Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 25 26 27 28 29 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
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.
I reckon you just think you gave up that "right". What I think stops you/anyone doing that is the consequences of that set of actions....in most cases.
But apparently everyone else gave up that right too....even those who decide it's fine to share their outputs. So perhaps you didn't really give it up just for copyright, you gave it up as you choose to abide by the rules of the society you live in.
So did you really give up anything, or is it simply a society thing?
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 don't entirely disagree, but I am wary of creating incentives that remove the need to produce output of "value to society"....says Jon being mindful that's a can & half of worms.
So I'm back to my thoughts regarding creative works. If you want protection, then pay for the privilege of protection. If you don't want to pay for protection, then use the monopoly of lock & key (meaning don't share with anyone...which seems quite applicable for those Creatives doing it for their own purpose). Else share and be happy that others find value in your creative outputs, build your following and I'm sure more than a living would follow through many opportunities...if you're good. (is this the Dubber approach?)
It seems that if most people were creating just for their own creative purpose, they wouldn't really give a monkey's about the money. They're apparently happy with the process and the recognition. (the right to be identified as the author/creator is not denied...just whether you have any control over where it goes subsequently)
But some Creatives want to share (i.e. want recognition), want protection, but don't want to pay for protection....and really haven't given up anything.
So that's why I see copyright as a bargain.
-
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
It does get people talking and thinking about things, despite simply being a token.
So if the protest against s92 included a simultaneous reboot or shutdown of servers and computers by concerned geeks & citizens, you might feel a bit happier Rob?
-
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,/quote>
What? Your copying good, other copying bad?
<quote> 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.
I would even dispute this POV. I think that the 'one thing' that is different is that copying is far easier to measure these days. And now it is measurable the recording industry sees an opportunity to charge for it.
Just to add, I don't think everyone should or needs to follow down the free route for their copyrighted material. However, free licences rely just as much on copyright law as any other type of licence, including the default. What I am saying, as a constant participant in the 'Copyright Industry' is that these *changes* to the law are unnecessary, unfair and backward.
-
so if the protest against s92 included a simultaneous reboot or shutdown of servers and computers by concerned geeks & citizens, you might feel a bit happier Rob?
jon, I thought we were mates?
firstly you're assuming that all people in positions of internet control see 92a in simplistic black and white terms, or more specifically the one point being used to derail the whole affair, ie guilty up on accusation means the whole initiative is evil. That point is uncool but not unprecedented in our present society (I've identified a few similar proceedings up thread), and not something that can't be adjusted. would 92a's detractors be happy with the bill if that point was fixed. would they be happy if all cases go to court and you get a criminal record? would that be better?
I think a fix would be after 3 notices (and a phone call) you can take your dispute to court. that would take that point off the menu, so what would be next in line to derail the bill?from a society level of sharing responsibility ISPs should be open to playing a part in a safer more legal internet. They already do that in some areas. I remember reading in 96 about newsgroups in the uk being unfiltered in the interests of freedom of expression and information. the abuse of that system was suspect individuals setting up kiddie porn newsgroups. thankfully those sites are filtered now so apparently isps can come to the aid of the law if they want to.
92a says isps should be open to playing a roll in making internet traffic lines safer and in compliance with present laws. is that really so objectionable?sure you can get all 1984 on it but instead of tearing down the initiative as the black boxed community seems to be opting for you could push for stronger measures on those policing the net waves to respect rights of legitimate users.
these people seem to be under some delusion that the net is still the un controllable wild frontier and that notion does have a romantic appeal, but its simply not like that any more (filtering, data management etc etc) and increasingly won't stay that way. just like the west was tamed.
It doesn't have to be tamed in a sad way, and expecting people to respect each others property on it isn't an offensive concept.as for the make me happy comment, I would respect it if people really believed in what they were doing if they got off their arse built a sign and stood outside a politicians office to make their point.
sharing graphics amongst yourselves doesn't have the same ring. it has the smell of non committal to it. -
but don't want to pay for protection
you're going to have to re think that jon. you sound like the mafia.
do you want to apply that thinking to wheelchair access? I don't think so. -
92a says isps should be open to playing a roll in making internet traffic lines safer and in compliance with present laws.
This is known simply as "making shit up". Come on robbery, you can do better than that.
-
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?
Say what? I'm not envisaging anything of the sort. Rob made that proposal. But while we're there, do you think that there were really only a few creative people around, or are these just the ones who were successful?
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.
Actually, if you go back to here he has asked for exactly that and beyond, albeit as a "devil's advocate" in his words.
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.
This seems to assume that I don't think there should be any copyright and everything should be available to anybody as soon as it is created for no cost. I have never advocated that, either on PAS or anywhere else. I believe in the value of copyright to benefit a creator for their efforts and give them control of their work for a fixed period. I just don't believe it should exist in perpetuity, or is property, current terminology notwithstanding.
