Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 24 25 26 27 28 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
O the difference an i/I/eye makes...
-
ai
-
ae
-
aye aye!
-
Ah, spelling nazi how I love thee! (Of course, I could have been posting in Japanese and just dropped the "h")
-
Sorry, I forgot to put the <benwilson> tags round that last
-
in japanese, ai (愛) means love
-
and that's what I feel
(s'my story an' I'm sticking to it)
-
it's love and agreement all round.. :)
-
In Maori, ai means copulation....
-
Make that love and sex and agreement..
-
It was only a matter of time before this thread devolved into an orgy. The sexual tension has been palpable throughout.
-
O dear - palpable. Palpably-
Whyever did I agree to serving 5 years on the Indecent Publications Tribunal?
It ruined my tiny wee asexual mindscape... -
It was only a matter of time before this thread devolved into an orgy. The sexual tension has been palpable throughout.
Roff.
Ill.
Nui.
-
Heh!
& :>) -
it's pretty easy to lobby for free media when its not your media and you have nothing to lose,
So, let me just address this issue, because it takes us full circle to a debate we had about DRM/TPM a long time ago.
Ever since I was 18 I have been producing reams and reams of Copyright material. Every.single.working.day.
I stopped that in about 2000. I now have part ownership of a company where dozens of developers continue to do the same Copyright creation for our clients and our own behalf. We release the stuff we control into the public domain under a permissive licence (GPL).
I have a huge and significant interest in Copyright. I think I have earned the right to lobby and talk about free media, thanks.
When this debate kicked off I tried to demonstrate to robbery and other how 'free' models can and do work for Copyright holders in many many different endeavours.
I don't claim it is easy or that you don't need to plan and think through what it takes to be successful. I will say that there are many people who do have something to lose, who are now lobbying because the models that they were brave enough to embrace and accept are being threatened by legislation that belongs to corporate dictatorships.
-
It's a very good point to make, Don, that copyright abuse affects more than music, films or books.
-
I have a huge and significant interest in Copyright. I think I have earned the right to lobby and talk about free media, thanks.
I can see you like to rebel against something, somehow don (as I noted by your indignant 'thanks') but to be fair that comment wasn't directed at you at all. it was in direct response to something Russell said which nicely illustrated a point. Not an all encompassing point which referred to all things copyable but specifically to one area, maybe two.
I acknowledge anyone's right to give their stuff away for free, surely you can acknowledge someones right to want to recoup their costs for liberating a valuable collection of music.That said I am really interested in your experience in your field. There a similarities and there are some massive differences. The business models for a start are hugely different. I don't expect the rules that apply to what I know to apply to your area of expertise and likewise you shouldn't expect other media to fall into the models you are versed with.
I likewise wanted to address a point you made about criminalizing your kids cos they're only doing what we did as kids.
There is one major difference between peer to peer file sharing and home taping and that is the issue of the personal nature of mix tapes as opposed to the impersonality of anonymous sharing, which is closely related to the scale of the whole thing.
There is a massive order of magnitude difference of your kids making a copy of their favourite songs for their mates and getting online with strangers and anonymously trading copyright material.the later is similar to taking a swag of counterfeit copies of an album down to a market and distributing them.
The alternative to criminalizing your kids is for you to teach them permissible behavior. you grew up in the home taping environment, you read the copyright warnings on the records and cassettes, you practiced your technically illegal but tolerated media sharing (for which I know of no one who ever got prosecuted), you didn't pop down to the local market and distribute copies of recent movies, and you turned out ok, surely you can install the same degree of respect in your kids, or is that too much to ask of a modern parent?
in some cases it is, but in principle ......
I've said all of that without any malice or personal slight on you.
hopefully you can take it in the spirit intended and give us an insight into your business model in more depth. -
I acknowledge anyone's right to give their stuff away for free, surely you can acknowledge someones right to want to recoup their costs for liberating a valuable collection of music.
