Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 75 76 77 78 79 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
Team, I'd like to give us a pep talk about the real issue here, which is that if we all pull together, we've got a serious chance of making it to 100 pages!
Don't fuck this up by death-spiralling into flames, y'all. I know we can do it. Let's find some more articles on the interwebs and do some minor variations of our calmer arguments about copyright until we hit the jackpot.
P! A! S! P! A! S!
:)
-
I know we can do it.
oh it's we now is it? :)
-
in a desperate attempt to follow the new leader I just googled copyright
New Zealand’s copyright clearance centre
new website of the Copyright Council of New Zealand
that's 2 posts closer to the goal of the bored, by my estimate 77 posts to go, but kyle will point out that 101 is actually the 100th page.
-
Team, I'd like to give us a pep talk about the real issue here, which is that if we all pull together, we've got a serious chance of making it to 100 pages!
Word. This thread feels like an old, though cantakerous friend.
In their position with examples of copy protect that do work and with budgets in the multi million of dollars for each of their products what really is fair to expect of them?
Should they dismantle their protection so that primary school teachers can have a crisp digital copy of a chunk of barney for their kids to dance to?I mainly agree with you here rob, there is no motivation for the DVD copyright owners to provide special treatment for, well, anyone. I'm guessing no legal obligation either. The MPAA endorsing a copy method indicates though that they agree that in some circumstances it's ok to use their content in ways unsupported by the media.
It makes me wonder whether there should be an obligation to allow certain groups looser copyright restrictions in a technologically up to date way. Lets take into account the fact that people who wish to acquire the content using copyright circumvention will always be able to, so are outside the system anyway. Then whats the problem with licensing differently to education and giving them tools to extract some of the content for digital use?
Nice to dream anyway.
-
Should they dismantle their protection so that primary school teachers can have a crisp digital copy of a chunk of barney for their kids to dance to?
I meant to address this earlier: no they shouldn't have to dismantle their copy-protection, but no one's asking them to. The software tools to rip DVDs exist and are widely available.
It's a matter of acknowledging that US law provides for fair use in education, and that there are ways of exercising that use. Even our more modest concept of fair dealing allows for copying for purposes of criticism and review, which is the purpose of media studies.
-
Then whats the problem with licensing differently to education and giving them tools to extract some of the content for digital use?
I'm guessing the problem is the do ability of it.
its skin of the teeth to keep it functioning at the level it is.
I'm not a dvd copier novice but I'm not a pro either.
some dvds have no copy protection of note, some have some and can be circumvented and some completely refuse to be extracted, so obviously it is possible to stop most of the people some of the time in dvd. music not so much.The mpaa as you say obviously see some obligation to education although I don't know why simply producing purchasable at a reasonable price dvds with scene selection is not fulfilling that obligation of access to material in a convenient way as much as supplying texts books for purchase is fulfilling information obligations.
I can see the mpaa's position so don't feel as inclined to smirk as some other commenters,
if it were me I wouldn't be agreeing to legal copying at all,
i'd be looking for ways of fulfilling the needs within the established system of distribution -
The software tools to rip DVDs exist and are widely available.
there are some copy protection systems that do not succumb to these ripping technologies.
but no one's asking them to.
I think they are. that's what all the smirking was about wasn't it. mpaa offering telesync as an option instead of a key to their copy protection?
Even our more modest concept of fair dealing allows for copying for purposes of criticism and review, which is the purpose of media studies.
and my question asking from the media owners perspective is why should I bear the burden of that.
I'm providing affordable copies with scene selection. what is reasonable to expect from a media creator who's livelihood is so seriously under attack?
it seems a rather either or situation for them at the moment where as its a forgone conclusion as it stands for music until something else changes. -
and my question asking from the media owners perspective is why should I bear the burden of that.
Same reason that anti-DRM measures are often illegal --- because the law says you can or can't do that, and that should be reflected in code, supposedly.
-
Should they dismantle their protection so that primary school teachers can have a crisp digital copy of a chunk of barney for their kids to dance to?
As Russell says, the law is already there that allows for the use of the DVDs (and if someone can't think of a use for DVDs beyond Barney even at elementary level then they must've been asleep for the past decade or so). Fair Use exists, this is more about defining how that can be applied.
