Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 47 48 49 50 51 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
:))
-
I see what you did there.
damn this day job. -
From the Wired article:
In response, Rock Band publisher MTV Games is now boycotting Warner artists, according to a source close to the negotiations.
I wonder how the Warner artists feel about that or if they were consulted. They may be upset in light of this:
Music games are proven earners—Aerosmith has reportedly earned more from Guitar Hero : Aerosmith than from any single album in the band's history.
-
so what are you attributing that exponential boom to. surely not home taping, please no.
didn't I just explain that? Yes, I think I did.
To be honest I can't remember ever getting a tape with an album so I'm not sure how wide spread the practice was
You were not in the UK or Europe at the time. Not doing it in NZ hardly counts as significant or even noticeable to the global record industry. It was done withy breaking albums by newish acts. One I recall was The Psychedelic Furs' debut. I think that fairly easily counts as a hit album by an artist they were trying to break. The two definitions need not be exclusive.
-
I wonder how the Warner artists feel about that or if they were consulted.
They may be even more concerned that it's owner, widely perceived as having played a huge part in it's loss this year then paid himself a US$3m performance bonus. The recording industries' AIG moment.
(same man owns Flying Nun..see Russell's above comment)
-
didn't I just explain that? Yes, I think I did.
fucked if I know, you keep changing the story.
I thought you were saying the boom was caused by hometaping but its changed so much and so much was left out that I can't actually be sure and as defined by previous arguments I know we're not going to get it in one sentence from you now, are we. that would be too easy. :)You were not in the UK or Europe at the time.
oh, right, so now its in uk and europe, that's an important bit of the story you left out there wasn't it.
One I recall was The Psychedelic Furs' debut.
so was it one or wide spread. you seem to be implying it was an indication of the laughing labels getting it on mass which lead to them embarrassingly smiling at how stupid they were to think that a blank tape and a full length album was a sale that wasn't going to happen.
a hit album by an artist they were trying to break. The two definitions need not be exclusive.
well its your picture and they seem to be you're rules you're making up but I think a "hit album" technically has to be one that has already broken. (is it a hit album if it never breaks just cos people don't get its true brilliance?) So your original statement which left out the "in uk and europe" part also was pretty misleading. it can't be a hit if no ones bought it. its a hit after that.
your original comment was specifically to the sustainable loss comment that you took as so offensive.
you argue that if I copy my friends album there is no loss in sale to the artist even though I tell you I would have bought it otherwise.
(I like the album, its too cool not to have and listen to it, if I couldn't have copied it and wanted to own it I would have no choice but to buy it). a guaranteed sale removed by illegal copying is a lost sale. whether it broke the industry or not.
its a sustainable loss because they were making so much money by high prices and riding a boom in music sales that it didn't hurt them enough to have an effect.That the industry didn't crumble is not an indication that home taping had no effect. It was compensated for by a boom,
which a boom you discount as being caused by either population increase or music being an increased cultural force. so what caused it?The only argument you've put forward was home taping was good for music so I have to take it from what you've said (and you've left out a few key points already which you've later added so it could be some other mystery force) that you think it was because of home taping? Until you say otherwise that's all the insight you've given to your view on the cause of the boom unless I've missed that bit.
-
I thought you were saying the boom was caused by hometaping but its changed so much and so much was left out that I can't actually be sure and as defined by previous arguments I know we're not going to get it in one sentence from you now, are we. that would be too easy. :)
Rob, I'm sorry but this is why I was reluctant to get into this..you either don't read what I post or you misconstrue it. I fairly clearly noted the reason, or at least a major one, for the 70s and 80s booms a page or so back. Why do I need to repeat myself?
And then you continue that process throughout the following paragraphs. I don't need this frustration in my life
-
Amen.
-
why I was reluctant to get into this
you weren't reluctant, you said you wouldn't, many times.
I fairly clearly noted the reason, or at least a major one, for the 70s and 80s booms a page or so back. Why do I need to repeat myself?
just read through your posts of the last 3 pages.
I found this
Album sales in 70s and beyond multiplied by a factor of many times, way beyond any population increase. It was simply that people bought increasingly more albums in the post Sgt Pepper period, in preference to the singles they'd bought earlier and the increase snowballed.
all that does is say people bought more albums. it doesn't say why they bought more albums.
