Did RIANZ breach print rights in their effort to explain music rights? (oh the irony)
Did geekzone use copyright law to get RIANZ to remove their page, interesting in that that would come from a core base arguing to restrict movement to enforce copyright judging by the gist of many of the questions.
-
The point is creative freedom and others have been attacking Campbell and RIANZ on the grounds that Campbell makes stuff up
It's an easy mistake to make, because Campbell Smith does**make shit up. In his submission to the TCF on the code of conduct, he says:
Research shows that the sending of warning notices explaining the possibility of disconnection in itself would be sufficient to stop the vast majority of infringing behaviour, without the need to reach the step of termination
Research shows nothing of the sort. The source of this is a survey run by the UK firm Entertainment Media Research and commissioned by a specialist media law firm to show to perspective clients. There's no methodology, just a bland statement from their sample of 1608 people (out of 61m) that 70% of them **say they'd stop if they thought they would be caught. Not a huge sample and not representative of the New Zealand market anyway.The evidence that the recording industry provides to ISPs is highly reliable, well-tested and has been accepted in countries around the world as the basis of criminal and civil legal actions.
So not true. The evidence has been contested ad nauseum . So far, there's only been one successful prosecution by the RIAA, and the judge has overturned that verdict and ordered a new trial. The RIAA's evidentiary process has netted laser printers, dead people and people who don't even have computers.
A three-step approach is the standard in other countries where a similar graduated response is in effect or under discussion
This is plain and simple spin, and deceptive at that, as no other country has implemented this as a law, and the 'voluntary' scheme that has been strongarmed into Eircom as settlement for a different court dispute, has yet to be tested.
So, don't go holdin Smith out as some saint, 'cos he aint.
-
There's no methodology, just a bland statement from their sample of 1608 people (out of 61m) that 70% of them **say they'd stop if they thought they would be caught. Not a huge sample and not representative of the New Zealand market anyway.
How is 1600 people a small sample on a population of 61 million, pray? The standard political polls in the recent American election sampled between 1,000 and 1,200 people on a population of 250 million. It seems a perfectly valid and intriguing result. I'm with you that it might not be representative of the New Zealand market, but overseas experience is quoted abundantly by both sides in this debate and besides I would be surprised if people felt differently over here on this particular issue. At any rate it hardly amounts to Smith making shit up.
The evidence has been contested ad nauseum.
That would be the museum of nausea, right? :-)
-
I took Mark's main point was that the survey was asking people what they would do in response to a warning notice, rather than looking at evidence of what people actually did do.
-
I took Mark's main point was that the survey was asking people what they would do in response to a warning notice, rather than looking at evidence of what people actually did do.
Correct, and what I meant to add is that anyone who has done usability testing on systems knows that what people say they do and what they actually do are very different things.
That would be the museum of nausea, right? :-)
That's such a great building, it goes on forever ;-)
-
From the very excellent recent find, Editing The Herald blog
Changed your mind? No?: It turns out the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand was being reasonable all time. So says Campbell Smith... chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. (Side note: does every single business or institution need a 'chief executive' these days? Honestly...) Now, of course industry PR pieces in the opinion pages are to be held suspect, but the newspeak and doublethink of this piece is quite astounding. According to Smith, "there have been a lot of misleading reports and sensational propaganda about section 92A [the proposed law change that would allow copyright holders to demand ISPs revoke alleged pirates' internet access without judicial overview]." He continues:
Some people have suggested the new law would mean people keeping tabs on what internet sites people visit or monitoring people's email. That is not true.
Others suggest that under the draft code of conduct designed to implement the law people will be summarily thrown off the internet for downloading a couple of unlicensed files. That is also not true.
I haven't actually read any sensible, mainstream critic of Section 92A say either of these things. The main problem has always been that the 'victims' were also going to be the judge and jury. Speaking of which, Smith now agrees "that users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence." Oh, how generous, Cameron. And when I lock you up in my basement because I think you stole my car, I'll be sure to let you appeal to my neighbour if you don't think you did it.
-
These two paras:
Some people have suggested the new law would mean people keeping tabs on what internet sites people visit or monitoring people's email. That is not true.
Others suggest that under the draft code of conduct designed to implement the law people will be summarily thrown off the internet for downloading a couple of unlicensed files. That is also not true.
Are quotes attributed to Campbell Smith, but they got lost in the lack of multi-level quoting here.
-
Maybe he believes that people only remember the last press release.
-
So, don't go holdin Smith out as some saint, 'cos he aint.
ha, perhaps you should pick better examples of his devilness next time, you picked an easily disputed one in the "burgers".
your other examples of makes shit up are opinion and conjecture until you ask him what studies he's referring to. If he replies none I just made it up then you are correct, if he replies these studies here, then you're making shit up. how bout I give you his email address and you ask him this time.
what people say they do and what they actually do are very different things.
so failing the arrival of time travel technology how do you propose they find out what people do actually do, without putting it into place. I would say its fair to build a case on what they say they would do first in the absence of actual post effect studies.
seems entirely reasonable.I would personally rather some other country tried it all out first while we watched and learned., but then we could just do our bit too.
-
Maybe he believes that people only remember the last press release.
maybe they're in the process of developing a suitable strategy that takes into account legitimate concerns raised.
He made an effort to mention the third party thing in his Q&A. that's new. Things change fast so there's no point in quoting what he said in 2004. its a different ball game now. -
Q: Do you believe the infringement notice generation mechanisms are reliable enough to be accepted by a court? What methodology will be used by RIANZ to determine who exactly is a copyright infringer? Are you confident that it is foolproof? What verification process is used?
A: Yes, we are confident that this is reliable enough to be accepted by a court. The evidence gathered consists of publicly available information about the IP addresses used at a certain time on a certain date to upload copyright infringing material. The evidence supplied by us is synched to a trusted atomic time source and based on ICANN (APNIC) information regarding the allocation of Internet protocol address spaces.
Anyone can log onto file-sharing networks and note the IP addresses used for uploading content, since the uploader makes this information publicly available. This type of evidence has been accepted in countries around the world as the basis of criminal and civil legal actions.
We are confident that the standard of our evidence gathering process is robust enough to be accepted by any court in New Zealand, as it has been internationally. To date the evidence provided by IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, has always been sufficient for a court. RIANZ, as an IFPI member, would use the same standard of evidence techniques and technologies. We have been through the evidence gathering process with ISPs here in NZ and we have had no concerns raised about the robustness of our evidence.
This is an excerpt from the Geekzone Q & A. From the answer there is no need to have s92 at all. If the evidence is so robust, prosecute.
Any lawyers in the house?
-
Usually don't respond to robbery these days however...
its a different ball game now.
The law is unchanged. So, the ball game hasn't changed one little bit. When the law changes then maybe the basis for debate will change.
-
Things change fast so there's no point in quoting what he said in 2004.
These are the things he said in his submission to the TCF dated 10 March 2009
This is an excerpt from the Geekzone Q & A. From the answer there is no need to have s92 at all. If the evidence is so robust, prosecute.
Well, you'd think. Especially as it's only going to apply to a "tiny minority" (which makes a bit of a mockery of the claim that piracy is changing the business of music).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.