Hard News: The song is not the same
314 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
I was taking issue with you saying I was keen to throw people who make music to self interested corporates
No that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying that laws should not be written to benefit corporates which is what is happening in several countries. These corporations are not pushing for these laws to benefit the copyright beneficaries that they may have under contract and have a very long history of not acting in their interests.
Try and track down Trevor Reekie's interview with Peter Jenner and listen to him talk about what happened to the YouTube settlements jsut for a start.
-
YouTube settlements
yes I talked to peter about it when he was in chch.
the topic was isp level intervention. so I was confused with why the corporate crime angle was coming in.
it would be relevant if media content owners were trying to extract money from isp's for content and then not passing that on to their artists as they did with the you tube thing, but pushing isp's to filter pirated content however failed that might be isn't "the corrupt pocketing large sums" in nature, if anything it will push people back to buying media purely because they don't have the convenience of unpoliced bandwidth to grab it.
that initially will benefit the biggies obviously, but the spin off will be pressure that will trickle down,
or not depending on how much of a big failure it is. so nothing in my discussion has been about pushing artists toward evil majors.The corporates may not be pushing for the laws to help out the minions but those laws do help out the minions in trickle down, like our friend islander, who is avoiding big evils and keeping a tight rein herself.
So, I didn't say what you implied I said.if the isp move is successful in putting the shits up people with internet transferred files that'll trickle down.
I was worried about it invading my privacy but apparently that's pretty difficult and expensive to do so I guess there's no worry there. my only worry would be if I had a really high data usage and couldn't explain it. otherwise if it is as the experts say, its a bit of a non event so long as they deal with that disconnection without due process thing.the matter transporter thing was to address matthews major objection which seemed to be work load for his peers.
if your main reason for not complying with requirement of law is you can be bothered cos its a real hassle man, that's not really a strong argument.
I would have thought the invasion of privacy angle was stronger but cameron says its difficult and time consuming to look at all this shit. -
The corporates may not be pushing for the laws to help out the minions but those laws do help out the minions in trickle down, like our friend islander, who is avoiding big evils and keeping a tight rein herself
And more power to her for doing that, but it has nothing to with anything you are advocating Rob. The RIAA has been tracking, threatening and suing people for the best part of a decade and it's had no impact on piracy whatsoever. In fact there are pretty strong arguments that it does exactly the opposite as the stick approach decreases the publicly perceived moral high ground.
The laws you seem happy to go along with are just the latest stick and are another nail in the coffin of the industry as we've known it. The only answer is to reinvent and that means radically re-examining copyright and the way it's used and exploited. A lot of people and musicians have already started doing that and the figures I've provided prove the sky hasn't fallen yet.
Thread to thread this goes around and around. I'm out.
-
@Grant
I'm sticking to the argument as much as robbery ever has. He's seen fit to question my knowledge and capabilities, misrepresent my comments and generally be as rude as he feels like (where were you at that point, by the way?), so it's only equal time to question his.Where was I ? Doing other stuff, to be honest. While I know a lot about music I know sod-all about IT, etc, so a lot of the technical discussion just goes straight over my head, therefore I couldn't comment on it.
-
endless sniping at credibility is pretty insulting
The 'you set yourself up as some kind of expert but you don't know shit about dick' followed by 'I was only joshing, lighten up!' thing is a recurrent robbery discussion ploy. He did it with Russell for months, if you all remember...
Of course, I *truly* don't know shit about dick, so I can't really contribute to this in any meaningful way. :)
-
Kyle, remove one particular person and the problem is solved.
Well if that's the case, if you (and others) stopped responding to him, the problem might fix itself.
Personally I'm starting to find it all a bit unlike what we've come to expect from System all round.
-
He did it with Russell for months, if you all remember...
I was serious about the stuff I said in discussion russell, I never said I was only joking, just that in discussion it is just that, not a fist fight and law suits.
my comment re sense of humor relates to "the oh you've insulted simon how dare you" comments. if you'll read above, apparently I didn't and he wasn't. k?
There is definitely a context to consider with all this accusation, that seems to be being forgotten by some. with every 'insult' there is a preceding insult or attitude. I don't blame you with these long threads for not getting the context of some of this stuff though, although the people involved in the discussion should fair better with that. -
but it has nothing to with anything you are advocating Rob.
just to be perfectly clear, I am not advocating any of this, I am observing and discussing possibilities.