If you're going to take issue with me, Giovanni, take issue with something I've actually written, would you please?
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.
Not arguing, while the period of copyright lasts. Once it's over, no I don't agree. At present, not an issue, because copyright extends beyond death.
Here's a f'rinstance: robbery writes a song, it is copyright, (we'll assume) he doesn't believe in nazism and forbids the National Front from using his song in a political campaign, even though they're prepared to pay. Absolutely his right. But, as we all will eventually, he dies and the copyright in the song forms part of his estate. His heir becomes a card-carrying member of the NF, and authorises use of the song by the NF, at cost. How have robbery's rights as a creator been protected?
Hypothetical strawman, I know, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
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.
See above. My head is around it very well.
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.
And it was true with Islander as well. I stand by it - the world does not owe you a living merely because you created something. The something will stand and fall on it's own merits and, as long as you retain the copyrights, you will benefit from it on that basis. Lots of people do lots of clever things that benefit New Zealand culturally and financially. Why should a writer be a special case? Your mind appears easily boggled, which is a surprise to me.
-
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,
That's only one part of what's going on. There's government relations stuff in the background, along with the Remix competition, a real-life flashmob protest tomorrow and quite a lot in the media space.
changing your online icon to black seems kinda token.
Of itself, it does nothing to change the law. But it provides a focus for protest and a sense of scale -- and it attracts media attention, especially when Stephen Fry clambers aboard. All these things are elements of a successful protest strategy.
-
The psychologist in me can't get over what a great exercise in conformity the black box thing is. I was tempted to put some text in the box but couldn't quite bring myself to do it in the end.
-
you're going to have to re think that jon. you sound like the mafia.
do you want to apply that thinking to wheelchair access? I don't think so.Change the subject all you want, but you haven't answered the question Rob.
-
do you think that there were really only a few creative people around, or are these just the ones who were successful?
That's not the point. The point is whether the successful ones were compensated adequately for their work, in a manner commensurate with the benefit to their society. which ought to be the gold standard for our rethinking of copyright laws, no? We see a benefit, we seek to compensate it, at the same tmie as we protect the right of society to benefit from the work of its artists. The fact that there are creatives who are willing to work for free or don't mind poverty, as well as people who will always make art because that's how they're wired is utterly beside the point. I get the impression, and maybe is unfounded, that you're not always terribly attuned to this side of the debate.
Actually, if you go back to here he has asked for exactly that and beyond, albeit as a "devil's advocate" in his words.
Yes, he was playing devil's advocate, and it hasn't been the overall thrust of his argument at all as I've understood it.
Here's a f'rinstance: robbery writes a song, it is copyright, (we'll assume) he doesn't believe in nazism and forbids the National Front from using his song in a political campaign, even though they're prepared to pay. Absolutely his right. But, as we all will eventually, he dies and the copyright in the song forms part of his estate. His heir becomes a card-carrying member of the NF, and authorises use of the song by the NF, at cost. How have robbery's rights as a creator been protected?
Hypothetical strawman, I know, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
Copyright extending beyond death is an issue. There are copyright holders - James Joyce's, to name one - whose control of the work of somebody else has hindered the study and circulation of important works. I'm still not against the idea of an author being able to prevent some uses of their works beyond death, though, and sometimes a heir will fulfill that role. BEsides that, it's just like anything else: my father died, I inherited his business. Had he been a poet, I would have inherited his books and rights thereof. It seems to me that artists ought to be allowed to provide for their families. But it's a difficult issue. What happens if a musician dies prematurely and leaves behind a young family? Should the source of income of the family cease just like that?
And it was true with Islander as well. I stand by it - the world does not owe you a living merely because you created something. The something will stand and fall on it's own merits and, as long as you retain the copyrights, you will benefit from it on that basis. Lots of people do lots of clever things that benefit New Zealand culturally and financially. Why should a writer be a special case?
I thought the whole point was that 'copyright must change', and that therefore we are trying to rethink how it ought to work. Because as things stand, yes, of course Keri is protected, and she has been arguing that those protections matter a great deal to her. But going into a debate on reform from the position that we don't owe a living to your artists is, if only rhetorically, a little tone deaf in my opinion.
-
The psychologist in me can't get over what a great exercise in conformity the black box thing is
I also liked how in the other thread the great brains of our internet community spent the first few pages trying to figure out how to make it work. oh the irony.
