Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 42 43 44 45 46 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
The ultimate quote to use against Campbell is the one he uttered before he became RIANZ CEO at a music industry commission workshop with Phil Tripp in, I think, 2004:
I don't really have too much of problem with file-sharing. For someone like Bic it's the only marketing we've got in some territories.
I can't guarantee those were the exact words, but pretty close. We joked about it on the radio when he got the job.
But I still don't think it's fair to use that as a gotcha. People have professional and institutional roles to play, and Campbell plays his. That's why I keep saying, don't personalise it. It's not about personalities.
These guys do have a genuine problem: they've identified the major P2P music seeders in NZ, who are doing huge traffic. It's reasonable for the owners to wonder what exactly they are going to do about it.
My criticisms of various things RIANZ has said or done under Campbell still stand. And it's no secret up here in Auckland that both RIANZ and APRA feel they've blown it over the current issue.
-
the ball game hasn't changed one little bit.
I usually don't respond to .....actually I have no problem responding to you.
That wasn't the ball game I was referring to.
I was meaning it might be ok to say several years ago that you "didn't have much of a problem with file-sharing, which was "the only marketing we've got in most territories" cos in the last few years the game has multiplied exponentially.5 -10 years ago you might not have seen filesharing as a threat given the relative lack of broadband and hesitance of people to go on full on downloading binges. You might have seen it giving you some publicity in markets you couldn't at that time touch etc etc.
Now its how lots of people acquire all their music, and you get next to no sales in those markets. ie the ball game has changed.I think it shows good faith that rianz and apra have both acknowledge flaws in the system and have agreed to work toward changes to fix them.
and speaking of good faith where people have said the music industry have showed none is that as far as I know no one ever got charged with home taping or format shifting even though it was technically against the law up until recently. that's got to coun for something don't it.
-
And it's no secret up here in Auckland that both RIANZ and APRA feel they've blown it over the current issue.
They've blown it or its gone against them yet again?
I've spoken to to Ant and he was pissed off that people want to twist his position into some evil corporation hurting the little guy who just wants to listen to music kinda thing. They've got to do something and the honesty box model just isn't working.how could they have done it differently?
its the lars urlich predicament, its all pr and smilie faces while trying to get people to respect your rights. an almost impossible situation to navigate and it doesn't help that media like to paint it in an evil way. -
People have professional and institutional roles to play, and Campbell plays his.
it was also years ago apparently and things have changed, not just his official position but the degree of file sharing going on. its now very common place,
-
If the evidence is so robust, prosecute.
wasnt part of the thing people hated about the RIAA approach the criminalisation of people and the sheer out of proportion measure a $100000 fine was for downloading music?
doesn't warning notices essentially saying we know you're doing it, and we are watching send a message with less consequences.
I'd prefer the notice or 3 of em.
you're right about the evidence thing though. if they're so sure its full proof then why not agree to fines for mis accusation.
it also puts an onus on the accuser to get it right. -
wasnt part of the thing people hated about the RIAA approach the criminalisation of people and the sheer out of proportion measure a $100000 fine was for downloading music?
Yes. The behaviour of the RIAA and it's associates has pissed people off to be frank. If they had acted reasonably - eg in the case of the youtube clip with the baby dancing to Prince - the public would be more accepting.
Lots of artists are okay with stuff like Youtube clips of people playing their songs and lots of artists encourage the sharing of recordings made at their concerts.
Sharing the commercially available stuff sucks. I am all in favour a crackdown on that. But it has to be in accordance with the principles of law.
Regarding the evidence thing, the fines are not required. They should just use the courts like everyone else does.
-
Regarding the evidence thing, the fines are not required. They should just use the courts like everyone else does.
Special powers bring special responsibility. To require the alleged infringer to refute via the courts creates an even greater burden...which is even more bung.
There definately needs to be a mechanism to allow the allegation to be appealed and if it's not the courts acting as the arbiter of fact, who should it be? Also note that the courts would be likely to impose fines where the allegation has not been found to be reasonable?
I'm not aware if a value for any such fines has even been suggested, which I think would be important in determining if such a mechanism would be both effective and an effcient use of resources.
-
These guys do have a genuine problem: they've identified the major P2P music seeders in NZ, who are doing huge traffic. It's reasonable for the owners to wonder what exactly they are going to do about it.
Please God, not ask for legislation reacting to specific technology that is transient but that has a side effect of strangling innovation (the legislatio, that is). As someone pointed out on the NZOSS list, the issues are social, not technical.
-
I find it hard to see how anyone here can read Campbell Smith's Q&A and genuinely miss all the rubbish - some of which I addressed a few pages back.
"Guilty because I say so" is crap. Full stop. Don't take my word for it - try all the other expert submitters to the TCF code.
And sorry I just noticed Mark had already posted the Zax clip - I didn't spot it for some reason.
