Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
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".
Dude, you basically told a Booker prize winner that her audience was limited and she couldn't expect much return on her work. we're never going to let that one go.
May not be fair, but by god it was funny to watch.
By the way, do you know what a gilt-edge is?
-
you basically told a Booker prize winner that her audience was limited and she couldn't expect much return on her work. we're never going to let that one go.
Says more about than me
-
Sorry s/b "Says more about thee than me"
-
By the way, do you know what a gilt-edge is?
Enlighten me, Keir
-
Er, wow. Just, wow.
/me picks up my bags and walks away.
if you don't like that image and can't see the similarities just for the sake of argument that's up to you but the situation with technology and enforceable copyright has many.
is something a crime because it is not policed and enforced?
of course it is.
distributing copyright material is against the law, we know that, it is impossible to stop under current conditions, this is also true,communities banding together to distribute copyright material is no more a socially acceptable and admirable action than street gangs banding together in force to break to loot and unguarded store, or strip a car or any one of a number of other laws. I don't know why you'd think it is.
I did ask a specific question to you don also and would be keen for a direct answer on it, ignore anything else if you wish, thats up to you.here it is again.
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? -
"Says more about thee than me"
you've got to admit though mark, it says a lot about you.
in your defense you didn't know who you were talking to at the time (you didn't did you?)
and I think there's a degree of devils advocate in your discussion too, I hope, -
Nope, nope and nope
-
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.
that would be for me to say whether giovanni has understood my argument and in this case he's quite correct, that is only one of many points I've raised, by no means the central thread of it.
I've been trying to argue that forms of intellectual property, not all intellectual property (or simply the "thought" only) have properties similar to physical property and should be treated likewise.
Things like photographs or films that someone has created, or a recorded work readily identifiable as that person, these are the things I see as property. yes they are copyable but the value and ownership is not in the copy. they are the recorded work, the master if you will and quite separate from the idea behind the film or song, ie the composition or script.
if I was in soft cell and you tried to sell me a copy of my version of tainted love with my voice on it and my crappy synths etc. That's just plain wrong, you have no right to do that.
its different if you're trying to sell me marilyn manson's version, cos its a different recorded work and I can tell by listening to it its not mine.I'm trying not to confuse the recorded work line of thinking with copyright of ideas (the composition, the script, the photo of obama that lead to the drawing) cos I see them as different and in need of a different approach. I'm not forwarding a view on that really, and to pull in rules and ideas dealing with that to apply to this new kind of 'physicality' just confuses and clouds the matter.
I think you have valid thoughts on this but they don't necessarily apply across the board. -
Nope
- then you're deluding yourself, your response to the whole saga speaks volumes. no apology,no " I didn't know who I was speaking to" or anything, shear bloodymindedness, that's quite deafening in its volume. I'm not saying its bad, I'm just noting it.
nope
- that's better then, but we're still not going to let you forget it
and nope,
- really? every single thing you've said, and you've said a lot. some of it even contradicts itself, perhaps you should have said maybe for that last one, keep a sense of mystery going.
-
Do you hear that Patents & Trademarks, you have now been judged as corruption? Shame on both of you.
As if!
see above reply to mark.
I've tried to be quite specific to my area of knowledge, ie regarding the master, the recorded work.
not patents which apply to an idea, or trademarks likewise. my issues deal with the recorded work.now how bout a response to my query about your stance on protection money. should we now start charging wheelchair bound citizens "protection money" for their ramps and lifts?
explain to me how this works across many other protections offered in a fair and civilised society. you seem to be talking about a strict capitalist society which is a different ball game altogether, although we seem to be moving towards that model too. shal we do away completely with free health care too and make people pay for that, shall we make laws only enforced for those who want to pay for them to be enforced, is that a good way to steer our civilisation? -
then you're deluding yourself, your response to the whole saga speaks volumes. no apology,no " I didn't know who I was speaking to" or anything, shear bloodymindedness, that's quite deafening in its volume. I'm not saying its bad, I'm just noting it.
The point that I was making stands, regardless of who I was making it to. Writing is a legendarily low paying profession and the fact that I made it to Islander, an exception o the rule, does not invalidate the point. If I thought an apology was warranted, I would have given it.
that's better then, but we're still not going to let you forget it
Whatever.
- really? every single thing you've said, and you've said a lot. some of it even contradicts itself, perhaps you should have said maybe for that last one, keep a sense of mystery going.
Well, maybe I'm just more honest than you take me for. Sorry about that, but feel free to link to the places where I've contradicted myself, which is easy to claim in passing, and I'll attempt to clarify.
-
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?)
- oh you're sure more than a living will follow are you jon?, that's a nice sentiment if nothing else.