The laws you seem happy to go along with are just the latest stick
see above. I've said that a few times now. I'm not the one doing it, I'm observing it, contemplating the implications of it and discussing the various angles of it. as in my matter transportation illustration where I was trying to consider how we react to technology making law breaking possible outside of the present situation. That's one of the fascinating things about this whole media piracy thing is that one response has been lets just make it legal and then no ones doing anything wrong.
the latest big stick is initially was a much bigger stick, like a really really big forceful stick, but then we've just seen an attempt to feed that stick in a happy positive "we're just going to write you letters" way. That in itself shows the industry learning about the bad pr of this whole thing (another fascinating aspect of this; imagine if police had to consider PR when enforcing law, I suppose they do with drug enforcement etc but the whole lars urlich backlash thing was amazing to watch, people trying to enforce the laws granted to them and getting their heads bitten off, just shows you can't take anything for granted)
I get that you are taking the revolutionary aspect of this and I like that too, it will be interesting to just throw the whole thing up in the air and see what happens. If you were still running your indie label in auckland pumping out edgy bands with attitude you might be slightly more reserved about it, not quite at the coal face as you were and not as invested in it, lucky you. same with me to an extent, I don't earn my living from this, although I am involved in lots of projects that do revolve around it and no matter how much total income is up in the UK its not here and many of the honest and earnest key players in the local scene (mark kneebone for example who is not trying to manipulate anyone for his cut of the corporate pie, he is a completely honest and earnest guy working hard for the music he loves, I've met him) tell a different story. that's the coal face I can directly observe.
I think the isp thing was an obvious move in an attempt to control a situation.
throwing caution to the wind is less obvious but possibly a better route, who would know, its uncharted territory and different from how mankind has done business for most of the time it has existed. you can't blame 'them' for being a little hesitant. -
I'm bowing out. This discussion's got too personal, and I'm not happy about the things robbery's said about me. My position has been explained, and I'm not going to respond to someone who cannot see the clear line between copying and stealing (hint: theft is defined in law, and copying doesn't qualify). Why should I waste my time on some anonymous troll who appears to be out there simply trying to bait a rise?
-
Rob may be very and annoyingly argumentative but insults are not a part of his weaponry, at least in this thread, unless I've missed something.
Actually, he's insulted me repeatedly since he's been posting here -- and quite nastily at times too. I put up with it, but I'm really not prepared for other people to have to suffer it.
Rob, sort yourself out. Argue in good faith and pay attention to what other people say, rather than needling them and pointlessly questioning their credibility.
If you don't, I will have to ban you to preserve the environment.
-
Actually, he's insulted me repeatedly since he's been posting here -- and quite nastily at times too. I put up with it, but I'm really not prepared for other people to have to suffer it
No, I'm aware of that, which is why I wrote 'this thread' as I thought Rob had toned down since then and I think there is little personal in what he's saying, more bloody mindedness.
If you were still running your indie label in auckland pumping out edgy bands with attitude you might be slightly more reserved about it, not quite at the coal face as you were and not as invested in it, lucky you
Actually Rob (and this really is my final post in this thread), until a year or so I was involved at the coal face if you want to call it that, continually frustrated though by the fact that my partners in the enterprise really were stuck in the past regardless of their words. And yes, I do know Mark and I think you'll find he understands what I'm saying more than you give him credit for, as do many indies and artists worldwide.
-
So this is where "things" have been happening under the banner of the Copyright discussion.
Whilst it is plain for me to see that Copyright is broken, I do concede that some of the notion of CC holds value, I can see that other parts of it are not so valuable.
Most of this stuff, I've already commented on at Dubber's.
Is Copyright broken and thus does Copyright need to change?
If Copyright were a public swimming pool and filesharers were represented by people sneaking in for a free swim, it would be apparent for all to see, that there are far more freeloaders than paying customers. Does this suggest that it’s working to you and that rights are being duely respected? It doesn’t to me.
Some might suggest that it is not Copyright that is broken, it is “Copyright enforcement” that is broken, I’d suggest that it is all part of the one scheme that most of the world simply refers to as “Copyright”.
Is having creators change their stance on non-commercial filesharing really addressing the lack of respect being displayed for the rights of the creators, or really just about taking a pragmatic step to avoid criminalising behaviour that seems increasingly acceptable (ie commonplace) to society?
