Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 30 31 32 33 34 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
What about Arthur Baystings' "80% of music on the Internet is illegal"? I mean, do they actually listen to what they're saying?
-
Is a nonsense line that means absolutely nothing beyond the scare factor which doesn't take too kindly to any scrutiny
Like "you're going to have you're internet cut off for watching you tube videos"?
-
No, rob, that's a possibility, under the law. The other two are sheer fantasy
-
What about Arthur Baystings' "80% of music on the Internet is illegal"? I mean, do they actually listen to what they're saying?
I was disappointed with what Arthur had to say at a recent Apra discussion. He didn't appear to be well versed in the facts on many issues, disturbingly so. But the same could be said with some people arguing against 92a, like the guy who thought he was going to be cut off for downloading his mates song from myspace.
don't take Arthur as the standard for arpa's position. I certainly don't
-
No, rob, that's a possibility, under the law
with a high degree of scare factor involved was my meaning.
its so incredibly unlikely as to be laughable and should never have been raised as an argument for the anti 92a case. you're not seriously telling me you believe it will happen. I'll put $100 on that if you're up for it.The other two are sheer fantasy
to be accurate, alleged sheer fantasy. you have no studies to say that 80% (or what ever number pulled out of thin air) of music on the internet is legal I take it.
I personally dont know what the figure is, and neither do you, but your point has merit, Arthur most likely does not either.
I'd hardly get excited about anything he says just now as I mentioned above. -
Is a nonsense line that means absolutely nothing beyond the scare factor which doesn't take too kindly to any scrutiny
Like "you're going to have you're internet cut off for watching you tube videos"?
No, as Mark says, one is possible if not very probable. APRA's line implies all sorts of things, most of which are drivel.
-
to be accurate, alleged sheer fantasy. you have no studies to say that 80% (or what ever number pulled out of thin air) of music on the internet is legal I take it.
IFPI put out the figure of 95% illegal downloads in 2008, although I was most unimpressed with the lack of a transparent methodology and the such. Plus the conclusions that they reached - namely that all those downloads would have translated into sales if it hadn't been for file sharing, was patently ridicolous. But it would be interesting to have a reputable estimate of the scale of the problem, I think.
-
one is possible if not very probable
probable? you used the word probable on that one?
I hate gambling but I've got $100 that says no one is going to get their internet cut off for accessing you tube videos in the first year if ever.
and the reason I say that is cos there's a clear currently used path open to content owners to approach youtube to remove owned content.
do you want to reconsider the word probable?
"distantly, vaguely, outside chance just to take rob's $100" is a far more apt description don't you think, and if that's the case then there is a definite quotient of scare factor in making a statement that says it is a real possibility.
what are you thoughts on arthur simon? do you know him? -
But it would be interesting to have a reputable estimate of the scale of the problem, I think.
I doubt you'll get that from IFPI, and they control the data you'd need (and know that they're stretching things just a weeeeee bit). There's too much invested already in the incredulously bogus figures they toss around.
Hell, these guys are better scaremongers than The Dept Of Homeland Security, Karl Rove and Sensible Sentencing combined. There is quite a history for this too, going back to the figures tossed around when blank TDKs were within days of destroying western culture in the early 70s.
-
curses for making me read big business site Giovanni but from IFPI's site
Music Community Calls for Swift Action To Enhance Global IP Protection As Part of Special 301 Process
Under Special 301, USTR is required to identify countries that fail to provide adequate and effective protection for U.S. intellectual property and to take appropriate actions, including the possible imposition of trade sanctions and the loss of certain trading privileges.
that's pretty heavy.
if the nz govt doesn't stop russell downloading episodes of the flight of the Conchords America's going to break off trade with us. -
can we become the Cuba of the South Pacific, then?
-
an we become the Cuba of the South Pacific, then?
Based on Rob's link the US should be cutting it's trading ties with China any day now
-
Based on Rob's link the US should be cutting it's trading ties with China any day now
sorry I should have provided a link IFPI
won't they have to extensively argue over a code of practice and whether intellectual property is property at all, and then set up a special new court to deal with it all first?
you make it sound so simple. -
Thought you copyright cats might enjoy this.
The current redragtoabull.com project is highlighting and exploiting some tension between the street art camp and the mainstream art camp re copyright theft... both camps being guilty of moaning and gross self-importance...
-
Anybody not in today's PA thread should note that s92A has been delayed until 27 March to enable the TCF Code of Practice process to attempt completion
-
I've been following this thread & links etc from the start - crikey, do i get a chocolate fish?? - and i would really like to hear from our independent film makers. Their voice has been absent from discussion, yet it is film, more so than music, IMO, that has so much at stake. I've tried to find personal opinions rather than industry group opinion, but no joy.
I heard one young filmmaker on nat radio one day recently (when I was driving so couldn't record details) and he posted his film on the net in the hope that somebody important in Movieland would see it and be impressed and want him for a project. That just sounds like a lotto gamble to me - what's to stop someone overseas copying it, claiming it as their own and using it as a promo reel to hawk around?
I know sweet FA about film production etc, so I'd really like to know what possibilities film makers - like say Duncan Sarkies, Gaylene Preston, Jonathan King - see in using the net and the future of copyright.
-
No chocolate fish but the men in the white coats will be around shortly...
what's to stop someone overseas copying it, claiming it as their own and using it as a promo reel to hawk around?
Nothing much, same as there was nothing to stop someone copying a promo disk and claiming it. He'd have to rely on being able to prove prior art and, more importantly, finding out about it in the first place.
But you're right, there are other voices that need to be heard.
-
http://xkcd.com/546/
ROFLNUI -
all caps seems perfectly appropriate. :) :) :)
-
I've been following this thread & links etc from the start - crikey, do i get a chocolate fish??
The great intellectual enhancement and whole love-in wasn't benefit enough?
-
I can't remember if this has been discussed or not, but Lessig gave a good presentation at TED a year ago about creativity and copyright which I think is worth 20 mins of your time.
-
Oh bugger, (should have looked first) Jason Kemp linked to it back on page 2, so if you looked at it then, it's the same one.
-
The great intellectual enhancement and whole love-in wasn't benefit enough?
The love-in was especially groovy - i gotta say, tho, that this thread felt like a baited trap for anyone silly enough to put up au contraire opinions. I simply wasn't informed enough to contribute much. better now - don't like 92a but I'm not seeing a great future for artists yet.
-
Oh bugger, (should have looked first) Jason Kemp linked to it back on page 2, so if you looked at it then, it's the same one.
rather than an edit button, I'd like the preview function to scan the thread to see if anyone has posted any links contained in your comment, as a comment previously. (in which case it let you draw emphasis to the original post)
-
have been looking at some microformats for audio files. One of the guys behind the haudio tag has pointed people wikipedia's mp3 page regarding the IP bunfight. It's just another barrier preventing/delaying the implementation of a new set of norms.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.