I think they are. that's what all the smirking was about wasn't it.
I think smirk is rather understating it. It was a pretty universal belly laugh. The only voices I've found supporting the MPPA on this anywhere seem to be on this thread. Even some of their members distanced themselves in some embarrassment.
The other irony is that MPAA used VLC in their demonstration, software that is written to defeat copy protection.
This thread aside, I think the MPAA has quietly dropped the copy by camera concept and hopes that everyone else forgets too.
-
The only voices I've found supporting the MPPA on this anywhere seem to be on this thread.
which indicates what?
that most of the voices speaking are incapable of comprehending the position of copyright holders. that must make the skilled debaters out there feel very proud indeed.I think the MPAA has quietly dropped the copy by camera concept and hopes that everyone else forgets too.
as well they should.
They should say we provide scene selection and affordable dvds. knock yourselves out. -
because the law says you can or can't do that, and that should be reflected in code, supposedly.
which is nice in theory but I would guess that the reason the dvd I tried to copy which wouldn't even mount in any computer but played perfectly in a dvd player was a lucky fluke for the industry and they don't actually have the leeway to be flexible on it.
and still they do offer copies at affordable prices with scene selection, obligation fulfilled? -
Against my better judgment, I'd like to point out that scene selection is actually an incredibly annoying aspect of using DVDs for lecture/presentation/teaching purposes, because it may be that you only want to show 10 seconds of a scene, but are forced to sit through 5 minutes of it to get to the bit you want, and are unable to cue multiple clips easily. The whole thing is clunky and annoying, and from the lecturer's perspective quite a step back from being able to copy short bits of video.
Apparently you don't have any sense of the perspective of teachers, Robbery, and are thus completely unqualified to comment on this issue.
-
Jake, I've got a little perspective on this, and yeah, perhaps the taping option isn't so silly (personally I didn't laugh or smirk: I thought it was pretty reasonable!) Tape has the benefit that it can be cued to a point, and played accurately from there.
Getting the same ability digitally is rather trickier. It's not helped by ripping a copy- that'll just have the same scene selection. You'd have to rip it, de-mux and re-author the thing with chapter marks at the points you want.
Try teaching lecturers to do that! -
Apparently you don't have any sense of the perspective of teachers,
that's what you're here for Jake.
so are you saying that in order for dvd's as supplied to be adequate for the task of teaching motion picture producers need to disable their copy protection for education purposes, or are you saying they need to do better on the scene selection bit? What's your solution to the problem?
-
Try teaching lecturers to do that!
is the other problem.
I spent 7 years working for the local uni assisting lecturers in their av needs. many of them were insanely unco when it came to simple technical things, which is I guess what the av dept was there to help them sort.The worst stuff to work with was computer gear. it was always failing.
a lecture hall full of 500 plus students and the lecturer not able to operate their own gear and you're there trying to fix it for them,.... some of the most treasured moments of my life.
glad I'm not doing it any more. -
many of them were insanely unco when it came to simple technical things
Glad you said it, not me! (And thanks for the kind words; I've enjoyed your take on this too. If you still worked for AV, I'd shout you a coffee!)
-
that most of the voices speaking are incapable of comprehending the position of copyright holders. that must make the skilled debaters out there feel very proud indeed.
Or it could be the opposite Rob, they got the obvious absurdity of it and how it belittled copyright to the detriment of most copyright owners, which I think is the real point, and you missed it.
To my mind many of the arguments you've made here could diminish the value of copyright, at least the copyright I've tried to create over thirty years, which requires life and interactive energy. One one hand you praise people like myself for our independent spirit and such, and on the other you argue fervently for the corporate suffocation of the arts we all fought so ardently against.
-
and you missed it.
sorry? where was the bit in your belly laugh comment where you grasped the predicament of the rock and a hard place the mpaa is in?
I totally missed the empathy and understanding of your fair and balanced appraisal. all I saw ways a one sided smirk and no real insight in to how you'd deal with it better from their side.could diminish the value of copyright
cos the argument over copyright isn't about fairness or what's right, its about pr, and apparently we can't have an open and honest discussion on the implications of eroded copyright here without hitting that same pr bollocks.
