Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 22 23 24 25 26 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
I'd personally like to duck out gracefully if nabbed grabbing a pre release copy of dexter series 4.
I'd like to see people prosecuted for buying Dexter on DVD with a regular payment over the counter.
Damn, I hate that show...
Okay, carry on.
-
Apropos Dexter - I've wondered if it wasn't really torture-porn-justification a la 24. After all, Dexter uses his powers somewhat for good, largely against people who deserve it (somehow he just knows) and who tell him the truth when hurt. At some level it's training people that torture is both effective and justified.
-
Apropos Dexter - I've wondered if it wasn't really torture-porn-justification a la 24.
Exactly. It combines my two pet peeves: serial killers and fascism.
-
Every Full Member shall have one vote plus one additional vote for each complete $500 of such member’s earnings during the preceding financial year.
geez, that sounds like the american legal system with college votes, or some out dated medievael system. Thanks for drawing my attention to that. I'll be sure to make a fuss about it at the next public meeting they have.
re dexter, ok I'll pick another example, um, is there any good tv left, battlestar has descended into nonsensical rubbish, lost has lived up to its name, and everything else has been canceled.
breaking bad was ok, the IT crowd? -
yes he does say contact him and he'll do that but there's the full recently released toy love set up there, and recent chris knox, david kilgours recent albums,
Well, that's bullshit. I'm presuming all the above are available online, so there's no excuse.
from the comments on the bats 4 songs ep
Fair enough in principle, but that EP doesn't actually seem to be for sale anywhere, so it's hard to see how they could receive payment for it.
eMusic has Daddys Highway only, presumably because that's the one that was licensed to Rough Trade, so Warners can't get in the way.
The iTunes Store has five albums and the Spill the Beans EP, which isn't bad at all. And I'm delighted to see The Terminals' Last Days of the Sun finally there too.
Confession: I did actually download the Terminals album via BitTorrent because I couldn't find a legitimate download anywhere and Real Groovy never had it in stock. I have just bought it via iTunes.
-
It combines my two pet peeves: serial killers and fascism.
pet peeves....?
I thought pet peeves were a lot more low level, like leaving wet towels on the floor, or not putting the lid on the tooth paste. -
so it's hard to see how they could receive payment for it.
I think paul was just making a point, although maybe he wants people to donate to them for downloading it from that site, probably would have helped if he directed them to a site where they could do that but he may not be that net savvy. he didn't see the other bats albums up there yet.
-
The $500 thing is in the AMCOS Constitution as well. That's actually interesting reading.
38. On a poll each Full Member shall be entitled to the number of votes ascertained as follows:
(a) The votes of each Full Member shall be based upon the total amount properly allocated to him by the Society during the preceding financial year as his share of monies collected by the Society in respect of the exercise of the Mechanical Reproduction Right assigned or licensed to the Society in accordance with these Articles. The total amount so allocated is hereinafter referred to as the “member’s earnings”.
(b) Every Full Member shall have one vote plus one additional vote for each complete $500 of such member’s earnings during the preceding financial year.(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) above, no Full Member shall be entitled to more than fifteen per centum of the total votes available to all Full Members who are entitled to attend and vote at general meetings of the Society.
15% is quite a lot of vote.
They also say you can't vote if you haven't earned anything in 2 consecutive years.
-
But the solution with that guy is clearly to just ask him to take it down, as per his offer on the page
Ariel's female, I believe
-
I thought pet peeves were a lot more low level, like leaving wet towels on the floor, or not putting the lid on the tooth paste.
Okay, let's say "turn-offs" then.
-
Does/should the notion of fair use include public safety/good?
Has anyone else been watching the BenGoldacre-MMR storm in the UK? Ben (Bad Science dude from The Guardian) posted the content of a radio show online as an example of the dangerous myths used to justify avoidance of vaccinations and was shortly thereafter contacted by lawyers claiming copyright infringement.
-
Interesting.
"Intellectual Property Absolutist" - I like it! -
my pet peeves are natural disasters and thermo nuclear war.
I also find them turn offs. nothing throws me out of the mood quicker, other than wet towels on the floor of course. -
3410,
Jon,
I'm sure it's been pointed out elsewhere the incongruity of Fair Users / Fair Dealers (whatever) being liable for stepping over the line, when there are no penalties for copyright holders exerting their rights further than the law allows.The obvious upshot is that rights owners often become "absolutists" since, other than bad publicity, there is no incentive for them not to. On the flip side, people exercise their Fair Use / Fair Dealing rights far less than one might otherwise expect, out of a general fear of reprisals, fair or not.
I'm still -- so far -- in the disagree column as far as the Obama/HOPE thing goes, but you have to ask, if that sort of use, or something approaching it, is acceptable, why do we so rarely see examples of it?
Ben Goodacre should have as much right to defend his rights from LBC as they do theirs from him. Instead, he pulls the audio, to 'play on the safe side.'
I'm rather tired right now, this being Auckland's hottest day in at least 140 years, but I hope some of this made some sense. -
-
Not that I've personally met RB, I've met Ben and think that they occupy a similar space.
In this instance, Ben has brought far more of an audience to the LBC's content, though for reasons that they might not be happy about. He hasn't edited the hell out it, he's simply let it stand for itself, initially out of his own bandwidth....And with his context stuck on either end.
Compare and contrast Ben's actions with those of the team that did the parody of Sony that Mark linked to in one of the other threads. Kinda different from Ben's situation some might suggest, as the content they generated themselves, but are they not infringing on Sony trademark? I can't imagine Sony are happy.
If parody is legit and public safety is not, then something is wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the fence, just suggesting that a binary view is not necessarily ideal.
