As a speaker, he was superb. He was witty, and made spectacular use of PowerPoint.

Given that he was working off a MacBook Pro, I suspect it may have been Keynote he was presenting in. Like Powerpoint, just cooler ...

Note to presenters: less is more. Few of his slides?

You're right though, his presentation style alone is worth going to see.

To licence all the music used in the background of the movie, which was a series of videos of the maker's life spliced together and overlaid onto music from the appropriate era, would raise that cost to USD400,000

What's the problem? This is like whinging that George Clooney won't turn?

Is it sad that my idea of an exciting night out with my wife is to go and see someone give a lecture about copyright reform?

It's not sad, it's touching.

Personally, I disagree with Lessig on a few things – I'm an abolitionist, but I have the luxury of having strong opinions considering that I don't have any expertise in the area. He's?

What's the problem? This is like whinging that George Clooney won't turn up in your film for cheap.

That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.

And if it costs too much, don't pay. That's the free market for you.

The problem, is that it's?

The problem, is that it's just quoting.

Well, no. It isn't just. It's taking very substantial parts of other works and using them to add value to your work.

Here we go again..

My thoughts exactly....I wonder exactly how many threads we've had about this over the past couple of years. I'm out of this one.

Nice post though Matthew.

That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.

And if it costs too much, don't pay. That's the free market for you.

I assume you use this expression to mean don't use that music rather than promoting just taking it for free anyway without?

I don't like the current copyright laws, esp. the RIAA thuggery, but that sort of reuse is, I think, a bad example of Lessig's point.

It sounds bad, but the process is no different to hiring an actor etc, and would probably exist under?

What's the problem? This is like whinging that George Clooney won't turn up in your film for cheap.

That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.

And if it costs too much, don't pay. That's the free market for you.

It's possible to make a?

Oh, also, Stanford has only one d.

Whoops. Typo on my part. That bit was written late at night, and I also blame my sub-editor for failing to pick up on it :P

Can you fix that please, Russell.

Lessig at TED

Would be interested to know if the Auckland presentation had been updated or improved over the earlier one.

©2002-2008 Public Address, all rights reserved.

isn't rank hypocrisy?

You're advocating for people to use creative commons, so why don't you use it yourselves?

It is possible to use a some rights reserved situation but needs the footer edited.

Could someone please explain why this post and the previous copyright discussion on a site that has

©2002-2008 Public Address, all rights reserved.

Er, because this is not about abolishing Copyright but understanding the implications of technology and society.

At least give an impression of RTFA.

Thanks Matthew & Russell.

That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.

I followed the link to the story. My impression was that this is music which is playing in the background of the family movies that he made throughout his life.

It's not like he's chosen this movie?

Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your?

Good post Matthew.

You're advocating for people to use creative commons, so why don't you use it yourselves?

I have been thinking about it. When we started, there wasn't a NZ Creative Commons licence, so we simply asserted rights.

It wouldn't be my place to simply slap a CC licence on the site?

That might be a good starting point for joining this kind of discussion.

But yeah, I should do that.

It is interesting that David Haywood claims to have sold out of the first run of his ("superb and hilarious" – TLS) book which is a collection of articles already published on PA.

This despite the fact we can all check out the archives?

This despite the fact we can all check out the archives here and print them off at our leisure.

I took the liberty of giving Professor Lessig a copy of Great New Zealand Argument: Ideas About Ourselves, which sold well, even though nearly everything in it was already available for?

I wish the "creators" of popular music would sometimes acknowledge their sources.

Oh..they do at times but it isn't always voluntary

In fact I believe it's mouses.

I quite like that, for some reason.

A Pedant

Whoops. Typo on my part. That bit was written late at night, and I also blame my sub-editor for failing to pick up on it :P

Oi! Don't blame me for your poor mastery of the English language. There's a reason I beat you at Scrabble several times a week?

Also, that PAS wishes to exercise its copyright in the site layout (which is what that copyright statement means) has no bearing on?

However, noted blues author and producer Robert Palmer states "It is the custom, in blues music, for a singer to borrow verses from contemporary sources, both oral and recorded, add his own tune?

