Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
screenplays, scripts, novels, short stories
Yes to scripts, for radio and stage. Performed but not published (still working on that).
Short stories only published in SF fanzines. Novel yet to find a publisher.
Yes, a performer does not hold copyright unless the performance is recorded, then contractual issues would decide remuneration, but probably would not hold copyright. Unless I wrote the piece as well, has happened.
Photography: terms of the contract left the copyright with me on two occasions, not on two others.
As for work on commission, the Commissioning Rule was being addressed by the previous government; not sure where that is at now.
All in all, if it were me I'd hesitate to call myself a copyright holder in the same way that Islander is a copyright holder. But that's just me.
Why? Just curious.
-
Is it your profession? Does anybody want to see or buy or exchange whatever it is that you do? Just out of curiosity.
As I said, somewhere in the morass of copyright threads, I am an actor, director, writer, photographer, sound designer, as well as an IT consultant. I have been paid in all those capacities, but IT has paid best.
I am also an artist (mainly 3D and computer-based) but have yet to earn in this capacity. I'm hoping to exhibit later this year, if all goes well and the creeks don't rise.
You can see some of my photography at Flickr though most of the paid work was on commission, so they own that and decide on whether to show it.
-
Ah, Keri, if only you meant that.
-
I think people who do not engage in this - life pursuit- put up a lot of Mark H's arguments - hey, it makes money, copyright should be severely limited -or extinguished-
For the umpteenth time, Islander, I AM in this life pursuit, as you put it. I may not have won a Booker, but that doesn't invalidate my life experience or choices.
I have never said copyright should be extinguished. I do believe it should be restricted in term.
(I think it should be limited to the term it is presently, and no rancidity about it Mark)
I believe the term should be a max of 50 years from date of publication.
and there's an infinite supply of creative folk out there so what the fuck are we bothering about all this copyright shit?
Well, actually, there *arnt* an infinite supply of creative folk out there-
Actually, there are as many creative folk out there as there are people. What there aren't are an infinite number of people who choose this life pursuit, although there are probably more of those than you give credit.
One request, Islander: try commenting on something that I actually said, rather than just making strawman arguments and then dismissing them.
-
Copyright is one of your few certainties and protections.
All right, Kerry. Certainty of what? And protection from what? And how are these of benefit?
-
What's your favoured model for content creation to be funded- if not by the sale of copies?
I don't have one, beyond the fact that the material I create tends to uniqueness, whether in performance or sculpture. I've said before that the value-add model is the one that I think will work best, as proposed by Mike Masnick.
If we allow a 14-year copy protection- heck, lets say a two years!- how would you propose to enforce it, so it's not completely meaningless?
If I felt the need for copyright enforcement, I would use the courts, the way that we have always done. And I'd do a cost/benefit analysis as to whether it was really worth it.
If you've got no answers to the most pressing questions, I suggest you're just blowing off steam. Fine, but let's not pretend you want to engage in a constructive dialogue- or that you have some semi-mystical 'insight' into what's going on.
I don't see those two as the most pressing questions. I've got answers and I've got insight, of the non-mystic variety. It comes from research and analysis, and not accepting an industry's "poor me" PR. However, you've already decided you don't want to hear them, so it's hardly worth my while, is it?
-
Your paltry mis-reading of what I say is - somewhere between careless and ungenerous. The benefit to society isn't just getting stuff for free later. It's also innovation and new works being encouraged by the financial incentive of copyright. That's copyright 101, and YOU don't seem to get it.
I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is it has bugger-all to do with the nature of copyright. Copyright does not provide a financial incentive. That's provided by the market. That is not copyright 101, it's marketing 101.
You say there's no evidence of copying hurting sales, yet you also insist that people who base a business model on selling copies are 'hiding their heads in the sand".
I say that people who invest individual copies with value and count that value as "stolen" when it is downloaded have their heads in the sand. I say that people who hold out for a return of the old pardigm have their heads in the sand. I say that the game has changed irrevocably, whether you like it or not and, if you don't get that, then you have your head in the sand.
The old business models are grinding to a halt. New ones are required.
You declare that you *support* copyright yet you are adamant that ISPs should play no role in enforcing it, and you're indignant when the existing legal provisions are pursued.
I support copyright.
Copyright has nothing to do with ISPs, any more than Transit New Zealand is responsible when someone steals a car. Or the City Council is responsible when someone watches the cricket match from their balcony instead of going to the game.The "legal provisions" to which you refer were jammed through Parliament, in spite of being knocked back by the democratic process (i.e Select Committee), and I'm still trying to trace the details of that but MED are being unhelpful. I'm indignant when any bad law is put through, because it affects all of us. S92A was bad law, poorly thought out and poorly drafted. It's method of passage was a disgrace to the House, and to Tizard and Finlayson for cheerleading it.
Yet no little ting ting of cognitive dissonance ringing in the distance?
Huh. I'm not the one running on belief and feelings. I'm the one looking for the facts. I hear no cognitive dissonance at all.
-
What I'd really like to know is now many tracks pinched off the net are actually listened to, even once.
Now, that would be interesting. I'd accept that there are some who believe that he who dies with the most MP3s wins.
-
True. Them too ;-)
-
I'm excited that according to the Guardian article it can be used to print out of print books. That would be a fabulous innovation.
IF the contents of the catalogue have been digitised and IF the publisher decides to make it available. Neither are certain, which is why the Google Books settlement is such a big deal.