Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, Mr, Harris, if that were all I should have accepted that and moved on; it is the bit where you then go on to say
Ri-ight. You assert that only "professionals" are allowed to create culture. Sorry for forgetting that. Tell, me Rob, who are these professionals? Where do they come from? What qualifies them to be professionals?
without any proof even half as good as mine to back up that that is Rob's position;
it is the bit where you say
So some pigs are more equal than other pigs, eh?
which, quite aside from being somewhat of an offensive misappropriation of actual oppression is a complete misrepresentation of Giovanni's position; it is the bit where you brush off an actual honest-to-god national treasure that makes me not quite willing to bend over backwards for you.
(By the way
It was written in an environment where relative scarcity was the fundamental basis of commerce (and that scarcity was often artificially maintained).
You said that; I think it is an entirely reasonable reading to see that as a claim that copyright was a response to (i.e. it arose out of an environment defined by and in an attempt to deal with) scarcity. The argument is then that, of course, the strikingly salient point about printing is not scarcity, but rather the opposite.)
I should also note that I have never accused you of intellectual dishonesty; I have merely said that I do not think you deserve the intellectual charity one might extend in other situations.
-
Look, of course content is a public good; this is pretty broadly acknowledged amongst economists who work on these problems. (Wikipedia isn't actually the best place to go on these things it turns out. Writings by actual professionals who make this their life's work are much better at it.)
Copyright effects the provision of a public good by a private regulated monopoly; it doesn't change the basic nature of information as a public good.
And I think you utterly missed the point of the lighthouse example; consider the difficulty in charging to use a lighthouse, and then consider the way in which a series of individually rational actions create a social inefficiency.
Are you saying that things that are really scarce aren't going to command a really high price?
Er, in some important cases yes. Metcalfe's Law and so forth. (Come on, if you are writing on the internet and you can't spot something which becomes more valuable with ubiquity --- !)
Please cite any instance of me saying that, with a link to the item, or you're just making shit up.
It's merely to acknowledge that scarcity no longer exists, and this is the main problem that faces publishers - they can't control scarcity and therefore revenue streams.
P. 94, post made at 6.03 on April 25th.
It doesn't state it exactly, but I can't be arsed bending over backwards for someone who is quite willing themselves to make very ropey factual claims (with no acknowledgement of the stuff up by the way). Given that you were quite prepared to be utterly offensive because you didn't recognise quite a standard term of the art in the very field we're discussing, I don't think I need to apply the strictest standards of intellectual charity here.
-
How does recognition that a fundamental principle of economic exchange (i.e. that scarcity is inversely proportional to value [or at least price]) has changed become advocacy for not paying for content. Hint: it doesn't, and I haven't said so.
Sorry to be hugely late, but this is complete and utter bollocks; viz. the value of a functioning lighthouse bears no relationship at all to its scarcity, and even if it does the curve certainly isn't `inversely proportional'!.
That is to say, this is a public goods problem; the issue of scarcity doesn't arise , by definition. It is possible for something to be both ubiquitous and hugely valuable.
By the way, the claim that copyright is a response to scarcity has at the very least one gaping hole in it; if you have access to a good technological history of Europe and a good legal history of copyright you should be able to spot it pretty quickly.
in the English Common Law approach that serves as the basis for NZ legislation,
Factually false; copyright is currently entirely a statute right, not a right at common law (and has been since the Statute of 8 Anne c. 19 at the latest, and probably earlier). The existence of any form of common law copyright is disputed to say the least (see Boyle's Shamans Software and Spleens and Pfrozheimer's Historical perspectives on copyright law and fair use. In G. P. Bush (Ed.), Technology and copyright: Annotated bibliography and source materials. )
It is possible (but not universally or even generally accepted, I don't think) that there was a common law copyright, but that was alleged to have lasted indefinitely, which is not what I think you are arguing. At least one Stewart (actually, I think Interregnum, but) proposal for copyright reform advocated that the public domain should begin 1000 years after the death of the author -- Livy, Cicero etc.
-
<i>We need to face facts though. When the NZRU signs broadcasting deals it is based on (off the top of my head) 60% being for AB games, 30% for Super rugby and 10% for the NPC. Going old skool may make NZ rugby fans feel nice for a while but the money will dry up significantly especially for non ABs.</i>
But that's because the NPC is Tier 2 rugby; if it goes back to being Tier 1, presumably it'll get more like Tier 1 money?
(Not totally, but. And I think that the gov't should be willing to subsidise the non-AB game as heavily as they do the ABs.)
Also Aussie rugby may be stuffed no matter what, squeezed between League, AFL and football.
-
Is anyone really indigenous, apart from Africans?
Not to get metaphysical, the main point was that the Dorset Culture predate the so-called Eskimo, and in some parts of the far North regions the Norse predate them or arrive contemporaneously. So they aren't any more indigenous than the Greenland Norse would be, rather.
-
I think that instead of attacking the NPC you should prioritise it --- refashion the Super competition into a international provincial competition like the Champions League and run it concurrently with the NPC (travel will be difficult, but if you ran it every other week it wouldn't be too bad.)
Basically, try and keep both NPC and Super rugby going, and get rid of the franchise nonsense.
-
(And they aren't particularly indigenous any more than the Norse are.)
-
Except apparently Eskimo is derogatory -- according to people the name is used to refer to, anyway.
I have no idea if it objectively/historically is or not, but who really cares? Do the polite thing and call 'em something else, why the hell not ?
-
Can someone explain to me how the use of Eskimo in this context is offensive?
Er, same way as the above examples would be offensive, I imagine.
(Imagine the reaction Taig candy would get, frex.)
Of course, it is also possible that Eskimo wasn't really offensive originally, but apparently it has offensive overtones now, and really, what's the added value. Call 'em Arctics or somesuch.
-
As for the eskimo 'story', it is fairly banal. What is next under threat--Pinky bars (for their homophobia?) Or jet aeroplanes (because they are too militaristic)? This just gives more fuel to the tedious 'anti-PC" mob.
Eh, if a Maori girl went to Canada and found some `cannibalistic south seas tribals' lollies I bet she'd be legitimately pissed, or if the Aussies found `kokoda trail white devils' candy in Japan, or whatever...
Really, she actually seemed to have a good point.