Given Cactus' proven ability for phearsome web development surely you guys can come up with something?

We've been waiting two years to be able to edit our own posts. Back of the queue CC-boy.

We've been waiting two years to be able to edit our own posts.

Hah. [[http://www.rubyonrails.org/|Rails] anyone? Jeez.

And of course, there is nothing new on jazz, is there?

Indeed, but watching the Ian Curtis bio-pic last night I was thinking to myself over and over again that nothing had ever sounded like this before that...sure there were signposts, like the Velvets and Bowie but what they did?

Just as I have done here, he made the point ...

This leads me to conclude that it is not a simple report of Lessig's comments. Otherwise, why distinguish?

However, it's not at all clear which are Lessig's conclusions and which are your own opinions. You use examples he?

But, if it'll make you happy, and since you do raise a valid point, I'm stating here that the column is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial licence.

Cool.

That actually helps clarify my thoughts on how to approach it sitewide.

published under the Attribution-Noncommercial licence.

Cool.

That actually helps clarify my thoughts on how to approach it sitewide.

My suggestion would be to very clearly announce that the site layout is under ordinary, no-rights-granted, copyright, while the published content is under whichever form of CC licence you decide except where?

If someone is to take my text and place it on a website bearing advertising, even if it's Google ads, they're in the same business I am.

Is that?

?Non-Commercial? means ?not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation?. The exchange of the Work for other copyright works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there?

I'd like to see a hybrid advertising network/CC content service — so you'd transparently share revenue with the artist on every page impression if you took the advertising.

Russell, thank you. That's exactly the type of approach I want too – using technology to allow sharing rewards to a variety?

I'm not so sure the non-commercial issue is that clear cut.

CC have a research project on the matter:
http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/9554

The?

Unfortunately, what the delegates heard was "I think that you should not be allowed to make money, and furthermore, I wish to boil your children and dismember your pets."

Sounds roughly like what I encountered in the other copyright thread, which was why I gave up. When you're being attacked?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502734&objectid=10541340&pnum=0

I was disappointed that this sentence didn?t end ?...Electric 6?s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTzs9G-VOZ4?>Gay Bar

(There is at least one copy of "Bush Blair Endless Love" on Youtube for the searching if anyone feels so inclined.)

That actually helps clarify my thoughts on how to approach it sitewide.

Russell, I wistfully remember the halcyon days before copyright was to become an issue for "Joe the Plumber". I remember you emailing copies of the Hard News for posting on my BBS and thus off to fidonet. We?

Treating creative expression as criminal, argued Lessig, is "corrosive", because it raises children in an environment where breaking the law is normalised.

My 8 year old son now thinks if you spell "BluTak" "Blue Tak" you'll get arrested, following a parental discussion about the © and ? symbols.

Unfortunately, what the delegates heard was "I think that you should not be allowed to make money, and furthermore, I wish to boil your children and dismember your pets."

perhaps as an educated wordsmith you should have chosen your words better to communicate exactly what you were meaning as "one?

My thoughts exactly....I wonder exactly how many threads we've had about this over the past couple of years. I'm out of this one.

well, ..... the same people who have had their lame arguments refuted in other threads truck out their "but were so socially conscious" bollocks and say things?

lame arguments refuted

It just gets better..

It just gets better..

come on sasha, you know you love it :)
nice to see you only got to the first line before you passed judgment.

Its easy to blame the listener for the faults in your delivery.

Hilarious.

can't even spell my name right

true, that, but that's the least of my typing worries. its the missing consonants that worry me the most.

Doofus

???? ....ignore name calling,

Hilarious

speaking to a room full of people who work in the complex field of the topic he's talking on?

Slow down and think before you write.

that's rich coming from you my friend. You could get a wider field of experience in the areas you're addressing before you type.
Your argument is based on the ability to focus on the exceptions and ignore everything else, if we're broadly generalising,?

Oh, I have no doubt that the industry view will prevail momentarily and we'll all need to be very careful about how we use content,?

