Hard News: In the Music
159 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
BTW, Jackie, i'm related to you.
third cousin, i think.are you really? You know I'm not the lovely singing and dancing Jackie Clarke, don't you? Who's your mum? I thought robbery might be my nephew Nick, who's known to be a bit of a smart arse, but the profile's all wrong.
-
Jackie,
if Tom is your father and he had a yacht called the Buccaneer, then...we share a common set of great-great-grandparents. I think. I can send you my mother's email address if you are interested. She's very into genealogy. -
You know I'm not the lovely singing and dancing Jackie Clarke,
Bummer, cos I had a whole routine worked out bout selling you your soul back re your namesakes nz idol judging stint.
But since you're not her, .... I'll save it for someone else.Russell's silence speaks volumes, as does anyone else who 'scoffed so loudly over the 'cost of a couple of cds'.
The nigerian gag would have been better if joe hadn't told the same joke as observer although I did like Jeremy's cap lock letter.
Those things would be more hilarious if it wasn't for the fact some retarded nzers actually fall for those things........ sigh -
but that's where the Government may be looking to get revenue off you for them asserting your copyright for you, albeit for a fee, and it's compulsory in law, or you get fined.
Is that the issue?Sorry merc, just picked up this point and didn't quite understand what you meant.
The compulsory deposit thing is not for copyright reasons. its for the govt to keep a record of everything its artist do.
copyright is granted to you on the instant your complete an original work. the issue with copyright is proving you were the first to create it.
if the national library received a copy of your work and date stamped it then that would be legal proof that you were the first to create it.
Nat Lib aren't interested in your copyright rights. They will fine you if you do not comply with their demands for 2 copies of each finished recording within six weeks. the fine is $5000 and I assume a criminal record. ie an musician or a label who doesn't give 2 copies to them is as much a criminal as a drunk driver, or other such criminal who cops a $5000 fine, or that's the heavy handed theory, and that's the offensive part. -
I thought robbery might be my nephew Nick, who's known to be a bit of a smart arse,
smart arse..... .............what'd I do????
-
if Tom is your father and he had a yacht called the Buccaneer, then...we share a common set of great-great-grandparents
Yes and yes to both those things, Stephen. That's amazing. My email address is goodeye at xtra dot co dot nz.
-
Which country would that be, then?
F'd if I know.
Russell was the one talking bout cultural citizenship
United states of other people's money? -
F'd if I know.
F'd if you can remember your name too?
Seriously, rubbery or whatever, the longer you go on posting under a nick, big-noting your unsubstantiated achievements while slagging those who are prepared to stand on their record, the greater the possibility that you're a talent-free troll. -
russell knows who I am.
-
actually..... you're right,
I made it all up,
boy did I have you guys going,
hahaha,
no hard feelings,
if any of it was close to the truth it was just a lucky guess,Talent free, prob a bly
-
merc,
Robbery said, "Nat Lib aren't interested in your copyright rights."
Then what are they interested in, a cultural record? If they just want that then they should pay for it out of their own money and charge admission or something to defray expenses. Like museums and libraries now are going concerns you know, as are galleries and such, oh God I know where I'm heading...Opera, who should pay?
I call THEATRE! on myself. -
Russell's silence speaks volumes, as does anyone else who 'scoffed so loudly over the 'cost of a couple of cds'.
Sigh ... Rob (I didn't initially know who you were, but I eventually worked it out), your attitude continues to surprise me. My silence does not "speak volumes" - does it occur to you that I might actually have had work to do? Or that I got bored with being called (along with dozens of other people you have a grievance against) an "idiot", being told my work was "shit" and being baselessly accused of sponging off artists?
The way you tried to put words in the mouths of people I know better than you do was arrogant, as was your airy declaration that I don't truly understand music and therefore what would I know. And the fact that you chose to bring my autistic kids into it was just weird.
But I was prepared to let it go, only for you to declare victory. Look, I took issue with your argument, and described it as "whingeing". I'm sorry if that upset you, but that's how it seemed to me. I'm still waiting for you to make a constructive suggestion.
I won't respond in kind. But once again, take a look at your behaviour here. This is hardly the way to make friends.
-
Then what are they interested in, a cultural record? If they just want that then they should pay for it out of their own money and charge admission or something to defray expenses. Like museums and libraries now are going concerns you know, as are galleries and such, oh God I know where I'm heading...Opera, who should pay?
Doug Myers once wrote a column in the Herald declaring that libraries were no use to him, and therefore not a public good. I called him an arsehole on the radio (brilliantly, he thought it was Bill Ralston, and bailed Ralston up about it at some do the next week).
My attitude towards the people in our archive institutions is a mix of deep admiration for what they do and despair at the lack of entrepreneurial spirit that comes with the territory. But I do regard public archives as immensely important.
I try and do my bit. I'm a member (unpaid) of the Sound Archives advisory board, and I participated in the National Content Strategy stuff with the National Library.
