Hard News: Save the King's Arms
217 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Kyle, I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.
Trust me. I run a database of about 20,000 images of artwork, which is, umm, legally borderline. We get away with educational purposes, but I've spent several hours meeting with people in the School of Law to find a way through it.
Putting an image on the web site is publishing it, in much the same way that putting it in a book is publishing it. Both are exact copies, but you can't legally rip an image off a web site any more than you can legally scan it from a book.
-
I don't if anyone has mentioned this but isn't really really rude that they have special allowances for the RWC? So Rugby fans (f which I am one) get to stay up getting pissed after the game but music fans can't stay out watching music.
Its an outrage!
I think the Kingsarms has a few issues as a venue but it also has history and will always be a classic place to play. I think they need to re-arrange it or lower the limit though. When its sold out its almost unbearable.
Wellington has had a lot of noise issues with new apartments. It seems there are practically no regulations for developers to install soundproofing. It has been and ongoing drama for the Matterhorn, who can't have any music in there courtyard because the horrendous 'left bank' monster. Matterho' gigs used to great fun (bongmaster in the late 90s). And San Francisco Bathhouse, which has been a venue since the 60s, has had to spend a lot of money because of apartments built in the 90s.
If you don't like noise stay in Karori.
-
isn't [it] really really rude that they have special allowances for the RWC?
No, that's how it works. If the mainstream establishment want to do something, then it's ok, however much yobbishness and disruption it might involve. Same as All Blacks are allowed to beat people up and get a discharge without conviction and name suppression.
Things might be *slightly* different under left- rather than right- wing politicians, but there's not a lot in it.
-
But yes to Russell's gripe. It's often silly how restrictive these things are, particularly when the only copyright on the image is the one currently being applied by the library. The copyright on the original has now lapsed.
Copyright is possibly not the main issue here. Most libraries and archives want to make their collections available to you, for you to use as you see fit. However, there are two pertinent problems: funding and donor agreements. Funding is pretty clear cut. We don't have enough.
Donor agreements are more interesting. Photographs are not published works like books, so the archive/library will only have a copy because someone donated it to them. At the time of donation the archive/library would have signed an agreement with the donor that sets out what the archive/library can do (make it available in the reading room, etc) and cannot do (sell it, say). And chances are that a donor agreement negotiated 100 years ago does not include a provision allowing the archive/library to digitise the images and post them on the internet. Libraries and archives are grappling currently with these and similar issues.
Anyway, while we don't know the specifics in this case, the point is that the institution may be limited in what it is allowed to do under the donor agreement.
Think of donor agreements as being like Free Software licenses. If you re-use a computer program under the GPL, there are various things that you can do with it (use, modify, redistribute) and others that you cannot (withhold source code when asked). For the purposes of understanding what you can and cannot do, copyright is not particularly relevant. And the donor agreement (or license) continues to bind the parties even after the copyright expires.
Now you might argue that someone who donated something to an archive or library 100 years ago is not going to care too much about digitisation and online access, and if it is not in the donor agreement then we should err on the side of giving access. But libraries and archives are still soliciting donations to this day, and must demonstrate to potential donors that they will treat all donations in accordance with the donors wishes.
For this reason the Hillary Family spat is a disaster for Auckland Museum -- if you had a choce between donating something valuable to them, or to a similar institution that has not been in the news for contesting donor wishes, you'd probably choose the latter. And there's a similar worry that by appearing to minimise donor wishes (around digitisation, access, or anything else) institutions will lose the trust -- and gifts -- of potential donors.
HTH.
GordonDisclaimer: I digitise stuff for the National Library.
-
I think the Kingsarms has a few issues as a venue but it also has history and will always be a classic place to play. I think they need to re-arrange it or lower the limit though. When its sold out its almost unbearable.
This has been a useful conversation.
And I'm pleased to say that I was told today that the King's Arms is to get a refit, aimed at making it a better space, and that Maureen is talking to the people who did the Sale St fit-out about it.