One one hand you praise people like myself for our independent spirit and such
I've been very careful to praise your indie work, that's the stuff I hold you in high regard for.
I'm not a fan of the whole creating hits and chart statistics carry on that you love. that's business over art and its not what I'm arguing for. You enjoy it, I dislike it, we can agree to differ on that.and on the other you argue fervently for the corporate suffocation of the arts we all fought so ardently against.
and I've clearly stated i'm not a fan of corporate media. Im not arguing for them, I see that what effects then effects everyone down the line to the small players, and they're the one's I'm interested in. I think its narrow minded to kill the existing movie or music biz cos of the top players, because that's only a portion of the picture. I've been trying to make that distinction.
-
To my mind many of the arguments you've made here could diminish the value of copyright,
actually I'm going to need you to be more specific on that cos I think much of your recent stance diminishes respect and understanding of the value of copyright work. Are you simply referring to the issue of a quiet and smiling artist is more likely to get the sympathy dollar?
Russell's original stance on DRM was one of the reasons i signed on to waste hours arguing with reprobates over the finer points of non issues.
I wasn't seeing both sides of the issue represented, and obviously in the present climate it isn't cool to be the person that points out the down side of free media. Everyone's having too much fun gorging on unchecked free for alls, -
sorry? where was the bit in your belly laugh comment where you grasped the predicament of the rock and a hard place the mpaa is in?
What rock and a bloody hard place. All they're trying to do is sidestep the fair use provisions and in doing so have come out looking ludicrous. This diminishes the value of everything they try to protect.
and I've clearly stated i'm not a fan of corporate media.
And yet pretty much everything I've read from you here paints you as a flag waver, rather unquestioningly so too. I think you very much advocate business over a live and vibrant art, much more than me.
I think its narrow minded to kill the existing movie or music biz cos of the top players, because that's only a portion of the picture. I've been trying to make that distinction.
You've been asked this a plenty of times..evidence please that it's dying. Changing sure but pretty much doing ok..and there is mountains of evidence to support that, some of which I've linked to.
The dying music industry seems able to produce more music than before and sell increasing number of units year by year. And companies like EMI are actually making money. You can't simply block yourself into the past, as I think you have, and fight tooth and nail to prevent change. It comes anyway. The creative industries have not been killed off. I'm as staunch an advocate of the concept of copyright and would never argue for free but I also recognise that copyright breathes if you will and the life that breath gives is what gave us things like hip-hop, which stretched copyright's boundaries and led to one of the most vibrant and important musical genres of all time.
Protect and nurture copyright but don't suffocate it, which is what I think both you and these rights organisations and corporates you champion are doing.
George Harrison was asked once about The Jam's Start, which borrowed heavily from Taxman. Was he pissed off? His response was something like "but it's such a great song". I guess he could afford it but more importantly he thought of Bright Tunes and MY Sweet Lord, but but in both cases he knew that the technical breach of copyright added to the original and gave society something more back.
As does the use of visual material from copyrighted items in the classroom..and not as a grainy DV shot from a TV. The US courts recognised that very basic idea.
-
I'm not a fan of the whole creating hits and chart statistics carry on that you love. that's business over art and its not what I'm arguing for. You enjoy it, I dislike it, we can agree to differ on that.
Well, as they saying goes, it's a fuck of a lot harder to make a record that people want to buy than a record that people don't want to buy. Those that make the latter often justify it by saying I'm only in it for the art.
I've released a fair number of fairly adventurous records that have sold quite well (and quite a few that have not) and am about to celebrate a club I owned for a decade that did pretty well by pushing the musical boundaries (and helped give NZ some fairly well known musical names in the process) and taking risks far later in my life than the early stuff I (gratefully) get kudos from you for.
So to be honest, Rob, I think you're talking absolute tosh.
-
come on simon, you know this is going to end in another dramatic exit. I suppose we can fit one more in before the turn of the centenium?
What rock and a bloody hard place.
there you go proving my point for me. (one sided, zero empathy, cartoon portray)
do you not see the difficulty in being asked to unlock copy protection for some?And yet pretty much everything I've read from you here paints you as a flag waver, rather unquestioningly so too. I think you very much advocate business over a live and vibrant art, much more than me.
see on the one hand you criticise these big businesses and on the other hand you're in with them, taking your publishing cut and making deals with em, that's just plain confusing. You're going to have to work pretty hard to prove you're the indie underdog and I'm the corporate whore here.