I don't know what you do for a living jon but it seems unlikely that you're living the life you preach. No offense meant but there's an awful lot of "I'm sure's" going on here and really no one has any reason to be sure of anything.
I like your lateral thinking and jovial contributions on other days but you're well off your game today.as for dubber he's a lecturer in radio for birmingham university, ie an academic ex of nz's broadcasting school, might have even been a lowly musician once but never achieved much success wise if he was. he ran a jazz label in nz, which probably didn't make him squat and he's now telling everyone else how to run their careers without actually having anything at stake himself. I've talked to dubber and am good friends with one of his work colleagues who regularly eggs me on to give him shit.
Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. I'm still waiting to see those actions and will gladly embrace them if he makes them successful. -
That clear?
It is, and thus formulated it's not an unreasonable position, but surely half of the "copyright must change" argument has to do with new technologies that allow to copy copyrighted content in a way that circumvents the existing protections. Other than saying it's not theft, because it ain't property like other kinds of property, what's your solution here? And couldn't we seize the moment to rethink copyright in a slightly broader way than your suggestion above? At the very least we ought to be able to discuss it without people getting pissy, I'd humbly suggest.
Artists/creatives who expect to be paid just because they created something is not.
I really don't know anybody who thinks that way. Do you? You say that
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.
but how does that equal being being *guaranteed* an income merely for having produced a work of art?
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.
So: let the market chips fall where they may, and if you happen to be one of those artists whose work is easily copied, tough?
My point about this is that anybody who practices some form of creative expression, will be lucky if they make a living from it.
Does it need to be the case? So long as we are discussing how to reform copyright, shouldn't we aspire to recognise the work of a Keri Hulme for the actual benefit it provides to the society in which she lives? And aren't those decisions something that every country makes even in the current environment with all sorts of endowments that go beyond the sometimes meagre take home pay of artists of recognised importance? Few countries, including the US, follow a free market orthodoxy when it comes to art, and for very valid reasons. I think we have an opportunity hear to rethink cultural value, the commons and how to incentivise and compensate artists. It ought to be a free discussion.
-
interestingly on the other thread of hysteria the resident known lawyer is getting flak for not getting too worried about 92a. how dare he use his knowledge of the law to remain calm.
-
It is, and thus formulated it's not an unreasonable position, but surely half of the "copyright must change" argument has to do with new technologies that allow to copy copyrighted content in a way that circumvents the existing protections.
Copying is copying. It got easier. The problem is education and abuse of the process by, for example, the big 4 music labels and their joint entity the RIAA who have destroyed a generation's trust in process instead of embracing change and finding new ways to work with their customers. They've tried to enforce old media rules on new media and the new media has slipped away like a greasy soap. I'm not sure they can unpoison that well, to mix metaphors a little.
Other than saying it's not theft, because it ain't property like other kinds of property, what's your solution here? And couldn't we seize the moment to rethink copyright in a slightly broader way than your suggestion above? At the very least we ought to be able to discuss it without people getting pissy, I'd humbly suggest.
My response was measured, I felt.
[quote]I really don't know anybody who thinks that way. Do you?[/quote]
Well, Islander did say in the other thread that
one of my books has brought in many *thousands* ofpaying tourists who come here because of it (and I dont mean just to the Coast.) And -while the area gains benefit from their presence - I dont.
No one owes me a living? Right - but my *work* provides a *lot* of other people with - at least- enhancement for *their* living - and I get very little recompense for that.
which, to me, comes close to that way of thinking. And she and robbery have both argued the property line. But I was stating what I believed, not rebutting anyone in particular.
So: let the market chips fall where they may, and if you happen to be one of those artists whose work is easily copied, tough?
Pretty much. You know the rules going in - engage and add value so that people will want the legitimate product and want to pay you for it. The market place is not your father's market place and you have to adjust to that. "Big media" have been very slow to do that.
People who haven't been that slow include Cory Doctorow, Nine Inch Nails (cue Keir and robbery to start on about how they couldn't have done so if they hadn't been famous first, but their objection to judging by exception seems to vanish when looking at Booker Prize -winning novelists), Tor Books and others. More are popping up every day.
I posted a link the other day to a presentation by Michal Masnick about Trent Reznor and NIN. His thesis was CwF + RtB = $$$$ (Connect with Fans plus Reason to Buy equals Revenue). That, I think, is the new model. Bitching about illicit copies just isn't going to get you anywhere because the people you're bitching about don't care.
So long as we are discussing how to reform copyright, shouldn't we aspire to recognise the work of a Keri Hulme for the actual benefit it provides to the society in which she lives?
As long as we can recognize, in the same way, the district planner whose idea to construct a bridge over the river enabled those visitors to actually access the area.
