Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 39 40 41 42 43 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
I recall pretty mainstream coverage of the burger-flipping comment at the time. I don't feel the need to go look up the select committee transcript, though I accept the references linked above are not enough on their own.♠
back it with proof as you would ask RIANZ to do in a case against a copyright infringer.
However, I'm not about to equate the standard of proof of a post by an established blogger whose work I have followed for almost two decades with a civil case resulting in serious consequences involving an organisation that has behaved anything but honourably of late.
Note you used the word "case", Robbery - well, there would be precious few of those if RIANZ get their way with our laws.
-
No, not the blue brie..
-
Wow, my post picked up a little playing card symbol. As bugs go, that's a cool one..
-
you called him out on it without presenting the actual document or context which lead to others using it as a basis to discredit his word.
Really Rob, fuck off. I don't know what your problem is but I'd rather not have to deal with it.
I didn't even raise the issue in the first place. I pointed to the post I wrote about it at the time, which if you'd bothered to read it, you would have seen was not unsympathetic towards Campbell, who I know and like, our differences on issues notwithstanding. My opinion remains that he was unwise to bring his artists into it in the way he did.
Now, I really have finished attempting to have an adult discussion that involves you. I haven't responded in kind to the various nasty things you've said about me and my work since you started posted on my site, and I don't think I'll be able to maintain that if I continue to engage with you.
-
FWIW, telstra clear's objections to the code- (via Mark ;-) seem compelling enough. The legislation itself needed to be a lot better. In retrospect Tizard- and much of the Labour cabinet- do seem to have been operating on auto-pilot for the last few years.
We'll see whether Mr Findlayson can have a better crack at it.
What's interesting to me is that despite all the arguing here, we are mostly in broad agreement that copyright is a good concept- on a lifetime plus X years basis. (We can argue about X - and other issues like fair use- til the cows come home, but they don't matter so much if that basic right is upheld).
We can't expect any sort of market to work- or produce "fair value"- when the competition is free. As Smith points out, it makes investing in paid-for music distribution much less unattractive. So there's no "market" solution to this problem (unless it's a solution to simply to dissolve the market for any work that can in essence be made digital.)
I don't think technology on its own can be the solution: any technological solution will be evaded with other technology.
Yet we have the political will, and it would appear (at least as stated here by most posters!) the concensus social postion, in favour of copyright holders. Adding some technology to legal and social sanctions- it should be a slam-dunk....
And yet.
Free and freely available is devilish attractive, and technology of copying so fast and ubiquitous.... -
That TelstraClear response is a darned good summary, actually. Thanks, Rob and Mark.
-
And, sorry Sacha... for mis-spelling and any implication you personally were reacting hysterically.
-
None taken, Rob. I understand how unreasonable the copyright arguments can seem without delving into the background. That's why I appreciate folks like Mark taking the time to share that material.
-
What's interesting to me is that despite all the arguing here, we are mostly in broad agreement that copyright is a good concept-
Yes, except that it really needs an overhaul in base concept to get it up to speed with the modern world, as I've argued elsewhere. Just applying the Olde Rulles(tm) is not going to cut it, going forward.
on a lifetime plus X years basis.
Negatory, good buddy. I expressed (so long ago I can't even remember what thread it's in) my preference for a flat fixed term. What that term is, I'm undecided on, but I'm pretty sure it would max out a 50 years from date of publishing.
-
We can't expect any sort of market to work- or produce "fair value"- when the competition is free.
And yet, people are making money. I hesitate to mention Cory Doctorow, as that may bring Keir steaming on to the thread ;-) but he's satisfied that he's making more money by enabling his works to be downloaded, than he would be without it.
His novels are published by Tor Books and simultaneously released on the Internet under Creative Commons licenses that encourage their re-use and sharing, a move that increases his sales by enlisting his readers to help promote his work. He has won the Locus and Sunburst Awards, and been nominated for the Hugo, Nebula and British Science Fiction Awards.
So, careful where you fling them assumptions, Rob.
As I said in that other thread:
I grant, that it is currently illegal to copy someone else's work for profit (some exceptions exist for tightly defined activities); indeed, I have never said or thought otherwise. As a copyright holder, I depend on that for control of my work - as a Creative Commoner, I use that control to explicitly allow certain actions under certain conditions. All this is allowed to me because I respect the law.
