Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Once upon a time, copyright was for 14 years, with a renewal right of a further 14 if the author was actually still alive. That's fair. That's reasonable. I can live with something being tied up in a monopoly that's a fraction of the average human lifespan.
In practical terms, that sort of sucks for musicians (who frequently create their most popular works when they are young) more than it does for writers, who generally aren't any good until at least 30.
The big-time artists, like Metallica, get zero sympathy from me if, in 20 years' time, they've spent all the millions of dollars they currently earn.
Rock multi-millionaires aren't really the right place to calibrate your copyright stance though.
Your work is valued at the time and place it is carried out. The greater part of a creative work's earning potential may lie years after its creation. You need to be careful about arbitrarily cancelling that.
But anyway. I'm starting a copyright thread soon. C'mon over.
-
Islander, I'm curious why you think one work should pay you for life? For those of us who aren't in the creative sphere, if we want to keep earning we have to keep working, or we have to manage our money. What makes creative types so much more special than the rest of us?
And what makes your work so much more important than creative work that you should get paid and copyright creators shouldn't?
I suspect that many great novelists would happily settle for a very average weekly wage, but that's not how it works. Instead, they depend on royalties and rights fees, both of which are a function of their copyrights.
Creative people (songwriters especially) do look at their works as a retirement fund -- maybe they'll write one song that keeps getting used -- for the very good reason that most of them aren't in a position to save during their productive career.
-
I think everybody has missed the BIG question here.
But it's one that did not escape practically all of my high school students when they heard about the scholarship last week.
"How do they know that you are gay?"
Dude. Gaydar.
(But, actually, interesting point.)
-
Do they then hand out to a writer her due royalties, based on the number of tmes their work has been copied? Do they, fuck! They pick a "representative selection" of writers on their list and divvy what's left after their expenses have been taken out. They declined to make known what their criteria for selection were.
Good grief. Apra's system looks very good next to that.
Hmmm. Might have to start a blog so I can write a post on this now. :-)
No, dude. Write a killer guest post and I'll publish it here. Seriously.
-
I liked your question about why do we have copyright law
Which everyone flunked, even Cunliffe, who I thought might get it. But even he described copyright as a balance between the interests of the public and those of copyright owners.
Copyright, as the MED discussion paper that led to the current copyright law so nicely observed, is all about the public interest: it serves that interest by granting limited exclusive rights to the copyright owner (to encourage him/her to create more creative works for us to enjoy).
The nature and extent of those rights are calculated on what will maximise the public good. We do not want a society in which artists cannot prosper, and we don't want laws that inhibit the human conversation.
I find that's quite a useful perspective from which to look at how copyright law should evolve.
but you should have followed up with "what evidence do we have that it works?" ;-)
It totally works. Just don't obsess about retail.
If Heineken wants to license Chris Knox's 'It's Love' to accompany its Todd Haynes-directed TV commercial for Heineken Premium Light, it should have to pay Chris. And only Chris should be able to license that song for that purpose. Copyright protects those rights.
Geeks could do with learning more about collecting societies, which I suspect hold some clues for workable future models. Locally, Apra's readiness to be realistic about the price for blanket performance right licences and such has been a good thing.
Hmmm. Might have to write a post about this now.
-
Now that would be embarrassing to Helen Clark.
In the pantheon of far-fetched interpretations of the EFA, that's right up there, Angus. The law is an ass, but not that much of an ass.
Indeed, I cannot see a single reason that an invitation for people too young to vote to apply for a private scholarship could somehow be seen as an an attempt to persuade the public to vote for a party.
Although in the unlikely event you're right, Eric Roy's in trouble, being patron of Young Farmers and all ...
-
How much was Stalin's house worth?
Chairman Mao: his secrets to aging gracefully.
"There is nothing pretentious about the Fuhrer's little estate ..."
Except that was fo' real ...
-
I've probably gotta get out of bed earlier.
Just go here and search for Kanye:
Someone else will have it.
-
p.s., was Brash complaining about the Maori-only scholarships, or about preferential entry for Maori to the more competitive University programmes (the quota/affirmative action system common in Law & Medicine)?
Both. The Nats lined up some kid at Otago Uni to complain about his "race-based" scholarship (presumably, he was forced to apply for it by the PC police).
It turned out that his scholarship was actually from Ngai Tahu, who offered it for young people who could claim the appropriate heritage. But of course, the actual facts as such didn't have a whole lot to do with that debate ...
-
__But how do I know it's true?__
Becasue Russell just told you it was.
Are you daring to question the judgement of the queen bee of the PA hive mind?
Heh. But seriously, it's a bloody good story.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 … 2279 Older→ First