What do we do if Keri writes a book that is so fundamentally disliked that it can be measured as a reason people stop coming to NZ? Do we then take money off her to compensate the businesses that no longer get the tourist revenue?
I don't want to diss Keri but the facts are that she wrote a book, it was successful, she won a prize, became world famous (not just in NZ either) and (I presume) made some money out of it. That, to my mind, is the whole of it.
On the matter of tourism, I'd sumbit that she does benefit, indirectly, from every tourist dollar that changes hands in the area in which she lives, as more businesses mean more revenue for local government, more taxes paid that fund more amenities and so on. Of course the downside is that the more people visit, the fewer whitebait there are to go round, so you have to balance these things.
Gio, I can't think of any mechanism for measuring the impact of, let alone compensating, any individual for benefiting society that isn't a form of welfare benefit apportioned on some incredibly arcane scale and requires a substantial number of bureaucrats to run.
I think we have an opportunity hear to rethink cultural value, the commons and how to incentivise and compensate artists. It ought to be a free discussion.
Not arguing, Gio. Go for it.
-
interestingly on the other thread of hysteria the resident known lawyer is getting flak for not getting too worried about 92a. how dare he use his knowledge of the law to remain calm.
Fucking bullshit he is, Rob. Just stop it.
Graeme, as he does, is seeing things his way and asking hard questions on that basis. He's way smart like that.
But no one is giving him "flak". People (including at least two other lawyers) are addressing the questions he raised. It's called a discussion.
-
but their objection to judging by exception seems to vanish when looking at Booker Prize -winning novelists
er, no, I don't factor that into my thinking. my argument has been predominantly based on non "rockstars". I've mentioned that point many times to contradict the likes of jon's unfortunate comment early this day.
My perspective is very much the non exception, the community level artist if you will. I have a lot of respect for Keri purely because she talks in here with knowledge and experience, not because of her book. -
Not arguing, Gio. Go for it.
Actually, you get pretty pissy when people do bring up ideas not to your liking, which is kind of my point.
-
Fucking bullshit he is, Rob. Just stop it.
fucking is not russell....... stop it yourself.
how do you know who I was talking about if its so completely bullshit. I didn't mention his name and you say there are atleast three lawyers in the chat.that's my reading of the vibe of that thread, it's called an opinion.
how about a little mutual respect as you agreed offline or do you want to push it in the other direction again. I certainly don't.
Graeme by my reading on other matters seems a very thorough and thoughtful man, I like what I've read of what he's said regarding other things. not merely someone who "sees things his way" which I think grossly under represents him.
But that's just my opinion based on reading his comments here. I don't know the guy outside of that. -
surely half of the "copyright must change" argument has to do with new technologies that allow to copy copyrighted content in a way that circumvents the existing protections.
I don't think that change is warranted. Different techniques of enforcement, maybe. But the law was ok (well, sort of) before and the current changes won't fix what they purport to fix. New technology should not automatically lead to new law. If that becomes the normal approach then the law is doomed to be miles behind the 8 ball forever.
If technology firms - who have had their software illegally copied for just about as long as record labels - are unhappy about the nature of the current change, does that not tell you something?
-
Actually, you get pretty pissy when people do bring up ideas not to your liking, which is kind of my point.
Actually, I get kind of pissy when people ascribe arguments and positions to me that are not borne out by the evidence. Keep that in mind and we'll be fine.
-
If technology firms - who have had their software illegally copied for just about as long as record labels - are unhappy about the nature of the current change, does that not tell you something?
I'm not saying I'm happy with s92a. But I'm saying that being completely tone deaf to the (legitimate, in my view) complaints of some content creators may not be the way to go. We have an opportunity to rethink stuff. So let's. s92a doesn't rethink anything, it just finds a draconian and unworkable way to enforce the old regime.
-
fucking is not russell....... stop it yourself.
how do you know who I was talking about if its so completely bullshit. I didn't mention his name and you say there are atleast three lawyers in the chat.Don't be silly. You were clearly referring to Graeme.
Graeme by my reading on other matters seems a very thorough and thoughtful man, I like what I've read of what he's said regarding other things. not merely someone who "sees things his way" which I think grossly under represents him.
He posed a reasonable question, which several people set out to answer. Your characterisation of it was mischief-making. I'm ultimately responsible for the nature of the discussions here and that doesn't help me.
-
Keep that in mind and we'll be fine.
Actually, I tried to argue that the property angle might have some validity and you thought that we shouldn't even be allowed to discuss it. Just sayin', I kind of got frustrated by the discussion back then and I've come back to see things haven't improved much. I shall now disappear again. Pufffff.
-
whatever. Your call
Post your response…
This topic is closed.