Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I kind've like the conceit:
...if they wish to “Go Quantum” by using a randomization function on their DVD player, the film restructures itself every time it’s viewed so it’s never the same film twice
There are a few classic films this would work wonders for ;-)
-
Guys, it was an April 1 joke by the EFF, mmkay?
Not that I disagree, Kyle, you understand...'Cos villainising those fat greedy lazy starving authors is just soooo funny, eh?
-
Thanks Lyndon- this is interesting:
David Blackburn, a Harvard PhD candidate in economics, published a paper in 2004 in which he calculated that, for music, “piracy” results in a net increase in sales for all titles in the 75th percentile and lower; negligible change in sales for the “middle class” of titles between the 75th percentile and the 97th percentile; and a small drag on the “super-rich” in the 97th percentile and higher. Publisher Tim O’Reilly describes this as “piracy’s progressive taxation,” apportioning a small wealth-redistribution to the vast majority of works, no net change to the middle, and a small cost on the richest few
Has it been confirmed? It seems to fall very conveniently into wishful thinking territory- anyone found this study?
Forever Minus a Day? Some Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright (warning! pdf and gets way too wonky for me) looks interesting, too. (Apologies if it's been posted before) Very short version- 15 years... -
Renderers and Terminals stuff is up there. Lots of Roy Montgomery. I'd be astonished if any of them were getting big fat pay-cheques. But it does mean the music is out there, and it's certainly better than nothing.
Emusic gets several things right. First up, if you're competing with free- and if you're in Mark's paradigm of abundance rather than scarcity- you need to sell cheap. The emusic account I had was US$9.99 a month for 30 tracks, which really is very cheap. But no stock or retail rental...
Other pluses: a pretty good interface, stuff is easy to find (mostly)and like amazon et al, it lets you browse around other people's preferences- who perhaps like a few of the same things. There are user generated reviews, as well as "staff picks".
There's also a very wide range of music available.
I quit my subscription for a range of reasons: 30 songs a month was too much new music; I didn't have time to research enough stuff I loved; there's no back catalogue of majors to just dip into as well to use up those downloads; some key things I wanted- kiwi stuff- was available everywhere else, but not in NZ; the credit card company was probably making more than the bands... and emusic so often offer freebiue sign-up deals that it's probably even cheaper to opt out every few months, and take up again with extras!
If they had some major's catalogue, it'd be huge. If you know your independent music, it's a treasure trove. It's a great way to earn an honest buck. But it doesn't feel to me like anyone is getting rich. -
Giovanni: Fabianism.
The "anti-revolutionary branch." (Probably a bunch of Marxists hiding behind some fancy footwork. But Trotskywrote that "throughout the whole history of the British Labour movement there has been pressure by the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat through the agency of radicals, intellectuals, drawing-room and church socialists and Owenites who reject the class struggle and advocate the principle of social solidarity, preach collaboration with the bourgeoisie, bridle, enfeeble and politically debase the proletariat.”
;-)
-
Could be an entertaining trainwreck.
maybe they're still enjoying fucking with Steve Jobs
Especially as they still have Apple Records. A re-run of the 70s Apple Corps fiasco in fast-motion, with Jobs fuming on the sideline, would sell newspapers- and make a great doco- if nothing else.
Paul is still the original Apple Mac... -
Don, had you continued you might have felt a little less irritated (and seen past your own blinkers?)
eg:... APRA has long recognized the need for members to have flexibility and choice when it comes to the licensing of their works. To that end, we have ... offered members the choice of flexible licence-back and opt-out arrangements that enable members to self-licence certain works if that better suits their needs.
In particular members can licence the use of their own works on their websites.... Some online music services are building business models around the use of CC licences, ensuring that songwriters get to benefit from the value they create for these services.
APRA has been in discussion with CC Australia .... looking at ways APRA members can use CC licences to self-license the use of their work for non-commercial purposes, while retaining the advantage of their APRA membership to license, monitor and collect royalties for the commercial use of their works. Stay tuned for updates. -
Snap!
Oddly enough I look at Bollard with more respect: he may look like a beagle crossed with a merchant banker, but he's handy with a shootin' iron.
I know he'll be tied up in dull meetings with this financial fuss, but let's hope he's still taking time out for some ass-whup serious drinking. Anyone who can get out of that Canberra hotel imbroglio should be able to skin a recession, tan it and sell the boots, quicker than a banker can write off a billion. -
Well if
A compulsory levy or tax is like the dole
this
The fans want to reward you, because they like what you do and want you to keep doing it. The RtB doesn't have to be physical - it can be a heartfelt plea that makes your fans want to help.
is somewhere between busking with a hat and simple begging. (And are they so far apart? Beckett somewhere had a snide line about getting "arrested for begging while not in possession of a musical instrument") Charity isn't the best foot to start off on if we're to build a brave new world ;-0
Interesting ethical question, Mark: you insist that copyright infringement is in a different ethical catagory to theft, yeah? Yet personally you won't have a bar of it.
Can you put your finger on what it is about this "not-theft" that is so clearly unethical you won't do it? Is it simply that it's not fair? I can kind've see that, yet since you've so vehemently taken the line: "the world ain't fair- get over it" I'm struggling a bit.
I hope this isn't idle or too personal. If we were to change copyright-put it on a new, solid real-world foundation ;-) it needs to rest on a broadly consensual ethical base.
Fairness is a good place to start; maybe after another 50 pages we'll have some idea how far apart our ideas of fairness are... -
Do you take it?
Can't speak for Giovanni, but I'd probably take it. I feel pretty squirmy at times, but ethically I'm no Mark Harris on this issue: have done, will do, probably until the law or me ISP stops me.
I can rationalise it til the cows come home, but getting one's hands on as much culture as one can ingest is intoxicating and would be hard to give up.
In that sense I don't think it's entirely an ethical battle. Law and practicality have a big part to play: if it were a lot harder, or there was a serious chance of sanctions- I'd probably change my behaviour.
The critical question is whether such programmes will continue to be made if there's no way to recoup their costs- and if so, how, and by whom?
The BBC is a great model in many ways- I'd be very happy to see a big dollop of that return to NZ broadcasting. But do we want ALL our (professionally produced) culture paid for via taxes? No so appealing.
I find the "CwF" + "RtB" formula (connect with fans/reason to buy) very unconvincing. It disconnects the value of the product (lets say music) with what is actually being sold (some variant of tee-shirts!?) It's pushing the (old way of thinking, Mark?) notion that you CAN compete with free.
But is there an alternative that's not some variety of compulsary levy or tax?