Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Glad to see you're still on this page, Mark. 'Cos it'd be a real shame if the new cornerstone of copyright were unveilled on some thread devoted to the dratted dingy casino ;-)
-
It's called "stealing" because conversations like this are not deviod of political power - and those are the terms being pushed by resourceful copyright owners.
There's some truth in that- it's a war of words.
But I think you disrespect common talk if you attribute it all to propaganda. And perhaps under-estimate how bit-torrenting, say, every song the Beatles ever recorded, violates a common sense of "natural justice". -
Even flat fixed term or lifetime plus is small chop when the reality is "everything is free now".
I'd be interested in hearing how you'd re-shape the basic concept. Not heard a good positive idea on this for a looong while. Don't sweat it, but we expect a little more than "everything is free now...!" :-) -
If at any time up till last November I had copied songs from a CD I'd bought to my iPod, I too would have been committing "theft" . I didn't have the right to copy it.
Exactly. Legally it was "copyright infringement". But pretty-much noone would call it theft, 'cos pretty much noone thought it was reprehensible.
I 'spect the reason "theft" (or the rather more grandiose "piracy") is commonly used for illegally downloading music and films is because it's fairly consensual that this IS a dodgy way to acquire stuff. -
And, Mark- in your above argument with Kyle, you just might be conflating "value" with "price". In some contexts that works. In others, not so much.
-
Mark, I suspect Giovanni was making a point about language, not the law. The law only defines langauge in a legal context: outside that, words are defined by common usage.
The battle is far from over, but as far as using the term for illegal digital copying "stealing" is doing ok in the court of "common talk".
Understand your reasoning in wanting such a distinction made evident in language (though not in full agreement), but as a die-hard realist, you'll be well aware wantin' ain't gettin'. ;-) -
And, sorry Sacha... for mis-spelling and any implication you personally were reacting hysterically.
-
FWIW, telstra clear's objections to the code- (via Mark ;-) seem compelling enough. The legislation itself needed to be a lot better. In retrospect Tizard- and much of the Labour cabinet- do seem to have been operating on auto-pilot for the last few years.
We'll see whether Mr Findlayson can have a better crack at it.
What's interesting to me is that despite all the arguing here, we are mostly in broad agreement that copyright is a good concept- on a lifetime plus X years basis. (We can argue about X - and other issues like fair use- til the cows come home, but they don't matter so much if that basic right is upheld).
We can't expect any sort of market to work- or produce "fair value"- when the competition is free. As Smith points out, it makes investing in paid-for music distribution much less unattractive. So there's no "market" solution to this problem (unless it's a solution to simply to dissolve the market for any work that can in essence be made digital.)
I don't think technology on its own can be the solution: any technological solution will be evaded with other technology.
Yet we have the political will, and it would appear (at least as stated here by most posters!) the concensus social postion, in favour of copyright holders. Adding some technology to legal and social sanctions- it should be a slam-dunk....
And yet.
Free and freely available is devilish attractive, and technology of copying so fast and ubiquitous.... -
We do and should demand proof in all areas, including accusation of copyright infringement, why is it offensive to ask for it here?
Dead right. I read the article and bic's post with increasing disbelief. Not only did Smith never say Bic had been forced to take a job flipping burgers, he didn't say she'd been forced to take another job at all, or that anyone had been forced to take a job flipping burgers.
He DID say 8 out of 11 of the artists he represented had had to take on some other employment. I'd bet a fair sum on that being the truth. It seems totally unremarkable. He also attributed this to piracy- and not some of them being- well, perhaps past peak popularity. That's debatable, but I doubt any of us can be certain one way or the other.
In the post where SHE mentions having once "flipped burgers", Bic also doesn't come across as being especially unhappy. Talk about "just making it up"!
If there are other sources, well, I'd want to know it wasn't just some smart-arse quip- and that Bic really was "unhappy"- before condeming the man.
I thought Smith's responses were pretty well thought-out. He states he's confident RIANZ allegations would be based on fairly solid evidence-rightholders would approach ISPs with the details and evidence of infringements (to a specific standard required under the code), including the title and the file name(s) of the infringed copyright work(s) in question, the exact timestamp and the time zone of the infringement, the protocol used, as well as the IP address that was used to distribute music onto the internet for millions of people to download. The ISP would then send a warning and education letter to their user. The user, of course, has a chance to respond if they believe there has been a mistake.
It may be flawed, but I'd be willing to trial such a system, and see how it went, before condemning it out of hand in a fit of hysterical panic. It IS importantly different from the RIAA- as Smith repeatedly states, starting with a couple of warnings, and moving on to a disconnect, involves a fair bit of mass (re)-education: quite different from random "show-trial" lawsuits "pour encourager les autres". Findlayson? You are reading this?!
And Sasha- he's not talking about going outside or around the law at all. Smith indicated they WOULD have to use court proceedings against some persistant "infringers"- and from what he's said (that the initial evidence would be good enough to stand up in court) it could be expected THE SAME evidence would be used there, too. Sounds robust enough to me- and not "the end of the internet as we know it" ahem.
If he'd said "alleged infringers" or "prima facie infringers"- would that make it ok? The truth is, these "infringers" are not such rare beasts- bet I could find twenty without leaving the building I'm now in! And that is precisely the problem. -
Ooops- wrong URL entirely, ho hum, how circularly endless. Here: Cellphone novels