-
What? Your copying good, other copying bad?
our copying don, you were the one who said your kids should be able to do what you did, home taping is skill in music and all that.
but essentially my point was one of tolerable levels.
one of those scenarios relates to personal community and one relates to completely aimless copyright infringement between strangers.
isn't it an acknowledged parenting rule that you should teach your kids to be wary of strangers (along with respecting others and their property)but just to be clear are you arguing for full rights to copy and share as one sees fit of any content? maybe we're arguing at cross purposes?
is your objection purely on how it is policed?And now it is measurable the recording industry sees an opportunity to charge for it.
well your 'profit opportunity' is another mans fair right to protect their property. they already have the opportunity to charge for it, and that is backed by a law, a law not being respected or enforced.
these *changes* to the law are unnecessary, unfair and backward.
although this clause is in the copyright act it is really is a code of practice for the isp industry.
it should relate to how they act regarding all matters of law.
I'm sure you don't object to them acting to restrict everyone's rights as relates to a fore mentioned illegal objectionable material,if everyone else in society is required to act in a responsible manner I don't see why that shouldn't apply to isp's.
-
Change the subject all you want, but you haven't answered the question Rob.
I did answer the question jon. at the bottom of this here
the answer as far as impressing me in protest was yes I would be more impressed with something requiring more conviction than colouring your picture black, even if it did disrupt my life. I may not like suicide bombers and their actions (perhaps a pet peeve) but you have to acknowledge their conviction to the cause.
now you justify your line of thinking as applies to 'services' we provide as a society to other minority sections of our community. protection of law should not be bought and paid for. that sounds like corruption to me.
-
if everyone else in society is required to act in a responsible manner I don't see why that shouldn't apply to isp's.
So now people that create laws are now exempt from doing so in a reasonable manner.
s92 makes a nonesense of implementation regardless of whether or not you support the aims. It's quite a unifying force.
Watch out NZ, if you don't comply, the bogeyman will eat that free trade deal!!! (chains rattle!)
-
essentially my point was one of tolerable levels.
What is a 'tolerable level'? I remember the days of cassette tapes when the music industry tried (semi successfully) that the sale of blank cassettes was intolerable. Plus ca change, eh.
isn't it an acknowledged parenting rule that you should teach your kids to be wary of strangers (along with respecting others and their property)
...along with sharing, community and working together. Take your pick. Which one of these would you like ISPs to encourage today?
-
I did answer the question jon. at the bottom of this here
Perhaps it's just Opera & Firefox but where those links are taking me, I can't see an answer.
protection of law should not be bought and paid for. that sounds like corruption to me.
Do you hear that Patents & Trademarks, you have now been judged as corruption? Shame on both of you.
As if!
-
It's quite a unifying force.
Dude, when I'm linking approvingly to a post by DPF on Muriel Newman's website, ya know it.
-
What is a 'tolerable level'? I remember the days of cassette tapes when the music industry tried (semi successfully) that the sale of blank cassettes was intolerable. Plus ca change, eh.
apparently personal connection was considered a tolerable level, I'm sure they would have prefered everyone bought a copy, but then no one that i know of got charged for copying an album for their mate so maybe you could see that as a sign of good faith from 'the industry'.
I think isps should contribute some of their income to be distributed amongst content owners too, how that could viably be done without being hijacked is another matter but in theory i think the concept is fair....along with sharing, community and working together.
a street gang stripping an un attended car while its owner is in a movie is a good example of sharing, community and working together.
its also illegal and has a very ugly side to it. would you like isp's to assist in that process, the equivalent of surveillance camera operators in the area turning a blind eye? -
I can't see an answer.
?? what's the question you're looking for an answer to?
the last paragraph of the linked post answered you would I be happy question. was there another question you wanted attention to? -
So now people that create laws are now exempt from doing so in a reasonable manner.
no they're not, we are agreed on that.
the code of practice or how those laws are implemented is the point of debate at the moment is it not.s92 makes a nonesense of implementation regardless of whether or not you support the aims. It's quite a unifying force.
well the code of practice may or may not make nonsense of that. those points have been raised and ant healey said he acknowledged and agreed they were valid and pledged to work to address them. yet we still have screaming and wailing.
it makes me wonder if the point is to make a fair system for legitimate users maintain the free for all media infringement conditions we have now.
I haven't seen you arguing the "for media owners who don't want their stuff floating free" case much so I'm still left wondering. -
well the code of practice may or may not make nonsense of that. those points have been raised and ant healey said he acknowledged and agreed they were valid and pledged to work to address them. yet we still have screaming and wailing.
And Campbell Smith rejected the code out of hand and wanted complainants to be able to adjudicate their own complaints.
Look, the Creative Freedom Foundation proposes a sensible, proven process -- a low-cost copyright court modelled on the Disputes Tribunal. That's addressing the issue.
-
sorry, I missed out an important word in the above post
it makes me wonder if the point is to make a fair system for legitimate users or maintain the free - for - all media infringement conditions we have now.
-
a street gang stripping an un attended car while its owner is in a movie is a good example of sharing, community and working together.