I think if you allow non-commerical filesharing across-the-board, you put a significant incentive in front of people to avoid commercial channels, which simply turns the marketplace on it’s head and that is very bad, for it was the mechanism that modern society has been built upon (don’t get me wrong I’d prefer abundance to scarcity, but scarity is the model by which resouce allocation occurs effectively). See the following snippet regarding models when costs collapse/cosean floors. This vid might clarify, but it's that final sentence in the snippet that I think accurately stakes out a lot of what we have seen.
Having a number of competing rights regimes, that may or may not be consistent, compatible, easily & widely understood/accepted seems only to promote a breeding ground for chaos & confusion.
-
Actually, he's insulted me repeatedly since he's been posting here
feeling like I have to defend myself obvious, but whats the point.
Ive raised issues with you directly and I would say them directly too you in person too regarding stuff you've said. I'm not anonymous to you. I've dealt with that and i don't want to keep going over it and yes my first responses to you could have been better put, a defensive reaction to your comments which I let get the better of me, something I haven't done in recent times.If I bump into you I will say hi and smile sincerely, I don't dislike you. I disagree with some of what you say, a small portion, all the rest of it I applaud or have no opinion on. you're a normal human being are you not?
I've personally found the middle part of this thread really interesting, in how tech deals with the great unwashed, and I was really interested in the objection to isp participation being a lot about wearing the cost and not so much about the privacy angle.
anyway this is bollocks,
I've put up with personal insults galore on here (as noted by others simon, grant etc) in honest and earnest discussion (as noted by others islander) and have avoided giving anywhere near what I've got in terms of straight out insults and name calling???. You can do what you want, its your discussion site. -
anyway this is bollocks
It's not. I really wonder how much perspective you have on your own behaviour.
In the past you've described my work as "shit", claimed I have a reputation as a freeloader on local artists interested only in "getting your name on the guest list and drinking the bands rider" and declared I "don't know shit about music".
And that was in just one thread. I have put up with it, but you've also entered pointless personal confrontations with a string of other people who post here. You're the only person this happens with, and it's a problem for me.
-
And yes, I do know Mark and I think you'll find he understands what I'm saying more than you give him credit for, as do many indies and artists worldwide.
I have no opinion on mark, I'm not giving him credit or not giving him credit. I think he's an intelligent guy, he's made some good points, and some terrible ones (the islander comment was jaw dropping). I could just do without the name calling as a discussion strategy device.
-
I really wonder how much perspective you have on your own behaviour.
the same as everyone. ie their own and that of their circle of friends, and what people say here.
your use of the word behaviour is loaded and slightly offensive though. shall we just leave this alone?
its your site though. -
I could just do without the name calling as a discussion strategy device.
Having (sigh ...) been back through the thread, I'm not particularly happy about that, but there's a consistent pattern to these confrontations on this particular topic. There's one particular person involved in all of them.
Perhaps you could work on bringing some good faith into your comments. Don't needle people; respond to what they say; don't question their credibility or imply that they're lying. I shouldn't have to keep saying this, especially when I'm trying to have a holiday.
-
Sorry, Russ, you're right of course. I apologise to the System for letting my temper get the better of me.
-
Sorry, Russ, you're right of course. I apologise to the System for letting my temper get the better of me
Apology accepted. Thanks.
-
And after a glass of wine, my own apologies for being grumpy. It's a difficult balance to strike, and I just want everyone to be able to enjoy being here.
That young bloke Guptill's good, isn't he?
-
Yes Guptill's good, and I should be there as it's next door and I'm watching on TV. In the drinks break however on checking my e-mails I found this.
It's Friday's headliner with a brand song and video. I like it. -
russell, I'm happy to discuss 'issues' between you and me off line in an effort to respect on topic discussion.
If you'd like to do that drop me an email and I'll sort a phone number and time to ring etc. -
One of my favourite podcasts on the subjects of Science & Art introduced me to a statement that John Milton made.
Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making
Whilst I respect the right for people to hold a different opinion to my own, I also have a high regard for their ability to voice their opinions freely, I value that more than the absence of disruption that may arise from time to time. Though I recognise that stuff, I also recognise that this is Russell's site and that my opinion occasionally (or perhaps frequently) doesn't mean shit.
Deal with the topic relevant stuff you feel needs dealing with, but I'd suggest simply ignoring any negative comments, or perceived slights.
Rob's one-man-filibuster may frequently not be worth responding to, but his views at times are a pretty good representation of a conservative view that proponents for change need to deal with.
-
that proponents for change need to deal with.