In a thread of a discussion that addresses the viral nature of filesharing/hometaping and various allusions to hometaping being an integral part of why some people got hooked on buying music the why is all important.I don't need this frustration in my life
and yet,...... you seem like a moth drawn into the flame...... :)
you know I respect you and love what you've done in music in nz, but some of your stuff is board room musings and that's all well and good but as mark says in points that go against my views, studies and statistics are where its at. since there aren't any for a lot of this it's all one person's theory against anothers.
i think if I copy a blams album and give it to a friend and they don't buy that album cos they're completely satisfied with the copy (even though they would have to remain cool) then that is a lost sale to you. you can sustain that loss cos you're trucking them out the door (ok, not so much trucking as cycle couriering).
I'm personally not sure what your point on hometaping was cos it got lost in threaded posts and you refuse to state it clearly in one sentence for me. I guess that's some sort of debating win for you but I honestly would appreciate a clear one sentence point occasionally. it could save frustration, but there's no guarantee :)
-
And then you continue that process throughout the following paragraphs. I don't need this frustration in my life.
Quite. The only real way around it is to refuse to engage at all.
-
I have noticed that the prolixity of the response is inversely proportional to the amount of information.
-
Quite. The only real way around it is to refuse to engage at all.
or a one line direct answer.
either or... unless indirectness is the point,
honestly, simon if you did say the reason for the boom I can't see it.
mark hook me up with that puppy please. -
Mr Farrar comments on Roger Sheppard's opinion piece.
-
farrar's piece is riddled with inconsistencies and misrepresentations of what roger said and meant.
The comments are equally ill informed. where to start?Shepherd
I cannot see anyone investing in digital music developments in New Zealand while illegal downloading goes unregulated and unpunished.
Farrar
Here Shepherd is just flat out wrong. Illegal downloading is already punishable, and has always been punishable.
Farrar ignores Shepherds point.
At present downloading is getting away with being unregulated and unpunished purely because it is too difficult to stop it, without help.
Yes it is possible to prosecute but under present conditions and without the help of isps we get huge court cases causing bad pr and ending up with $100000 fines for something that isn't a $100000 fine offense.as pointed out by a commenter on farrars page "There is a difference between punishable, and punished."
Shepherd's not flat out wrong, he's spot on the mark.
S92A is a call for isps to help. Insisting on it because for them its easier to throw up your hands and say its not our problem.
Instead of seeing calls for repair to S92A (ie we get that this is necessary but you need to fix this and this) we're seeing attempts to derail it and put content holders back exactly where they have been for the last 10 years. Same with DRM. Everything they try gets strong effort to derail it. "back to square one, that's where we want you". that's the message that's coming through.
ShepherdCopyright laws are a sign of a civilised society. We appreciate those in the creative industries who generate ideas, music and art and protect their work and their ability to make a living from it by giving them copyright protection.
farrar
Another red herring. No one is arguing there should be no copyright laws.
and shepherd didn't say anyone was saying that, his point was they were not being enforced. what's the point in having laws if they are not enforced. another non point to farrar.
his next point is bollock too.shepherd isn't seeking accusation without proof, he's seeking action on a law. derailing the whole initiative is not helping get a fair law, its pushing it back to square one. nothing.
shepherdWithout Section 92, the wheels will fall off our local music industry and there will be no more homegrown successes
farrar
And blatant scare mongering. No one would dispute that illegal downloads do not pose a commercial threat to soem artists. But really claiming that without S92, there will never ever again by a sucessful homegrown musician is pathethic scare mongering.
bollock again and quoting only part of what shepherd said.
Shepherd didn't just say "no home grown musician success", he followed that with "there will not be another New Zealand-based, globally recognised success like Flying Nun".
He didn't specify artists, he specified label, and with that he means industry to back up artists. A bunch of individuals on their laptops can do impressive things, if their lucky. An industry to back them up can offer more solid ground to achieve their goals. Why would anyone invest in a fragmented industry as it has become.Remember this isn't some idiot who works for an evil corporation. this is the guy who created a label with complete integrity, he's always been in it for the art and the artist, and he made his label a success where pretty much every other label in nz has floundered.
so he has business skill (proven) and artistic integrity.It's rich that media commentators like farrar choose to try and discredit him and say he doesn't get it. one has to ask he question, He conclude this based on what?