But I know that change has come - bigger change than the industrial revolution; change on a par with the development of written language itself. The IR was a change in scale and speed - this is a quantum shift, altering the concepts of scarcity and abundance.
Yes, we need to look at and discuss the rules we live by, but it's pointless to try and apply old economy rules to the new economic reality. I don't know why you can't see that disconnect.
If we're going to have a realistic discussion on the future of copyright, we need to do it objectively, dispassionately and logically. Tossing emotive and mis-defined terms like "stealing" into the mix does not help that discussion
-
And yet, people are making money.
Like major record labels, fer instance..
-
Even flat fixed term or lifetime plus is small chop when the reality is "everything is free now".
I'd be interested in hearing how you'd re-shape the basic concept. Not heard a good positive idea on this for a looong while. Don't sweat it, but we expect a little more than "everything is free now...!" :-) -
Just not enough money.
-
Like major record labels, fer instance..
I don't object to them making money, if they're adding value. I do object to them criminalising their customers, like me, by placing DRM on every track and screaming "Piracy!" every time they put out a piece of crap no-one wants to buy.
I'm looking around the net for some evidence that the most downloaded songs are the least revenue-incurring, which would prove their point, but I'm not seeing it.
-
Glad to see you're still on this page, Mark. 'Cos it'd be a real shame if the new cornerstone of copyright were unveilled on some thread devoted to the dratted dingy casino ;-)
-
All a game of chance, Rob.
-
Glad to see you're still on this page, Mark. 'Cos it'd be a real shame if the new cornerstone of copyright were unveilled on some thread devoted to the dratted dingy casino ;-)
We should probably institute a PAS Godwin rule, that any mention of copyright gets immediately banished to a special thread :-D
-
Mark if you'd put all your casino copyright debate in this thread you would have pipped it over the 53 pages set by veitch discussion, not that anyone's counting,
-
Don't tell Ben but I'm trying to help David Slack win that bet. ;-)
-
See, game of chance. Now about that Veitch character...
-
Meanwhile... back at the S92 debate... this blog from Scoop sums it up very well.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00176.htm
Hopefully, Public address readers can open this link. I tried a similar post in the Geekzone Q & A for Mr Smith, put he could not open the link (for some reason?).
Others in Geekzone opened it.
-
Thanks, Bruce. That's a good introduction to some key TCF draft code submissions. I agree with Mr Farrar's conclusion:
When the former Chair of the Copyright Tribunal, the Auckland District Law Society and the country’s largest university says the law needs to repealed or amended, it is time to do so.
and I agree this submission is significant:
in Google’s experience, there are serious issues regarding the improper use and inaccuracy of copyright notices by rights holders. In this context, the responsibility should not fall to ISPs to determine cases of infringement.
Yes, that Google.
So who on earth is advising Simon Power that anything will come of the Code negotiations now that Telstra has vetoed them?
-
This just in directly from Campbell Smith
the comment about bic runga and flipping burgers is an outright fabrication. i didn't say it and i responded as such to the nz herald, which they posted under holloway's piece on-line.
holloway piece check end for smiths rejection of holloways claim
* Campbell Smith reponds: "I did not tell the public or the Select Committee any such thing. I am on the record submitting to the Commerce Select Committee that 8 of the 11 artists represented by my management company had second jobs. I did not mention Bic Runga in this context (one might assume that the she was included in the company of the other 3 artists who didn't have second jobs) and I did not discuss "flipping burgers". I did not make, and have not made, any public remarks to that effect. Simply because it isnt true.
Holloway does the creative freedom foundation's cause no good by attacking Smiths credibility based on fabricated information.
I amend my criticism of Russell based on the flipping burgers statement as he did not say it was true in his article. It was Mark. Bad boy Mark. You're much better than that.
My apologies to Russell for this.I do object to your comments on Smith and his grip on reality. He seems an intelligent and thoughtful man as does Ant Healey and Chris Hocquard. None of these people deserve to be ridiculed for their views.
I'll have further comments to present from Smith soon.
simple as sending him an email. -
I'll have further comments to present from Smith soon.
Rob, Campbell Smith has been shooting his mouth off enough that I don't think we need you as a go-between. I'm sure he's welcome to come along and argue his side like anyone else.
-
ridiculed for their views
And I've clearly explained above why I'm very interested in hearing Mr Smith adequately explain his position. When a lawyer shows that type of disrespect for basic legal principles then he must expect to be called on it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.