Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Is this Wired article: Hulu vs Vevo another sign of the trend Simon noted earlier: for on-demand to eclipse download-and-store?
-
Simon- I'm happy to take your word there's still plenty of funding behind music-making. I'm not trying to be provocative, exactly- I just want to tease out what people really think, and a little bit about why. I actually agree with Mark that we're on the cusp of a shift in paradigm- and I'm open to notion that "copyright must change".
I'm just hoping signs of a way forward that's broad-ranging, innovative, and everyone wins. ;-) -
But feel free to make shit up, as you have been all day.
No I haven't, Mark. Mostly I've been asking questions. Which shouldn't be so threatening.
I don't feel any of your intellectual certainty: I prefer to be open about my doubts and lacunae.
But feel free to drive off in your steam-roller to High Gudgeon. -
the material I create tends to uniqueness, whether in performance or sculpture
Lucky you. I thought we were talking about digital works that could be copied. But feel free to change the subject.
If I felt the need for copyright enforcement, I would use the courts, the way that we have always done.
How very RIAA of you. I was hoping for a more general answer, but there we go.
You're ok, so that's fine. -
While we're at it, lets get back to the central questions here- questions, Mark, you seem curiously unwilling to answer.
What's your favoured model for content creation to be funded- if not by the sale of copies?
If we allow a 14-year copy protection- heck, lets say a two years!- how would you propose to enforce it, so it's not completely meaningless?
If you've got no answers to the most pressing questions, I suggest you're just blowing off steam. Fine, but let's not pretend you want to engage in a constructive dialogue- or that you have some semi-mystical 'insight' into what's going on. -
Society and creators benefit from having copyright, if it's enforced - let's use your word - "fairly". Creators benefit because no-one can use their work for profit (or anything) without their permission, and society benefits because the work gets eventually released into the public domain. Your reading of that as being only of financial benefit to all concerned bears out my point that you don't understand what copyright is.
Your paltry mis-reading of what I say is - somewhere between careless and ungenerous. The benefit to society isn't just getting stuff for free later. It's also innovation and new works being encouraged by the financial incentive of copyright. That's copyright 101, and YOU don't seem to get it.
You say there's no evidence of copying hurting sales, yet you also insist that people who base a business model on selling copies are 'hiding their heads in the sand".
You declare that you *support* copyright yet you are adamant that ISPs should play no role in enforcing it, and you're indignant when the existing legal provisions are pursued.
Yet no little ting ting of cognitive dissonance ringing in the distance? -
Mark, what do you mean by 'accepting reality' and 'embracing the culture of abundance' if not doing away with copyright? Please clarify. 'Cos it sounds a lot like walking away from the concept of control over copying to me. ;-)
And as for 'define fair'- look in a dictionary ;-)
Or better, whatever you meant when you wrote that you personally didn't download copyright material out of a sense of fairness. -
Mark, you keep insisting we don't understand what copyright is- Puhleese!
We can agree to disagree about it's 'moral status' in relation to physical property, but noone is arguing that that owning copyright guarantees income. That's just dumb. I don't know where you pulled that from, but it's not from anything I've read anyone here argue.
And thanks Steve. Yeah, typo, I menat simple. (work that out!) (And yeah, Canterbury artesian water is fast heading for trouble. But it still tastes bloody good, straight from the tap! Worth fighting for. I hope you don't dilute your fine scotch with that awful chlorinated "swimming-pool water"...)
And thanks Gio... you're a scholar and a wit.
Mark- if you read a little more carefully... I was suggesting that my (yeah, I admit it- not based on 'empirical data'- but how much of this discussion has been?!) fear for the future of content creation is based on the idea that everyone benefits from the financial incentive for creation an enforced copyright brings.
You can laugh it away, but I'm pretty sure you've said yourself that's the rationale behind copyright.
I agree, this 'new scarcity' (of content WORTH copying) might not happen for a range of reasons. One of them is that artists will still create- for other reasons. I think this is the 'free-load 'cos we can argument.'
(You've also raised the possibility is that artists are all still too thick to see the reality of the situation, and have gone on creating with their heads in the sand ;-)
But how 'bout answering a few of those deceptively simple questions, eh? Since you support copyright, lets say for 14 years- how would you enforce it? What imposition on yr beloved intertubes would you be willing to accept (for the good of society!)
'Cos unenforced for 14 or 999 years is all the same. Tiddley widdley widdley, Mr Tittlemouse- no teeth! -
Sacha- how would you enforce copyright? I, ahem, have read this whole thread. I don't recall you suggesting any measures to enforce copyright. If you have made such suggestions, I'm very sorry, I missed 'em. Worth repeating, and please do!
(And Chch water is indubitably the best of any NZ city. Fight ya- Derrida at Dawn- on that one, any day you choose!;-) -
I have no argument with the assertion that CD sales have been on the decline for other reasons, that people are shifting to buying single tracks, that on-line sales are inherently cheaper and the 'middle-men' of the music industry are fighting a rear-guard action to protect a dying business model. Granted.
I'm just not convinced that the bones of that business model- the control of copying- can disappear, without it having an adverse effect on content creation.
You talk blithely of the "culture of abundance" as if it has to be a good thing. Yeah, digital content is dead simply to multiply. My fear- (and yeah, it may be a little irrational, but I'm not alone in feeling this, and the whole notion of copyright is based on it)- is that unlimited copying will result- not now, maybe not for decades- in a culture where great new content TO copy gets scarce. That's another culture of scarcity.