Same goes for Ant Healey, Chris Hocquard and even Campbell Smith.
Media critics question their skills and knowledge based on what?
Their own personal successes in the field? These people are guts deep in the industry Farrar, CFF etcs seems to think they know more about.Apparently these people (shepherd, etc) are unfathomable idiots and we should just take Farrars, CFF etcs word for it.
could it be that simple?
-
Why, I reckon the only people we should be listening to are record company execs - just like we should have consulted only blacksmiths about whether horses should be replaced with cars. Anyone who diisagrees must be mad, mad I tell you.
-
none of those people are record company execs in the evil mogel monster sense.
- Roger Shepherd is a music industry consultant and ex founder of the most successful indie music label in nz
- Ant Healey is head of apra nz
- Campbell Smith is an entertainment lawyer, Artist manager and chairperson for RIANZ (which is an organisation of many labels including the evil 4)
- Chris Hocquard is an entertainment law specialist who set up nz's first and longest standing music download site specialising exclusively in nz music, mostly independent.That's a pretty big representation of the good people who have worked hard and eanestly for the art of music in this country.
how far down the chain do you want to go before you find a voice that is acceptable for you?
-
correction
- Campbell Smith is an entertainment lawyer, Artist Manager and Chief Executive Officer for RIANZ an organisation that represents the evil 4 and another 48 labels, some of em not evil. Campbell is well known locally for friendly advice and being a stand up kinda guy and also a success at what he does, ie managing the mot successful local artists some of whom are into the whole artists inegrity thing, like the well known burger chef Bic Runga. -
Prime Minister John Key has announced that the government will throw out the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act and start again.
Justice minister Simon Power will now meet with officials and rewrite the section of the Act from the ground up.
No timeframe has been set for whatever clause will replace Section 92A.
-
Simon Power media release:
While the government remains intent on tackling this problem, the legislation itself needs to be re-examined and reworked to address concerns held by stakeholders and the government.
-
A question: would you be okay with ISPs blocking transactions with allofmp3.com?
I hate that site. It purports to be a legitimate music retailer and takes money in good faith -- but never passes it on. It's a front for Russian organised crime.
TDC, the Danish ISP noted above, was actually forced to block the site by owners.
Or how about every time someone tried to access it, they first had to see an interstitial page saying DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THESE CROOKS. Would that be okay?
Also, I'm on TVNZ 7 news some time after 8m tonight, talking about guess what ...
-
-
Audio of announcement though it has to be said Key talked about a bunch of other stuff as well.
Announcement near the start and I managed a couple of questions about it somewhere in the middle.
-
... at about 14:20. If I may say so myself.
-
honestly, simon if you did say the reason for the boom I can't see it
To put it in it's most simplistic terms, the late 60s, early 70s boom was caused by, as I tried to imply, Sgt Pepper and it's heirs..the arrival of the rock band and the rock album. The mid 1970s to late 1970s, pretty much by disco, which had a big drop off in 1980-81 after when the recording industry entered a boom, firstly with Thriller and Dire Straits..those two acts kept the global industry alive until the much bigger boom and seemingly infinite money-tree of the compact disc from 84 onwards, which was when it all went totally nuts (and the germ of the mess that the industry is in now was planted).
Ironically during the 1981 malaise, whilst Sony and Philips were furiously trying to convince the majors and the big Indies, correctly, that the CD was the saviour of the industry, they were fighting it tooth and nail. There was nary a mention of the passionate sales pitches Sony's guy was doing at US label conventions (and getting soundly abused for by the likes of Jerry Moss, owner of A&M) in Billboard and Cashbox, which instead had endless rants about piracy. They were moving backwards from the future preferring to tout negatives for their woes, which had more to do with the failure of the recording industry to sign develop-able new artists during the disco boom when they were transfixed by the easy money.
And gosh, here we are again, 28 years later....
This kinda pulls all the strands together rather concisely
-
That works for me, Simon
Bit like the finance industry at the moment. Ride the bubble and, when it bursts, find someone else to blame.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.