I'll keep banging on about my little policy idea: a modest contestable fund for digitisation of archive materials, that's available on request to members of the public, with all such material thereafter becoming available on a Creative Commons-style licence. There are people like Jonathan Ah Kit doing this kind of thing off their own backs (most notably in the case of the Mazengarb Report) and I'd love to see them get some support.
I'll make my point about copyright again. Any modern democracy's most important act of support for creators isn't direct funding, but the establishment and protection of copyrights. The fact that society might require a couple of copies of new works for its libraries of record, by way of reciprocation, seems reasonable to me.
-
merc,
I'll make my point about copyright again. Any modern democracy's most important act of support for creators isn't direct funding, but the establishment and protection of copyrights. The fact that society might require a couple of copies of new works for its libraries of record, by way of reciprocation, seems reasonable to me.
...and to me too. I was quite pleased they wanted mine (works), and yes, God love The Archivists! I do.
-
They will fine you if you do not comply with their demands for 2 copies of each finished recording within six weeks. the fine is $5000 and I assume a criminal record. ie an musician or a label who doesn't give 2 copies to them is as much a criminal as a drunk driver, or other such criminal who cops a $5000 fine, or that's the heavy handed theory, and that's the offensive part.
This is scare-mongering gibberish.
What the Legal Deposit do if you don't send them a copy of the published material, is send a letter asking you to send it to them. And then another letter. And then if you still don't send it, you never hear from them again. I'd bet almost no one has ever been pursued via a court of law.
The idea that the police would get involved and you'd get a criminal record because you didn't send in two copies of a CD you produced - some people really need to get out more.
-
Russell is a .... music fan.
No shit. You wouldn't want those around listening to your indy CDs woud you?
And your example of Neil Finn as "Rebelling against the establishment" is laughable. The guy seems to have been munging old Beatle's rifts for the last 15 years. Hardly rebellious.
Let me jog your memory.
-
While this thread has developed into Grand Theatre, I've gotta say I don't quite understand the vague inference underpinning one of the arguments running here, that one has to be an 'expert' in a subject to have a valid opinion, most particularly when the subject is a bit more universal than say, quantum physics (where admittedly, I have very little opinion at all :).
I don't work in the music industry, I know very few people who do. But, I've spent my adult life buying, consuming, watching and loving music in large quantities. I knows what I likes and dislikes. I like to argue with friends about what I like and dislike. Preferably over a drink, with the subject of debate pounding at high volume in the background. I reckon that qualifies most of us to get our 10c worth in about music and the music 'biz'. Simply asserting greater experience in a field is not a winning debate - (at least I hope not:)
That said, not knowing anything at all about a particular field does tend to have a direct causal relationship with being told 'you don't know what the feck you're talking about, do you'. Ahem :)
-
"idiot", being told my work was "shit"
apologies
you are not an idiot,
I took issue with comments you made which came across as dismissive( which I read as silly) of a valid perspective from people affected.
Its very interesting that your fervent defense comes from the position of someone who was involved in the policy I was calling into question. I didn't know you were involved in that. Kinda like complaining to the cops bout what a bad job the police do.I think maintaining an archive of our cultural heritage is massively important, I just don't think it's my job to fund it. The wants of the masses funded by the pockets of the few. I think it should be the other way round, but then, its not the policy makers money this concerns is it. It's interesting the one other descenting voice in this discussion came from the only other person actually directly affected. A writer.
Your work is not shit. I was specific on my issues with it.
you are very good at 'your work' but if you're going to dismiss my opinion or anyone else's then you set yourself up as a person in a glasshouse.
I do feel in musical issues you present the popularist line, including policy making issues. I've noticed more and more you choose to represent the establishment in your views, which is why I non combatively in my question to the other jackie clark (my post 61) raised that issue, not that its something that would be easy to discuss or have perspective on. You are the establishment now Russell, you are that which the disaffected youth rebel against, possibly if they could pull themselves away from their playstations. its an interesting point and a side issue, but there are not many people I can think of that have made the transition from outsider to top rung, integrity intact. Chris Knox and Mike Chunn stand out as shining examples though. Love them, love their work.Your children and autism and your work on it is something I deeply admire, and a sensitive issue I should have avoided, and if that came across as an an attack in any way it wasn't. It was merely an example of a recent issue close to you heart where you took issue with other authorities in a field. I tried to state that clearly, but I guess you'd already come out in a combative fashion with the wingeing comment so I should have left you to it and realised there was no discussion going on here. My apologies for bringing it up in a crappy discussion of silly music. They are not comparable.
As for my constructive suggestions, I thought I'd made them clearly.
Take the money spent on producing the 34 page booklet, the lawyers fees, the staff wages policing and harassing labels and artists, go down to real groovy, and put a standing order for 2 of everything kiwi that comes across the counter.
Ask all other artists with music works (and I'm still only talking about music because it is the field I know, specifically music budgets specifically music issues, although merc has enlightened us to the writers point of view which I sympathise with) if they would like to donate. DON'T make a law that sets them up as potential criminals. Can you not see the offense in that strategy?As for NZ on Air. Fix it or take it down.