-
I guess what I'm saying is that no one needs to "build resentment against" Smith when his position is blatant rubbish.
-
legislatio
that sounds vaguely dirty.
-
An italian airline, innit?
-
Special powers bring special responsibility. To require the alleged infringer to refute via the courts creates an even greater burden...which is even more bung.
Not quite, jon, as the court process would hold the defendant innocent until the charge is proved. That's the issue with s92A that people have been calling "guilt by accusation" because, unlike court, you have to prove your innocence.
-
I think we're now officially the longest thread.
-
Not quite, jon, as the court process would hold the defendant innocent until the charge is proved. That's the issue with s92A that people have been calling "guilt by accusation" because, unlike court, you have to prove your innocence.
oh yeah...so you have your 3 strikes, then the ISP waits for your appeal to be concluded before the disconnection occurs. Something again seems bung!
-
Radiohead, Billy Bragg join fray against YouTube
The fight between YouTube and a U.K. music royalties group appears to be heating up as Radiohead, Billy Bragg, and Robbie Williams have come out against YouTube.Williams, KT Tunstall, and the members of the rock band Radiohead will meet Wednesday with other marquee music performers to protest "at how badly they are treated by record companies and music streaming Web sites like YouTube," according to a report in the Times Online, a U.K. publication. The artists will gather as part of a newly formed group called the Featured Artists Coalition.
I told you that radiohead was trouble.
-
Featured Artists Coalition Opposes Criminalizing File-Sharing
It actually looks like quite a useful lobby group:
The Coalition will begin by focusing on six areas where it is seeking change:
1. An agreement by the music industry that artists should receive fair compensation whenever their business partners receive an economic return from the exploitation of the artists’ work.
2. All transfers of copyright should be by license rather than by assignment, and limited to 35 years.
3. The making available right should be monetized on behalf of featured artistes and all other performers.
4. Copyright owners to be obliged to follow a ‘use it or lose it’ approach to the copyrights they control.
5. The rights for performers should be the same as those for authors (songwriters, lyricists and composers).
6. A change to UK copyright law which will end the commercial exploitation of unlicensed music purporting to be used in conjunction with ‘critical reviews’.
No 4 is an interesting idea, and the performer's right has some support in the local scene here.
-
Hmm. What would number 6 actually involve? What was the issue there?
-
Hmm. What would number 6 actually involve? What was the issue there?
I suspect there will be something specific: a cable TV show playing music videos under the pretence of reviewing, or a web service using music on the same purported basis. I'd be concerned if fair dealing was rolled back in any but the most limited circumstances
-
Number 6 also covers MP3 blogs and the like.
It's an interesting group and, despite Rob's line above, pretty much restates what people like Bragg and Radiohead have been touting and practising for a wee while, most especially 1 & 2 which were a big part of why Radiohead left EMI for the more financially advantageous environs of In Rainbows and beyond.
-
despite Rob's line above,
it was a joke!!!!!! jeez :)
I was just breakin' the news for team radiohead since you guys were slacking on the job.
number 6 specifically relates to people who have been manufacturing dvds and including a review at the end of it there by slipping through under a loophole that qualifies it as for critical review purposes.
6 A change to copyright law which will end the commercial exploitation of unlicensed music purporting to be used in conjunction with ‘critical reviews’ and abusing the UK provisions for ‘fair dealing’. Several companies are producing DVDs in the UK which use artists’ audio visual footage and place a review at the end of the DVD. By doing this they claim that the DVD is a work of 'critical review' and therefore no permission or payment is required to any of the stakeholders.
-
I'm guessing the number of sites who offer whole albums as downloads for critical evaluation would also draw some ire.
-
This from a recent apra newsletter c/o Arthur Baysting
(drops slab of raw meet into the parana tank)
The recently-born Creative Freedom Foundation has been vocal about the code of practice. While their slogan “no guilt by accusation” has received support, the question needs to be asked: who wouldn’t agree to that proposition? A visit to their website suggests a slightly different agenda: <http://www.apra.co.nz/lists/lt.php?id=fhlZAg8OWwAfVAZTTFFRWgA%3D>http://creativefreedom.org.nz/
Here you’ll see how the Foundation denies the validity of the term “Intellectual Property”, calling it “a misnomer”. They then challenge your legal ownership of your music, stating that any song you create is not a genuine property right. According to the CFF website, your copyright is more like “a temporary monopoly”.
The language on the CFF site is similar to the EFF – the “Electronic Frontier Foundation” who are challenging songwriters’ rights in Britain. The EFF has a mutual relationship with Google, the same ISP whose tactics against songwriters has angered the Featured Artists Coalition.
-
raw meet? that might even be clever if it weren't a typo
-
While their slogan “no guilt by accusation” has received support, the question needs to be asked: who wouldn’t agree to that proposition?
I can't believe Arthur wrote that..seriously
Post your response…
This topic is closed.