-
Oh yeah, one thing that does bug me, is when publically funded broadcasters hide their content after they have publically broadcast it, particularly educational content. More annoyance is caused when those broadcasters retain the meta-pages acknoweldging the existence of the content, but do not allowing you to get to the content itself.
If there is content that should be shared, with due acknowledgement to the creators of the content, it's educational content that was produced through the allocation of funding from government. I'm aware that this means we need to think globally in sharing that content freely with others wherever they are. Overcoming the isolation of geography is one thing that the net thing seems good at.
-
If there is content that should be shared, with due acknowledgement to the creators of the content, it's educational content that was produced through the allocation of funding from government.
Word. And what about the output of academics whose research is paid for by public institutions?
-
I think paul was just making a point, although maybe he wants people to donate to them for downloading it from that site, probably would have helped if he directed them to a site where they could do that but he may not be that net savvy. he didn't see the other bats albums up there yet.
Paul's a top geezer and I can completely understand he'd be annoyed, but I think there are two approaches you can take to this:
1. Be relaxed about fans trading out-of-print stuff and hope that they'll also buy your new stuff.
2. Find ways to make that old stuff available. Even a PayPal honesty box would probably work quite well.
Again, if Warners wasn't sitting on that Nun back-catalogue, I can think of wonderful things that could be done with it. There have been attempts to buy back the catalogue, but they never came to fruition. I'd borrow against my house to be part of that if the chance came up.
And then, of course, I would instantly become a copyright fascist and start putting Public Address readers in jail ...
-
And then, of course, I would instantly become a copyright fascist and start putting Public Address readers in jail ...
Get this man a blog. He is funny.
-
And then, of course, I would instantly become a copyright fascist and start putting Public Address readers in jail ...
We're with you 100% Russell.
Just, can you change my email address on your database? Here's a Russian-based one that I like to use...
-
Fair Users / Fair Dealers (whatever)
Don't confuse the two - they are not the same thing.
IMHO, fair use is a better concept, covering transformative and derivate works. Fair dealing is a relic of colonialism (Thanks, England) and is prevalent in Commonwealth countries. It does not cover reuse at all, only copying. From Wikipedia:
In New Zealand, fair dealing includes some copying for private study, research, criticism, review, and news reporting. Sections 42 and 43 of the Copyright Act 1994 set out the types of copying that qualify. The criteria are perhaps most similar to those applying in the UK, although commercial research can still count as fair dealing in New Zealand. Incidental copying, while allowed, is not defined as "fair dealing" under the Act. As in Canada, fair dealing is not an infringement of copyright.
The factors determining whether copying for research or private study is judged to be fair dealing in New Zealand are its purpose, its effect on the potential market or value of the work copied, the nature of the work, the amount copied in relation to the whole work, and whether or not the work could have been obtained in a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_New_Zealand
-
3410,
Thanks, Mark. Still having trouble with the precise differences. Could you, or anyone, spell it out for me?
-
In New Zealand, fair dealing includes some copying for private study, research, criticism, review, and news reporting. Sections 42 and 43 of the Copyright Act 1994 set out the types of copying that qualify. The criteria are perhaps most similar to those applying in the UK, although commercial research can still count as fair dealing in New Zealand. Incidental copying, while allowed, is not defined as "fair dealing" under the Act. As in Canada, fair dealing is not an infringement of copyright.
The factors determining whether copying for research or private study is judged to be fair dealing in New Zealand are its purpose, its effect on the potential market or value of the work copied, the nature of the work, the amount copied in relation to the whole work, and whether or not the work could have been obtained in a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.
The wikipedia article quoted above.
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term "fair use" originated in the United States, but has been added to Israeli law as well; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
As I understand it, the difference is incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work and this is what Fairey and his lawyers are arguing permits his reworking of the photograph.
The Copyright Act 1994 says:
42 Criticism, review, and news reporting
(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of criticism or re
view, of that or another work or of a performance of a work,
does not infringe copyright in the work if such fair dealing is
accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(2) Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of reporting current
events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast, or cable
programme does not infringe copyright in the work.
(3) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the
purposes of reporting current events by any means other than
those referred to in subsection (2) of this section does not in
fringe copyright in the work if such fair dealing is accompan
ied by a sufficient acknowledgement.43 Research or private study
(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of research or private
study does not infringe copyright in the work.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that fair deal
ing with a published edition for the purposes of research or
private study does not infringe copyright in either the typo
graphical arrangement of the edition or any literary, dramatic,
musical, or artistic work or part of a work in the edition.
(3) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this sec
tion, whether copying, by means of a reprographic process or
by any other means, constitutes fair dealing for the purposes
of research or private study, a court shall have regard to—
(a) The purpose of the copying; and
(b) The nature of the work copied; and
(c) Whether the work could have been obtained within a
reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price; and
(d) The effect of the copying on the potential market for, or
value of, the work; and
(e) Where part of a work is copied, the amount and substan
tiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole
work.
(4) Nothing in this section authorises the making of more than one
copy of the same work, or the same part of a work, on any one
occasion.which does not permit, for example, use of the original work in a parody (the US 1st Amendment is usually held to allow that and there was a Bill in preparation at MED before the change in government - I'm not sure where that's at) or as a base for a derivative work, without the copyright holder's express consent. It certainly does not permit republication.
I think the UK is similar, and that's what LBC was using to suppress Goldacre's republishing of the audio.
Essentially, the NZ law only allows minimal copying for private research purposes and study.
That clearer? ;-)
-
Mark, that was really useful post for me: yes, I have a copy of the 1994 legislation, and a bit of practical knowledge about copyright, but that was a succinct summation of the differences between fair dealing & fair use. Thanks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.