I understand Brendan Smyth is a personal friend of yours and that makes it difficult to be critical of him if you even want to, and even worse from my perspective it leads you to create support for the present trajectory through your lack of criticism of a truly flawed strategy, although you have conceded that there are issues which I note and appreciate.
The discussion on this in the Neil Finn vs Helen Clark post was pretty pretty strong in the opposition from some very well informed people. You shouldn't dismiss those views.As a music fan, musician, label, and in the past a stupidly patriotic cultural supportist, I want the issue fixed if its not too late, not so I can get money (that's never been my contention and I take offense at the constant inference), but so that what little govt funding there is goes to do a better job with the quality of art and culture that we both love, not this haphazard destructive system we now have. I'm a music fan above all else which is something we should share.
I am so over being polite and patient about this issue, which was something I pursued for a good few years with the standard amount of ass kissing, until I got my first rude email from Mr Smyth.
Being polite and patient is what allowed commercial radio to walk all over the good intentions of the original policy makers. Being nice is what see hit discs full of misses (as you've noted) and funding that should be supporting our voice our culture diverted to nothing to do with us, at the order of the same people that were the problem in the first place. How long is being nice supposed to run before it turns into annoyance. 5 years? 10 years? 25?
It saddens me continually learn the stories of the music heroes of our youth who are either bitter and never want to go near music again, (depriving us of their gift, but who could blame them), or those that still believe they have something to offer, hit writers who still make stunning music struggling on the dole in dunedin, sending in applications, still getting ignored. (not being specific cos they'd loath the attention and have too much humility to speak up as rudely as I have to complain, but I hope you know the person or people I'm referring to). You note Bill Direen has never complained to your ears, but I bet the thought crossed his mind once or twice. His drive and his selfless persistence for his art are truly admirable, but that doesn't mean we as a society should take him for granted.As for offending, you paint me as the sole protagonist here but I ask you to note that my comments come directly from your initial dismissive and rude comment. Not that that's any excuse for getting worked up, I should know better and occasionally I do, but then again, its all in how you read it I guess. I wasn't writing my points as rudely as you read them, and that's the negative of the written word in internet forums, intent doesn't always easily come across. maybe you weren't being the jerk I read you as with the cringe comment, maybe it was a rough day and a hasty comment, I was over it a little after I hit send on my reply.
As for friends, I'm not trying to make friends or enemies with you Russell. I've met you a few times, you're not objectionable, you're highly opinionated, and a little of what you accuse me of, which is fine.
I'm trying to get some points across, and I have taken on board what you have said, and you're lucky to have the benefit of public forum to make yours all the more loudly.
I've said many times in this rather crappy debate that I respect your work in your area of expertise, and explained my hesitation at giving you full kudos on some areas of 'expertise', I even devalued my position by putting it down to personal taste.
You have however not once acknowledged any such validity in me, so I guess I'd have to question your friend making motives here too, I take it your not trying to make friends with me either.But in a 'discussion' we don't have to be friends or enemies, merely debate the issues, question perspective and keep it at a distance.
Anyway, none of this is going to change anything, all you can do it speak you mind honestly, earnestly and hope some people take it the right way, it seems a 50/50 bet doesn't it, maybe a little less.
-
Then what are they interested in, a cultural record? If they just want that then they should pay for it out of their own money and charge admission or something to defray expenses.
pay for it out of "our" own money its tax money, ours. its the responsibility of the country if it wants to maintain a record of works, not the responsibility of those stupid enough to make creative works.
-
I called him an arsehole on the radio
:) kettle me pot, black, but still really funny. good on you russell. glad you can see the benefits of heated debate. did he find out it was you in the end?
-
Its very interesting that your fervent defense comes from the position of someone who was involved in the policy I was calling into question. I didn't know you were involved in that. Kinda like complaining to the cops bout what a bad job the police do.
I'm completely over this discussion, but I should make clear that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the National Library Act or the extension of legal deposit to electronic documents (which was essentially a matter of following the example of a host of similar countries), and I didn't say I did.
-
Any modern democracy's most important act of support for creators isn't direct funding, but the establishment and protection of copyrights. The fact that society might require a couple of copies of new works for its libraries of record, by way of reciprocation, seems reasonable to me.
copyright is just that, a right. Why should it be conditional on reciprocation. You don't get protected by other laws based on reciprocation. You have the right to have your property protected. That's civilisation.
-
but I should make clear that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the National Library Act
apologies, misunderstood you point, noted. ignore comment relating to that.
-
This is scare-mongering gibberish...snip..The idea that the police would get involved and you'd get a criminal record because you didn't send in two copies of a CD you produced - some people really need to get out more.
its in the law, why have it there if it was never intended to be called into use. Maybe you're right, I'd hope so, but can you not see the offense in having it there in the first place?
-
merc,
I have a confession, I'm not a writer...<whispers>...I'm a poet.
As for my comment re: pay for it out of their own money...I rescind that, I've got no problems with an archive that I give two of each of my books to, it's been done already and they don't chase you down, heh, rampant arcivista's coming for teh artworks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.