That's not first-hand, but I gather it's not inaccurate.
One would hope it would solve a few problems.
-
I think a great thing for the kings arms to do would be move the bar further back away from the stage and slightly widen the area in front of the stage. And make the entrance from the side through the public bar.
Also I think they made the stage to high, but I guess that helps with visibility.
Man, I hate to gripe. It used to seem very exciting coming up to AK to play the Kings Arms. They had a P/A, they had a garden. SJD might be in the audience along with ten other people. Good times.
I do agree with the idea that earlier gigs wouldn't be a bad thing. But then the bars should stay open for hours for the obligatory after-match function.
-
Simon, I would have thought that maintaining two days worth of anything other than Bintang would be difficult in Bali. You have my sympathy!
Indeed, it's a bloody desert out there and getting worse, unless you enjoy Chilean paintstripper at $70 a bottle. Which, blissfully, is why I'm in Bangkok as I type enjoying Sav Blanc, Singha, and Stella Artois all at rather good prices.
-
Can I just add my default rant about acts that start at ridiculous late hours? What is wrong with 8pm, FFS?
...
...
Done now. Thanks. -
Sounds like a good idea to me; gigs that are over by 11pm would mean you could get home at a reasonable hour in time for work the next day.
Ah, those were the days ...
so maybe an 11 o'clock swill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_o'clock_swill
-
What is wrong with 8pm, FFS?
Went and saw a DJ in Bangkok last Saturday night (Diplo, and yes he was fantastic thanks, even if I was the sad old guy at at the end of the bar, which I'm used to now but refuse to stop listening) and he was on at 11.30pm..none of yer 3am Auckland headliners.. the place was going nuts by midnight... and we were home by 2am.
I kinda enjoyed the next day.
-
What is wrong with 8pm, FFS?
I'll compromise for 9pm, then working class late nighters can join in.It can be rather tiring when one is expected to be hyped up at midnight for a gig when go fast drugs aint an option of choice.
As an aside,the Meridian laser across the Thames is rather special :) -
Another example of the over-the-top prescriptiveness of Cr Bhatnagar's grand plan for us all:
Trained security guards will be posted outside top Auckland restaurants such as the French Cafe, Cibo and Merediths under planned city council liquor law changes.
Because these restaurants are classed as "suburban" on-licence premises by the council they will have to close at 11pm.
If they want to get an extension to midnight, they must hire one trained security guard for every 50 patrons from 10pm to be outside until at least one hour after close of trade.
This really does not make any sense.
-
From the same article Russell has linked to above - Cr. Bhatnagar claims that without these changes:
...in suburban areas there was the potential for booze barns and the negative effects on neighbours.
Does he not see that is exactly what he is about to create in all these "entertainment precincts"?
The lack of foresight is truly striking.
The article also says:
he was generally supportive of the new liquor licensing changes which offered a consistent set of rules.
Just because I don't know much about it, is there anyone who does who can explain what's inconsistent about the current situation?
-
from a band perspective, if you want the gig to start ealier then you need all the punters to turn up early, most gigs i've played the bands are happy to play early if they have an audience to play to, gigs just start late cause thats when the crowd turns up.
i have played many times to an almost empty room only to watch as everyone shows up after the second band has finished, and my friends complain about missing my bands because they turned up at 11.
i think it's a vicious cycle that started in the late 90s, the crowed wanted to seem cool by being fashionably late and so the bands just waited till they showed up now it's the norm and no one can change it.
IMO the KA has gone down hill in recent months not sure whats going on but i have no desire to play there anymore and the room hire fee has doubled for weekend shows so now you have to sell it out before you can make any $$ from the show.
-
i think it's a vicious cycle that started in the late 90s, the crowed wanted to seem cool by being fashionably late and so the bands just waited till they showed up now it's the norm and no one can change it.
