Campbell didn't specifically say Bic Runga was reduced to flipping burgers. But he did say to the select committee that eight of his 11 artists had had to get second jobs, and then went on to mention Bic by name.
It wasn't a smart thing to do, and she wasn't very happy about it. She said on her MySpace:
Got home to some fuss in the media about how most New Zealand musicians have to have day jobs. Now that's never been news! But you know, I haven't flipped burgers since i was 15 (actually, I was very good at it, I once made up an order of 21 burgers in one go.) Thanks for your concern, but most musicians are just happy to be musicians.
I tried to put it into context here. The same post also refers to the more outrageous parts of the RIANZ submission that robbery was doubting me on:
But if that part's silly, the parts which seek to tightly restrict the ability of libraries and archives to digitise collections, and even to make works available for viewing on-site border on the offensive.
Short version: libraries should not be able to format shift sound recordings for archival purposes. And, further, "it is submitted that libraries and archives should not be permitted to make sound recordings or films available both in terminals on-site or terminals off-site and that such rights are not necessary for their proper functioning and operation."
But this is actually the basis on which organisations such as the New Zealand Film Archive operate. No one goes to the Film Archive and sits at a terminal to view a work for the sheer entertainment value of it. But people ought to be able to see those works (most of which are not available any other way) for study or information purposes. There is a clear public good in them being able to do so.
I understand that the music companies are obliged to defend their copyrights, which are the basis of their business. They are going to have particular views on copy-protection and format-shifting. Generally speaking, I don't approve of illicit copying and downloading of music: which isn't to say I've never done it, but I try not to, and I spend money every week on legitimate music downloads. But parts of this submission go beyond the purview of copyright law, and, indeed, beyond the legitimate interests of music companies.
Rob, I wasn't making it up: I studied this material, and parts of the RIANZ submission were genuinely indefensible. Sadly, they kept on making the same mistakes.
The most toxic thing in that Jonathan Myerson article is the way he blames Jake for his younger children's behaviour.
Between them, I wouldn't be surprised if the Myersons blamed Jake for global warming ...
__I'd be obliged if you just took my word for that.__
Why would I want to do that when I have perfectly good personal experience to go on?
I was merely concerned that you didn't imply I was making it up, as you've done before. Your experience as related below seems to relate to a quite different issue.
how bout Archives offer a home for masters that are no longer being looked after by others
My impression was that was the idea, but the government wanted agreement on practice with RIANZ, who didn't want to play.
Maybe the RIANZ members who had masters were quite happy to look after their property all on their own in a sufficiently safe storage environment?
I don't know the details. It was Simon Grigg who first highlighted to me the problem of degrading masters that no one was properly preserving.
Where were archives when the EMI pressing plant were biffing masters into the cook strait?
That was 20 years ago. Surely it's a good idea that someone makes sure it never happens again?
I personally think NZ Archives present approach is poorly thought out. They've stomped into the playing field with less disposable budget than they had when Alexander Turnball library were buying 2 of everything. Now the national library demand under threat of fine ($5000) if you don't comply that you give them 2 of everything at your expense. Charming.
I'm aware of your feelings about legal deposit and I've explained my view on the topic. But that's a completely different issue and Archives NZ is not the same organisation as the National Library. It preserves a lot of very important master material already, including the Treaty of Waitangi and a great deal of screen work.
That''d be a fair solution rather than spreading notions that "RIANZ is evil and don't care bout culture"
Come on. Stick to what I said. I was talking about specific parts of RIANZ' select committee submission, which I think are actually indefensible. I've written about this in some detail before.
This would seem to mean 92A as we know it is over and the ball is in Finlayson's court.
care to back up that vague assertion with the comments that led you to believe it?
I have spoken to people in the public sector who were working on the concept. I gathered that the major labels were unwilling to see the tapes being held in a publicly-funded archive -- which has much to recommend it on a technical basis, given that some of those masters are deteriorating.
I'd be obliged if you just took my word for that.
Prof Boyle was anything-but-radically calling for the reform of intellectual property, with examples of the need being based on the contents of the various libraries, containing huge amounts of orphaned works. It was suggested that really the contents ought to digitized & made freely available, but because of the lack of approval from an identifiable rights holder, these works are rotting.
This is undoubtedly one of the biggest problems with the current copyright system -- it keeps heritage works away from the public solely because it's too difficult to determine and clear rights. It's a big problem with TV material -- easily the most draining part of running NZ On Screen.
BTW, RIANZ's paranoia about archived works is a continuing puzzle to me. The bid in its Copyright Amendment Act submission seeking to prevent libraries and archives from making digital copies of work for archiving purposes was just weirdly hostile to the public good. They also give the impression they'd rather see original masters rot than have Archives NZ store them. Sigh ...
And somebody was made enough to make NZAID a new website
The existing deal was made under the current arms length process
And the new one wasn't. The two don't seem strictly comparable. NZAID had concluded a three-year arrangement with Samoa, then chose to embark on one with Niue, as part of a wider development plan. Now, the government has effectvely issued an edict to underwrite flights to two other countries. As I said, it's probably a good thing for those economies. But they've done it by jamming their hands in an already small cookie jar.
__You're ragging on Mark for making generalisations,__
oh, we're back to you and me again?, sorry, what's the issue now?
I was just taking issue with your argument. You were criticising Mark for making generalisations, and making generalisations yourself.
definitely the net offers the possibility of advance, but its early days yet and we could well fuck it all up.
But that's the point. Lots of people are right now making fine use of the internet. to do things they wouldn't have been able to do in the old days. Ask Fat Freddy's or Bulletproof. or Savage or Chris Knox (who certainly wasn't inclined to scream copyright infringement after 'It's Love' got the YouTube karaoke treatment).
email is a perfect example. spam and faulty spam filters are clogging in boxes and deleting legitimate mail. not perfection yet.
But is it so broke that it's not a wonderfully useful tool? No ...
it can't all be gold but you seem to doubt me sincerity in attempting to be earnest and honest. you're wrong.
I know it seems like I snap at you, but I am responsible for the site, and I could just see that one ending up in yet another irrelevant scrap. Questioning Mark's word when what he said was clear and evident was unhelpful and pointless. And unfair to Mark.