I am a proponent for change, but mine is a change from the creators point of view, and its not conservative, I'd like to see protections and rights liberally extended, in favor of the creator.
that's not a very popular view point with the predominantly tech head occupants of this site who care to comment.I think islander is the only one that I know of in a position of owning valuable copyright works who will be affected seriously by free media change. PA is pretty underrepresented by people in that position expressing their view of what they would like to happen,
Jon, have you focused your view any more? you're throwing a lot of material around,
-
I am a proponent for change, but mine is a change from the creators point of view, and its not conservative, I'd like to see protections and rights liberally extended, in favor of the creator.
But that's been the story of the last few decades of copyright law. Virtually all the movement -- term extensions, force of law, etc -- has gone in favour of copyright owners (who aren't always the same people as creators, but that's a fact of life).
Specifically, what new protections and rights do you think need to be "liberally extended"?
that's not a very popular view point with the predominantly tech head occupants of this site who care to comment.
Hey Rob, try this: rather than using the phrase "tech head occupants of this site" as if it's some kind of insult, say "I realise there are people here who've thought a lot about these issues from the technology side, but I think they're missing some of the realities of being in a creative business."
I think islander is the only one that I know of in a position of owning valuable copyright works who will be affected seriously by free media change.
But who's talking about all media being free? The original post was about iTunes going DRM-free. It's still selling stuff , it's just no longer obliged by the record companies to sell it in a way that limits the rights of the customer.
What happened with iTunes and DRM will be studied for years hence. Apple was able to get the major labels on board by offering a reasonably robust DRM system, and able to woo customers by making its DRM the least irksome on the market (those Windows Media files where you had to separately connect and download a licence to play the song you'd just bought were a truly woeful product).
But the iTunes Store's success was driven by the fact that the iPod was a product the world loved. And the millions of people who bought one couldn't play tunes from an online store that used non-Apple DRM such as Windows Media. They could only shop with iTunes, or rip their own CDs (which was a breach of copyright law).
Hey presto, Apple and iTunes achieved bonecrushing dominance of the digital music download business -- and could dictate terms, and prices, to the music companies. They'd lost control of their own industry, locked out of it by the DRM they insisted on.
They tried creating a competitor in Amazon MP3, which applied no DRM at all, but the end game was always going to be negotiation with Apple, in which both sides have clearly given and taken a little.
The interesting thing here is that it's very hard to see how DRM benefited creators in this saga. The real problem for creators on iTunes and other download services is the miserable royalty rate paid on those sales by the major labels. I think that will change as independents and aggregators start eating the majors' lunch.
But going back to islander, I'm really not sure that the networked world will hurt the writers of books. The internet has been great for books -- and last year, a long decline in the time American adults spent reading fiction was actually reversed.
As she's explained before, islander's concerns lie as much with being able to govern the use (and prevent abuse) of her work, as much as cash in hand. But I'm sure she wouldn't want her books to be published in a form that couldn't be loaned to a friend or neighbour, or traded for other books at a second-hand shop. Which is what DRM means.
Couldn't happen? That was precisely the case with the infamous Adobe eBook files whose T&Cs included the line "This book cannot be lent or given to someone else." Adobe also, memorably declared on the same permissions page: "This book cannot be read aloud."
Ironically, the book these terms were attached to was Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, which is out of copyright and may be reproduced by anyone.
Adobe, unsurprisingly, did not set the world on fire -- but I'm sure that here will be an 'iPod for books" eventually -- a device that works and feels good enough that people will see it as an acceptable alternative to bound paper. There will be an uptick in book piracy (although there's plenty of that in the physical world already) but also a new generation of book sales. There will be an "iTunes for books", and most people will use it, rather than the dodgy alternative -- if it's truly fit for use .
I might also point out that the book I edited, Great New Zealand Argument: Ideas About Ourselves , sold well even though nearly everything in had previously been published here.
It was a real buzz to be able to write a cheque for Donald Stenhouse, Bill Pearson's executor, for the use of Fretful Sleepers , and then another one for the reprint -- not least because various people had told Donald he was an idiot for granting me permission to place Fretful Sleepers online in the first instance, and that the work would henceforth be valueless. I deeply appreciate the leap of faith Donald took there.
So yeah, I have a little bit of experience with these things.
PS: GNZA still available for purchase here, print-fanciers!
PA is pretty underrepresented by people in that position expressing their view of what they would like to happen,
I actually don't think that's true at all. The community here is, if anything, considerably over-represented in people who make creative works. Those people might not all have the same views, of course, and I don't think any one person can presume to speak for all of them.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.