You may get the industry bodies sticking their heads in the sand and waffling but to assume they speak for the content industry as a whole simply shows a failure to understand the industry at the root or the things that drive it.

In which case, why do we get?

If you want us to consider the industries as having any more-enlightened players than the industry bodies, rein the fuckers in

What Matthew said. I want creators to be successful and to be fairly rewarded. I want viable industries – and socially motivated forms of cultural exchange for those less?

In which case, why do we get legislation that's driven by the industry bodies? You can't pretend that s92 is in some way reflective of a desire to embrace the internet.
As with most things, it's the vocal players that get the attention. They also get the laws drafted how?

Just don't be all Canute about it, and don't come whining here when your colleagues are behaving like protectionist shits. Go sort them out.

Why? Can you point me in the direction of a ruling that says that a record label is either his brother's keeper or anyone elses? It's?

Actually, it's the content industry that's making it sound like it's the most important problem facing the world,

actually I thought they'd been pretty slow in their response after they got spooked with the while lars metallica backlash. it took em ages to recover from that and formulate a plan.?

These "infringers" are your potential customers, Rob.

well firstly not my customers, my customers are all music nerds intent on supporting the music they love, I talk to them directly and they insist on paying even when I tell them I'll burn them a copy,

and secondly, I suppose 'infingers'?

@robbery
You obviously do not know what they're saying. Try looking at the arguments they make for for ACTA.?

@Simon Grigg
If you don't want to be tarred with the industry brush, sort out your industry. It is your job, if you don't want the blame that goes with them.

Don't sort such naive twaddle Mark. Do I approach a few software developers I know and say sort out?

That, I guess, is an 'I don't know' statement.

And you would guess incorrectly. But when did you become robbery's keeper?

And you would guess incorrectly. But when did you become robbery's keeper?

I didn't and correct me if I'm wrong but in the last copyright thread you walked away, similarly tossing a few false assumptions out there as facts in doing so, so I guessed it was habitual.

As for your "customer" comment, pretty much tells me why you're worried about going out of business.

hahaha, you so know nothing about what I do, or I venture what motivates most artists. why should we take anything you say seriously when you appear to have no knowledge of a?

I merely stopped responding to you or robbery as neither of you were prepared to accept that alternative viewpoints may be valid.

I love this shit you write man, it's high entertainment shit, you should put a © on it cos I'm definitely deriving amusement levels off it and should?

So here's the challenge, Simon: Show some evidence that this has occurred, and I mean solid evidence that the industry has directly suffered from file-sharing,

Oh come on Mark, the false assumption you made was my position on all this. I explained that in some detail which you would have?

I'm only taking your position from the things you've said on this thread

And on the other thread, I meant to say. Sorry

So here's the challenge, Simon: Show some evidence that this has occurred, and I mean solid evidence that the industry has directly suffered from file-sharing,

Oh come on Mark, the false assumption you made was my position on all this. I explained that in some detail which you would have?

the whole lobbying to get ISP?s into the mix has only just happened and that would have been a bleeding obvious first port of call you would have though.

I asked a former Internet Architect for Xtra, about the suggested ISP responsibilities.

He laughed. Not practical to technically implement. Not?

Going thru a few things.

1. I've not studied the industry data in any great detail mostly because, based on on my personal experience and understanding of the way people consume music garnered over some years, I'm confident that I'm right.

2. Another example I can?

Avoid distraction, for distraction lodges in the bosom of the fool

This statement typifies the approach of Simon and Russell, ignoring or not (often) dignifying objectionable statements with a?

He laughed. Not practical to technically implement. Not by a long shot.

A little off topic, but I've noticed over the past few months my ISP has been doing some pretty aggressive traffic throttling.

But my downloads went from anywhere between 50 – 150 K/second, to 1 – 10 K/second.?

If you had been torrenting a movie or the latest album by someone?

If you had been torrenting a movie or the latest album by someone an old fart like me has never heard of, it would have inconvenienced you momentarily, but you found a way round it so it's hardly a good way of preventing piracy, is it?