Yup, I think most of the KA's problems are actually driven by the fact that people want to turn up there in such numbers. Being stuffed in a room full of revelers is an end in itself to a lot of people. I highly doubt the problem will "end itself" by people getting bitter and not showing up - that would have already happened. Those who are still showing up probably like it that way. Except for the people who just wanted to listen to the music, and felt there was no other place to go. They suffer.
This party crowd wears the lateness and difficulty of it all as badges of pride, a form of exclusivity that ensure that anyone square or old pretty much won't go, because they have to work, or they can't handle the lateness. Turning up late for work looking like shit, reeking of booze and smoke simply shows how committed you are to your partying.
-
From a band perspective, if you want the gig to start ealier then you need all the punters to turn up early, most gigs i've played the bands are happy to play early if they have an audience to play to, gigs just start late cause thats when the crowd turns up.
I concur, the are a lot of shows where we have advertised it as 8pm start...then at 9 when you really want to get the first band on there might be 50 people there out of 500 ticket sales.
Punters don't seem to trust the scheduled start times of local acts.
I played a show that started at 7 the other day. it was great. Had a few drinks after it and was home before midnight.
-
I highly doubt the problem will "end itself" by people getting bitter and not showing up - that would have already happened. Those who are still showing up probably like it that way. Except for the people who just wanted to listen to the music, and felt there was no other place to go. They suffer.
Trouble is, it's most often an issue at the shows by touring international acts that music-lovers do want to come to, presold at $50 a ticket. That's what the complaints have been about in this thread, not your average Friday night. I suspect there already people who pass up on some international shows because it'll all be too much.
-
I just got wind of a gig at Mighty Mighty advertised as "We play at 9:30pm, nice and early".
Which would be a nice change indeed.
-
Bhatnagar's plans are pretty par for the course when you get a bunch of born-to-rule, property rights worshipping, right wing fundies running a city. C&R have tried to wreck Auckland's nightlife consistantly for as long as I've lived here, and i can't see any change anytime soon.
We have a late night culture now, I love it and I think it is good fun and it is hardly unique - try going out in Madrid or even Santiago before midnight. Try having a nap before you go out, get hard or just go home, but FFS stop moaning about it like a bunch of old Nana's.
-
Question: apart from the King's Arms, are any other established music venues in central Auckland also facing problems if the suggested rules are applied ?
-
try going out in Madrid or even Santiago before midnight. Try having a nap before you go out, get hard or just go home, but FFS stop moaning about it like a bunch of old Nana's.
Yes, do not express your dislike of things I like! It is wrong! I have spoken!
*ahem* Actually, the nap beforehand is a sound scheme which I practise when I can. Shame we can't take our emulation of Madrid as far as introducing siesta.
-
Can we emulate their nap-worthy climate as well?
-
the nap beforehand is a sound scheme which I practise when I can
Napping just makes me cranky. It's like my body is annoyed I didn't do the sleep thing properly.
-
Try having a nap before you go out, get hard or just go home, but FFS stop moaning about it like a bunch of old Nana's.
Well, I'm glad I didn't speak up earlier for at least a few more gigs timed to allow one to enjoy the music, then go and do something else for the remainder of the evening or actually enjoy the day after (rather than being exhausted all the way to Monday morning).
Because that would have just sounded so elderly and wrong.
-
Trouble is, it's most often an issue at the shows by touring international acts that music-lovers do want to come to, presold at $50 a ticket.
That certainly is trouble for those people. But seeing from the KA's point of view, why would they particularly care? If the place is bursting at the seams constantly, and some people don't want to come because of that, then they're pretty much customers that the venue would rather didn't show up.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, I just doubt that customer migration will self-sort the problem. Having the place packed is the optimal profit situation for them, so it's not in their interests in either the short or the long term to just cut back on the number of paying customers. It's really one of those things that can only be fixed by regulation from the outside, or the touring bands themselves putting their collective feet down. I have to say I've seldom heard of any band that would be bummed by an overfull house.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.