Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
As a speaker, he was superb. He was witty, and made spectacular use of PowerPoint.
Given that he was working off a MacBook Pro, I suspect it may have been Keynote he was presenting in. Like Powerpoint, just cooler ...
Note to presenters: less is more. Few of his slides had more than five words, many only one or two. He spoke to the slides, he didn't speak the slides. His knowledge of contemporary culture is clearly broad, as witnessed by his choices of media for examples.
Apart from the actual content of the lecture, I was really looking forward to checking out its presentational element from a media-geek point of view. I wasn't disappointed: his use of the medium is very, very effective.
-
Is it sad that my idea of an exciting night out with my wife is to go and see someone give a lecture about copyright reform? Oh my.
You're right though, his presentation style alone is worth going to see.
-
Thanks, Matthew, for sharing this with us. I really wanted to get to this talk but it clashed with a Pecha Kucha night in Hamilton. Did he attract any media attention?
-
Geoff: He was mentioned in ComputerWorld and will be on the Kim Hill show this Saturday.
-
To licence all the music used in the background of the movie, which was a series of videos of the maker's life spliced together and overlaid onto music from the appropriate era, would raise that cost to USD400,000
What's the problem? This is like whinging that George Clooney won't turn up in your film for cheap.
That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.
And if it costs too much, don't pay. That's the free market for you.
-
Is it sad that my idea of an exciting night out with my wife is to go and see someone give a lecture about copyright reform?
It's not sad, it's touching.
-
I'm glad you think so Russell. You and Matt disappeared too fast for us to say hi.
Personally, I disagree with Lessig on a few things - I'm an abolitionist, but I have the luxury of having strong opinions considering that I don't have any expertise in the area. He's very sensible, I'll give him that.
-
What's the problem? This is like whinging that George Clooney won't turn up in your film for cheap.
That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.
And if it costs too much, don't pay. That's the free market for you.
The problem, is that it's just quoting. If I use quotes from other books in my book then it doesn't cost me $400k to clear copyright for all of them, I just have to attribute them.
-
The problem, is that it's just quoting.
Well, no. It isn't just. It's taking very substantial parts of other works and using them to add value to your work.
-
Here we go again..
-
Nice post, Matthew - thanks.
-
Here we go again..
My thoughts exactly....I wonder exactly how many threads we've had about this over the past couple of years. I'm out of this one.
Nice post though Matthew.
-
whoops, now I'm Sacha's echo chamber
-
I knew I could hear something different.. :)
-
To be clear, I meant the conversation, not the original post.
-
@Keir
That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.
And if it costs too much, don't pay. That's the free market for you.
I assume you use this expression to mean don't use that music rather than promoting just taking it for free anyway without paying...?
-
Yeah -- don't use that music.
I don't like the current copyright laws, esp. the RIAA thuggery, but that sort of reuse is, I think, a bad example of Lessig's point.
It sounds bad, but the process is no different to hiring an actor etc, and would probably exist under any copyright regime.
If you're against copyright at all, I suppose it works.
-
(Oh, also, Stanford has only one d.)
-
What's the problem? This is like whinging that George Clooney won't turn up in your film for cheap.
That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.
And if it costs too much, don't pay. That's the free market for you.
It's possible to make a movie without George Clooney being in it. One can make a perfectly adequate movie without having to resort to recognised talent. Though, if it's on a topic that's of interest to him, you may well find that he'll produce it for you and charge a very low appearance fee. Look at Thank You and Goodnight. So you could've picked a better example for your strawman.
However, that doesn't hold for this kind of movie. If you're making an historic record, with era-appropriate soundtrack, you are distinctly limited in your choices for music. It's all already been made, and you can't just go out and get your mates' garage band to record a cover for you in order to get around the copyright. So your choices are pay the exorbitant fee, or don't make the movie at all. There is no middle ground. Ergo, copyright blocks expression because an 1800-fold increase in the cost of your movie just to comply is so extortionate as to be an effective prohibition. How does society benefit from that?
-
Oh, also, Stanford has only one d.
Whoops. Typo on my part. That bit was written late at night, and I also blame my sub-editor for failing to pick up on it :P
Can you fix that please, Russell.
-
Lessig has a video of an earlier presentation over here
Would be interested to know if the Auckland presentation had been updated or improved over the earlier one.
-
Could someone please explain why this post and the previous copyright discussion on a site that has
©2002-2008 Public Address, all rights reserved.
isn't rank hypocrisy?
You're advocating for people to use creative commons, so why don't you use it yourselves?
-
present copyright situation has robably been overlooked.
It is possible to use a some rights reserved situation but needs the footer edited.
-
Could someone please explain why this post and the previous copyright discussion on a site that has
©2002-2008 Public Address, all rights reserved.
Er, because this is not about abolishing Copyright but understanding the implications of technology and society.
At least give an impression of RTFA.
Thanks Matthew & Russell.
-
That music has a value, and if you won't pay, that's your problem.
I followed the link to the story. My impression was that this is music which is playing in the background of the family movies that he made throughout his life.
It's not like he's chosen this movie and laid it over the top as music, it's background music that was playing when he was a kid, which happened to be caught on film.
There should be a sensible rule about being able to use 30 seconds, not more than a quarter, of a song/movie/tv show etc in this sort of way for non-profits at least.
You're advocating for people to use creative commons, so why don't you use it yourselves?
Everything is published is copyrighted, the note at the bottom is just a reminder of that fact.
You can also quote public address within reason by simply referencing it, you don't have to pay anything.
The only thing you shouldn't do is not provide a credit, or publish most or all of it yourself elsewhere. Why you'd want to do either of those things, I have no idea.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.