No. But if SkyTV?

to Vuxe, which had encoding. Since then it's jumped back up and I'm happily torrentting again.

all depends which isp you're using kyle.
xnet (naked dsl) completely filters out all peer to peer, even with vuse encoding and as much fiddling as you can come up with. I've heard on?

Using Rob as an example in this case,

jon, I have to say I'm disappointing in you. With your off the wall angles and wildly variant interpretations of what is on topic,..... and here you are picking the bleeding obvious, I just expected more from you in your choice of?

"I'd like to see that $218 movie and see just how intergral the music is to it.

And while I'm at it I'll question the $218 price tag. did he buy his home editing unit for that price?"

700 meg eh kyle, that's suspiciously the same size as a movie file

NHL ice hockey games.

I've never downloaded a movie over the internet. I have several drawers of videos and dvds which I've bought, and I hire anything that I want to see but don't think I'll want?

Is this stuff screened in nz anyway?

Only the final series – last 7 games out of about 1600 in the season.

Sky used to show some as ESPN had the rights, but past three years the rights are owned by a different company in the states, so we get?

So are we cool with this as 'response to Lessig'?

its matthew pooles thread, ask him.
I don't know how much of this thread you've read jon but my response was directly to lessig and matthew's comments on him.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. is this one?

What is to occur when?

Just watched the final epsiode of season 1....lol!

of dexter?

of dexter?

yeah

lessig says copyright is an incentive to writers to writer more works, like giving a pet a snacky treat to get them to do tricks. Dead writers can't produce anything new so he thinks their?

lessig says copyright is an incentive to writers to writer more works, like giving a pet a snacky treat to get them to do tricks.

The opening para of the Statute of Anne (or the Copyright Act 1709) reads:

An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies?

my position is that it is incorrect to hold these views knowing what we know now living in the world we live in now.

Also, the world lasted quite well without it for several thousand years – books got written, music got composed, pictures were painted.

I'm not sure if the 15th century painting and publishing is particularly useful for either side in this argument. I'm not opposed to 'copyright should be different/less/etc in?

And when people talk about copyright as a "natural right", I think we can look across the grand sweep of time, in which copyright can be seen as an anomaly ;-)

And you can look at the reasons things like copyright and patents were brought in, which included trying to?

Your position does not accord with the law as it stands.

the law as it stands isn't the law of 1709 thankfully, and is ever evolving to acknowledge better understanding of what is property and the rights a fair civilisation should attribute to it. Lessig's argument is a step backward?

And you can look at the reasons things like copyright and patents were brought in, which included trying to encourage publishing and invention.

I get that as one of the reasons (and a thoroughly insulting motivation to grant someone control of their works) but doesn't ownership and the protection of?

incentivize creators to produce more work.

that's like agreeing to give your slaves a ration of meat in their diet to get them to work longer hours in the field. it doesn't address the whole pesky "slave" part of the equation. or in creatives case the right to own and?

And when people talk about copyright as a "natural right", I think we can look across the grand sweep of time, in which copyright can be seen as an anomaly ;-)

And I'm trusting you didn't rush out and vote a week or two back because if we look across?

The response to natural right is what makes it a natural right, and all we got re that was a link to a wiki page of new age quotes.

sorry that sentence was badly phrased, might read better like this.

The response to the "natural right" argument was "what makes?

The issue at the moment is the time limitation on it and under current thinking that hasn't really been explained, and extensions to copyright imply that that is being acknowledged and adjusted for.

I thought we'd discussed this qute a bit back here. Speaking only for myself, rather than making?

his big hobby horse is re mixing

Personally I don't quite see the same amount of value in remixing music as actually creating music, but perhaps I'm being a music snob. Perhaps I've got tunnel vision regarding remixing music, as that was the example used in the lecture and Kim?

I thought it had been explained satisfactorily,

my comprehension of gist of the 'explanation' was they are what they are 'because', be thankful you get anything, now get back to work.

If a creative wants to share and protect their rights, then pay for it up-front, or pay year-to-year

sure,?