I tend to think that copyright is a bargain for the creative and a huge cost for society.
What did give up to gain the benefit of copyright protection Rob?
-
What did give (you?) up to gain the benefit of copyright protection Rob?
I gave up the right to take the law into my own hands and retaliate against people who infringe my rights as I perceive them, medieval no more.
same as you did when you bought a house and planted a garden on your property full of produce you see as yours, you gave up your right to maim and or kill people who challenge your perceived property. civilized pacifist that you are.we all make bargains to live in a society in peace. one of the conditions of that bargain in return for giving up or right to lawless violence is that society protects the fair rights of the individuals in it, even if they are a minority group. At least that's the guiding principle behind it how ever it may be abused by shifty mega suits.
I perceive the results of my labour, talent or skill to be mine where they can be identified as mine, ie by recognised sounds (my voice, my recording) or images (that I captured or made) or words (that I wrote conveying ideas that I came up with). Society at present see fit to see it that way too for a limited time (which I dispute, but we've already had that conversation).
Are you arguing by saying copyright is "a bargain for the creatives" that the fruits of someones labour, talent, or skill are not theirs to do with as they wish but is in fact yours? -
and re the black squares protest. sheesh, what happened to getting off one's expanding ass and making a real life protest. I remember standing in line to be battoned for a principle,
maybe Mr Pooles suggestion to not buy into cd or film for a month (and tv and internet too) was a good idea. we've all become soft. switch off the screen and actually change your world if you don't like it. changing your online icon to black seems kinda token. -
and a huge cost for society.
society could turn that all around by reverting to older times when artists were kept and paid for by society, (kings queens and other rich pricks) but we had to go all capitalist and fuck with that winning formula.
I'd happily get a livable wage to do what I do for society, but I'm not holding my breath. oil barons and property magnets seem to complain about this caring sharing thing. maybe you should take it up with them. -
society could turn that all around by reverting to older times when artists were kept and paid for by society, (kings queens and other rich pricks) but we had to go all capitalist and fuck with that winning formula.
Not everybody was. But it didn't stop them creating. No-one is guaranteed a living, you know. Not then and not now.
and re the black squares protest. sheesh, what happened to getting off one's expanding ass and making a real life protest. I remember standing in line to be battoned for a principle,
As did I and many others, and it may come to that yet. But it's a changed world, what's at stake is different and the methods of protest have changed. All this harking back to the past, as if it was some golden era, is very odd. For all the poets and artists you remember, there were plenty you've never had the chance to know about because they weren't successful.
-
Not everybody was. But it didn't stop them creating. No-one is guaranteed a living, you know. Not then and not now.
See, that to me is a weak-arsed argument, and I think you're much better than that. There were times and places where the few artists around either had to seek the protection of an aristocrat who would pay them a retinue in exchange for endless dedications and general grovelling, or had to fight for scraps of food. Is that the brave new world you're envisaging?
Nobody is guaranteed a living, that much is true, but it doesn't seem to me that robbery is asking for a lifetime annuity simply because he's a musician. Merely that the products of his efforts that people migth enjoy, in the same way I may enjoy a good meal down at the local restaurant, be fairly compensated, even though, unlike the food I eat at the restaurant, they are not physically diminished after each consumption. He might also like to have a say on how these products of his efforts are repurposed - say, he might object to a song of his being used to advertise nazism.
If you can't get your head around that, or are unwilling to see the merit of that most basic of arguments, I really have to wonder what you're doing in this debate.
I seem to recall you using this phrase with Keri, which boggles the mind if one thinks of the benefits (even from a narrow economic standpoint) that New Zealand has gained thanks to her work. So long as you're talking about people owing people stuff, you know.
-
FWIW:
I note that there was some comment on academic publishing up thread. As an academic content creator the following links echo my frustration and belief that Lessig's call for a granular approach is long overdue.
But I do wonder if this can really be true; Glaxo giving away the know-how ?
Apologies if this has been stuff has been posted and I missed it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.