I am a bleeding heart, pompous artsy fuck. look it up in the dictionary, its got my name listed next to it.I think you very much advocate business over a live and vibrant art, much more than me.
well then you've misunderstood me,
I make the distinction between losing money/pay to play and fairly covering your costs because I can see first hand how the failure to achieve the later limits the vibrance and longevity of the art.
look around you man, all those people you worked with in the 70's and 80's. day jobs, no art, half of what they could achieve lost.I also see that rules that apply for the big boys also have a ripple effect for the people further down. you seem to be prepared to chop of the big boys noses to spite the face of everyone.
I'm not bitter about not getting the deal I wanted with some major player, and I don't begrudge them making a profit in the market place so long as they don't fuck with what I'm doing.
They're presently not fucking with anything I'm doing, but arguing for the devaluation of stand alone media is. asking me to pick up 50% of nothing on t-shirt sales is, asking me to have faith in a system that you yourself have not yet attempted to enter rings hollow, asking media producers to dismantle their copy protection so primary school teachers can loop the dance sequence from a cartoon is (ok not that last one)to kill the existing movie or music biz
biz as in business model.
I'm not alone in being skeptical that embracing the world of free is a red herring.
you seem very keen to see it all go down unless I'm reading you wrong but that's cos you're income is tied up in publishing royalties.evidence please that it's dying.
I haven't seen you come though with a touring act to play a shitty gig that nets less than $500 in a long while so forgive me if I'm somewhat hesitant to embrace your world view of how it all should go.
looking around me, (and I'm out there on a daily basis) income from music is down, way way down.the band rate at the local music hole has actually dropped from its $500 for a friday or saturday night (and it's been that rate for over 10 years without increasing) to $450 or less. Bands regularly come through and lose money on the costs of traveling and playing, more so than they ever did, and this is where under your scheme they're supposed to be picking up the cash they're not making on sales any more. That's my evidence, first hand. I've already mentioned it before but you've chosen to ignore it.we should break these posts up, no extra points for 3000 word essays toward the 100 pg total.
-
I think you're talking absolute tosh.
come on simon, you know full well that there's a lot of manipulation and scheming in the 'art' of a hit record.
its got fuck all to do with being good, so I think you're full of tosh (what ever that is) with your point scoring on who's the most indie cred in the modern world.
I've got no problem with you doing what you do now, its how you earn a living and I don't begrudge anyone that, just don't tell me I'm a corporate whore and you're mr street cred to try and discredit my argument.Mr stowells tied in with all the dirty rough and starving music types of chch and port chalmers, are you going to say that he's fighting for the mega corps too?
lets remember that the supposed 'underdogs' in the whole sp2a thing were telecommunications companies fighting the corporate evils of .....APRA????. how confused can you make this picture.
-
George Harrison was asked once about The Jam's Start, which borrowed heavily from Taxman. Was he pissed off? His response was something like "but it's such a great song". I guess he could afford it
you poisoned your own well there simon.
-
I haven't seen you come though with a touring act to play a shitty gig that nets less than $500 in a long while so forgive me if I'm somewhat hesitant to embrace your world view of how it all should go.
Like I said Rob, it's tough to make music that people want to buy or listen to. Blaming others when they don't gets tired. That's what I'm reading here. The world has moved on..disco is killing live music or whatever excuse you need this decade doesn't wash. Make something people want to hear and they will. The rest is just hogwash..excuses.
Once again you make the argument that these people from the 70s/ 80s are owed a living..bullshit. Why?
Still waiting for evidence...hard evidence...not bands don't make much at gigs. There is plenty of evidence out there that parts of the music industry are doing fine. Some are not. Acts that excite people make money. Acts that don't excite people rarely do.
you seem very keen to see it all go down unless I'm reading you wrong but that's cos you're income is tied up in publishing royalties.
Not all Rob, but I guess what you and I see as 'it' are a million miles apart. Time to work towards the future rather than wondering why the past doesn't work anymore.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.