I don't quite see the same amount of value in remixing music

he uses the term remixing to refer to recombining various media like doing a silly dance to a song and putting it on you tube. your understanding of remix is the correct use of the word as applies?

the term remixing to refer to recombining various media like doing a silly dance to a song and putting it on you tube

gee, lets hope this is not the high water mark for the peak of civilisation in our time. Slick & cool presentation though it was, but should we?

his stock.

er..sorry I did mean "his/her stock".

So having now identified that an opt-in scenario is an alternative to the current?

remixing

would be more accurately termed "reworking".
the term remixing is incorrectly used by the industry too with some 'remixes' which use very little of the original work and add lots that was never there. I guess he's mis appropriated and inaccurate term.
and I agree, picking a big fight?

That's like saying you can build a house but if you let the location of that house out then you are responsible for people who rob it.

Locks on doors, or perhaps just doors is perhaps a better analogy. Or how about the farmer's fence around the stock, or should?

farmer's fence around the stock, or should society pay also pay for that?

that's a particularly bad analogy. farmers fences are to keep stock in not thieves out.

Perhaps sadly, we don't all derive benefit as creators of IP

this is wrong.
we all benefit from ip law because we all can create ip and then benefit from it.
we don't all own houses or expensive property but should we own it we benefit from the laws that?

everybody needs doors

yes everyone needs doors for privacy but should they need a great big iron fence and armed guards for security?
sadly in our society more so as time passes. I don't know what that says about us, or more I do know but I don't want to?

this is wrong.
we all benefit from ip law because we all can create ip and then benefit from it.

hmmm...perhaps what you read, is different from what I wrote, perhaps I need to add emphasis. __Perhaps sadly, we don't all derive benefit as creators of IP **as creators of?

hmmm...perhaps what you read, is different from what I wrote

No, I read what you wrote correctly and countered with the argument not everyone owns a house but land ownership rights stand for everyone at societies cost. Are you suggesting land owners should have to pay costs of upholding their?

I probably need to listen to Kim's interview of Prof Lessig again, but I wish she'd asked some probing questions?

That presentation is even more compelling/coherent around the need for change, despite similarities with the Auckland presentation....and provides a bit more insight regarding why Prof Lessig is heading off to deal with the corrupting of Congress.

sorry, I'll get my coat.....

The Guardian has an article today on the subject of copyright infringement and the heavy-handed tactics that seem to follow

seems if you ignore Getty they go away.

And why are these people using uncleared pictures in their bought and paid for commercial work?
I didn't know it wasn't free?

There is nothing he says which has more truth to it?

To follow the money, you have to shift from a basic view of a market as a matching of two parties – buyers and sellers – to a broader sense of an ecosystem with many parties, only some of which exchange cash.

what they did with the Eno / Byrne collaboration.

cleverly side step actually giving it away cos you pay for your streaming intenet broad band, and the bandwidth to stream it, and you can listen to it as much as you like so long as you only want to listen?

a touch on the naive side simon.

no Rob, only if they were working on a plan for the ages. They were not, they were working on a plan for Radiohead's album. Nothing else matters. The model is neither here nor there for them.

Haven't we been over this several?

if they were working on a plan for the ages.

you're response to critism of their model has been it worked for them and there's is the only point of view that matters, taking a step back from their personal victory there is the point of view that looks at?

taking a step back from their personal victory there is the point of view that looks at this experiment as a sustainable and viable business model. you're saying that not an important analysis to make.

Rob lets agree to disagree on this

The Mark di Somma quote, as far as?

or at least a sliver of an inkling of a germ of an idea

:) I'll take that as confirmation that you are ever the optimist, although in these cases more wishful thinking.

I don't see why you object to acknowledging that as a way forward for music radioheads and?

I'll happily acknowledge they worked for the bands, if you can acknowledge they're unlikely to solve music's problem.

Nope, they certainly offer at least a possibility of the beginnings of a way forward and I think they are increasingly being recognised and explored as such. They offer a positive rather?

offer at least a possibility

what's the difference between "at least a possibility" and "unlikely".

they're both in the same ball park. its not really a case of glass half full or empty, more like hope and wishful thinking.