Er, wow. Just, wow.
/me picks up my bags and walks away.
-
That's not the point.
It's exactly the point, if you and others are going to continue to pick me up on telling Islander she'd chosen a "legendarily low paying profession".
The point is whether the successful ones were compensated adequately for their work, in a manner commensurate with the benefit to their society. which ought to be the gold standard for our rethinking of copyright laws, no?
I'm obviously missing your point because I agree with this. Except that I allow the market to rule on the level of benefit received by the individual creator.
We see a benefit, we seek to compensate it, at the same tmie as we protect the right of society to benefit from the work of its artists. The fact that there are creatives who are willing to work for free or don't mind poverty, as well as people who will always make art because that's how they're wired is utterly beside the point. I get the impression, and maybe is unfounded, that you're not always terribly attuned to this side of the debate.
Artists/creatives getting paid is a Good Thing(tm). Artists/creatives who expect to be paid just because they created something is not. The work must have enough merit in the eyes of the audience that they're willing to pay money to get a copy of it, or see a performance of it. Unfortunately, as with most endeavours in life, many will not succeed in this regard as the audience will not perceive value in their work. We celebrate the ones who do succeed, even give them prizes, but they should not be the touchsone by which we make law, because they are the exceptions.
My point about this is that anybody who practices some form of creative expression, will be lucky if they make a living from it. Copyright law can't provide a living - it provides for the creator to have first and exclusive whack at any revenue that may be forthcoming, but it doesn't guarantee that revenue will be forthcoming.
The intention stated in copyright law (in the Statute of Anne, resulting Common Law, and also the US Constitution) is to provide incentive for creation of new material. That should be the gold standard.
Yes, he was playing devil's advocate, and it hasn't been the overall thrust of his argument at all as I've understood it.
Then you haven't understood it, sorry. Rob has argued that copyright means property and that intellectual property is the same as physical property, and I didn't think he was playing devil's advocate when he wrote that.
BEsides that, it's just like anything else: my father died, I inherited his business. Had he been a poet, I would have inherited his books and rights thereof. It seems to me that artists ought to be allowed to provide for their families.
Had he been an independent IT consultant, what would have been inherited? Maybe a patent (fixed term anyway) or two, perhaps the odd copyrighted work, but the business per se dies with the consultant, because the business is the consultant. It's what he can do that makes it so valuable, what's in his head.
How is a poet different? What you might inherit is not a poetry business, but the results of a poetry business.
If you inherit your father's banking business, or factory, what are you getting? A functioning company with employees who do the work, some plant and a building or two. It can exists, for a time, without the original business person, and can continue to grow.
A creative enterprise starts to stagnate as soon as the creator departs from it, whether by death or simple withdrawal. The remains have some value, for a limited time, but it can't grow. Brian Herbert is finding this out with his continuation of the Dune series. He's selling some books, but not as well as his father did (simple reason - they ain't up to scratch, IMHO - he's not a good enough writer).
But it's a difficult issue. What happens if a musician dies prematurely and leaves behind a young family? Should the source of income of the family cease just like that?
I've said before, I'm in favour of fixed terms. I don't want to encourage the assassination of creatives just to free up their copyrights.
That said, your example is a case of waving the emotional flag, and that always leads to bad law.
I thought the whole point was that 'copyright must change', and that therefore we are trying to rethink how it ought to work.
My point has always been that the fact of copyright is a good thing, but the process of copyright, as it has developed in the last 40 years, is corrupt and does nothing to enhance society or the creative process.
Because as things stand, yes, of course Keri is protected, and she has been arguing that those protections matter a great deal to her. But going into a debate on reform from the position that we don't owe a living to your artists is, if only rhetorically, a little tone deaf in my opinion.
We don't owe a living to artists in the same way that we don't owe a living to surfers or designers or anybody, beyond subsistence level (I am a believer in the strength of the welfare state).
In case you missed it, Gio, I count myself as one of those artists. If I create work that people enjoy and desire to reward me for, great. I'll be really pleased. If no-one wants to buy my stuff, well, I'm obviously ahead of my time or out of sync with the market or just plain crap at it. So be it. Should I be paid just because I wield a paintbrush or sculpting tool or camera? Of course not.
Should my work be protected by copyright? Yes, it should and is. Should it be protected forever? No, it should not and is not, but the trend is to protect stuff for longer and longer periods. Eventually, someone (with something to gain) will say, "this extention thing is silly and wastes our lawmakers' time. Let's declare it in perpetuity and have done". And that's how enclosure of the commons works.
I want to reform the idea that "intellectual property" has the same nature as physical property and reinforce that every right has an obligation that goes with it. In copyright's case, it's an obligation to release the work from restriction after a defined period. I also want that period to be reasonable not only to the user, but to the creator/holder.
That clear?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.