Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Technically, artists who have their stuff pirated are victims of, shall we say, non-legality.
No, say "illegal" - that's what it is.I'll say what I like, thanks.
While copyright infringement is illegal, it is not a crime, mmkay?
Did I say it was? Sheesh . Too busy now to compose a cogent reply, I'm afraid. I'm out. Have a good weekend.
-
What I'm saying is that "it's going to happen - deal with it".
That's a cop out. Technically, artists who have their stuff pirated are victims of, shall we say, non-legality. Do you say that all crime victims should just "adapt or die" (rather than seek redress via the legal system?) If not, then why the difference?
[I want you to be right; that's why I'm testing.]
-
I have no idea what you mean by that and struggle to see how you got it out of anything I said.
Well, bear with me.
You say that no one owes artists a living. Ie, no one is obligated to buy art.
Whilst that is true, what you're advocating is not paying for art, but taking it anyway. That is not the same thing at all. Surely, if you decide to accept a product, then you are obligated to pay for it.
-
Mark,
I'm still having something of a problem with your "no one owes 'em a living" take on things. There's a hell of difference between "not giving someone a job" and "giving them a job but not paying them", isn't there?FWIW, I'm generally supportive of your position, I just don't know that that justification holds water.
That clear? ;)
-
why now?
Apparently, it was all Garth George's idea.
18 months before the last election, I predicted a comprehensive National win and suggested that one of the things a strong National-led Government could do is restore titles to those whom we honour twice a year.
A month or so later, when I met him for the first time, Prime Minister-to-be John Key told me he rather favoured the idea and might just do something about it.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong (as though y'all need the invitation ;)) but isn't mandatory pasteurisation the reason that NZ's cheeses aren't proper?
-
does it say that in that article? [...] unless it says "bic runga flips burgers for a living" says campbell smith then he didn't say it did he?
Does not follow.
See here:
In 2007 the head of RIANZ Campbell Smith allegedly told a Parliamentary Commerce Select Committee that Bic Runga had to take a second job flipping burgers due to illegal downloads. Bic Runga responded denying the claims "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"
My thoughts at the time were that considering Bic has had CD sales of at least 21x platinum, it would say a lot more about Smith himself, than about downloaders, if it were true (which, apparantly, it wasn't.)
-
The retail on a single LP in 1980 was $11.50 which jumped about 50c every six months. By 1985 it was $15.99 and it jumped a $1.50 in one bump early in 1986 which caused a huge fuss at the time.
Well, I'll defer to you on that one. I imagine my memory is failing me regarding the figures, rather than them losing money on every copy.
-
What always struck me as dubious about CD prices was that the retail difference between CDs and cassettes ($10, give or take) was surely greater than the entire manufacturing cost of the cassette, which would seem to indicate a level of gouging. I accept that at the start CDs had a certain new-technology premium, but the difference remained long after that would've been a viable explanation.
BTW, in 1986/7 LPs were (at the Music Studio, where I shopped at the time) $7.99 or $11.99 for doubles.
-
Damn you, Gareth!
;)