I'm not saying there won't be a solution but I sincerely?

And I do recommend that presentation by the TopSpin chap if you haven't gone there yet.

I've been following him for a while with some interest. I think, as Rob agrees, that the Eno / Byrne thing really worked well for, I guess we call them, legacy musicians.

The big?

They claim they made more money from In Rainbows than from every previous release combined. It's a big claim though.

my question which you avoided was regarding the 2nd, 3rd etc people who you say have used the pay us what you think its worth model.
how's that working out?

That's like pointing at the Wright Flyer and saying "people will never fly across the Atlantic..I mean look at it!"

The difference being we've had many hundreds (thousands even) of years experience in business models so we can look at what happened in the radiohead experiment and analysis its success.?

Nope but ask me again in 5 years when its been reworked 500 times by smart management

That's not much of an analysis or an answer.

you could simply say you have no idea how things will go, it's too soon to call.

Kitty hawk lead to trans atlantic flight but left as it was it didn't get you from new york to london or anywhere near it.
directing such a comparison to my comments is miles off base.

Which is my point exactly. And we've had no experience of the business models?

You seem to be trying to fit the past into the future and it doesn't wash anymore.

you're assuming that music sales actually matters on a global scale and will redifine how the the world does business. That's a big ask.

another possibility is that music may cease to matter.?

another possibility is that music may cease to matter. houses, cars food, and socks will go on being sold exactly as they have been using the past tried and true method and music and media will simply luck out.
That's another possibility isn't it?

The way all those things are?

Simply really.

ok, that's conveniently one person who wants to make himself look good. the question was, do you think all people involved were looking at it from a self serving perspective or were perhaps some of those people interested in seeing how the public would react to this model.?

ok, that's conveniently one person who wants to make himself look good. the question was, do you think all people involved were looking at it from a self serving perspective or were perhaps some of those people interested in seeing how the public would react to this model.

No, it's?

No-one has evaded anything.

yet again you didn't answer the question relating to your claim. it goes toward the whole giving it away is the way forward argument.

a simple yes or no will do.

are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the?

Radiohead would have been singing a different tune altogether if 90% of people who downloaded their album paid $10 for it and everyone went to their website to grab it instead of bit torrenting it.

Rob, if you understand anything about what they wanted to do, you'd get that the?

For me it has already. How many times do we have to go over the same ground. Finis.

and yet here you are again, reiterating unproven points and still not answering the simplest of simple questions.

I already know the answer.

"trent reznor expresses disappointment,"
"x band gets no millage?

xkcd today

lol.

I've now read/explorered a bit more of Andrew Dubber's newmusicstrategies and newradiostrategies, both of which would have probably been?

other examples from here.

ISP filtering requirements seems to be dropping out of the list of demands from the RIAA and the MPAA are making similar noises, though the threat of the (peer-to-peer) filtering-big-stick remains.

it reads to me like they're getting the foot in the door with a 'we only want to write?

The peer to peer filtering thing is already in force in a number of countries and through an expanding bunch of local isp's

Got any eg's to provide links to?

The Copyright disucssion has been raging in recent weeks over at one of Dubber's (growing number of) sites.

Currently what?

The peer to peer filtering thing is already in force in a number of countries and through an expanding bunch of local isp's

just the examples I've already given you. xnet's naked broadband filters Vuse peer to per completely. you get about a minute and then it shuts down your?

1) You?re not giving away music, you?re giving away RECORDINGS of your music;

2) Don?t try to make money from your music, make money BECAUSE of your music;

3) Economics works differently for bits than it does for atoms.

That's a?

that's pretty meaningless.
its not necessarily 'your music for a start, it could be written by someone else and its merely your version of it.
it does nothing to address the issue that the recording IS the?

A company putting these ideas into practice

Not that I'm belittling the contribution of good thinking as opposed to doing more of the same old things as the world changes around us.
As Mr Grigg noted a page ago:

We are re-writing everything at the moment and are in the?