Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
People have professional and institutional roles to play, and Campbell plays his.
it was also years ago apparently and things have changed, not just his official position but the degree of file sharing going on. its now very common place,
-
And it's no secret up here in Auckland that both RIANZ and APRA feel they've blown it over the current issue.
They've blown it or its gone against them yet again?
I've spoken to to Ant and he was pissed off that people want to twist his position into some evil corporation hurting the little guy who just wants to listen to music kinda thing. They've got to do something and the honesty box model just isn't working.how could they have done it differently?
its the lars urlich predicament, its all pr and smilie faces while trying to get people to respect your rights. an almost impossible situation to navigate and it doesn't help that media like to paint it in an evil way. -
the ball game hasn't changed one little bit.
I usually don't respond to .....actually I have no problem responding to you.
That wasn't the ball game I was referring to.
I was meaning it might be ok to say several years ago that you "didn't have much of a problem with file-sharing, which was "the only marketing we've got in most territories" cos in the last few years the game has multiplied exponentially.5 -10 years ago you might not have seen filesharing as a threat given the relative lack of broadband and hesitance of people to go on full on downloading binges. You might have seen it giving you some publicity in markets you couldn't at that time touch etc etc.
Now its how lots of people acquire all their music, and you get next to no sales in those markets. ie the ball game has changed.I think it shows good faith that rianz and apra have both acknowledge flaws in the system and have agreed to work toward changes to fix them.
and speaking of good faith where people have said the music industry have showed none is that as far as I know no one ever got charged with home taping or format shifting even though it was technically against the law up until recently. that's got to coun for something don't it.
-
Maybe he believes that people only remember the last press release.
maybe they're in the process of developing a suitable strategy that takes into account legitimate concerns raised.
He made an effort to mention the third party thing in his Q&A. that's new. Things change fast so there's no point in quoting what he said in 2004. its a different ball game now. -
So, don't go holdin Smith out as some saint, 'cos he aint.
ha, perhaps you should pick better examples of his devilness next time, you picked an easily disputed one in the "burgers".
your other examples of makes shit up are opinion and conjecture until you ask him what studies he's referring to. If he replies none I just made it up then you are correct, if he replies these studies here, then you're making shit up. how bout I give you his email address and you ask him this time.
what people say they do and what they actually do are very different things.
so failing the arrival of time travel technology how do you propose they find out what people do actually do, without putting it into place. I would say its fair to build a case on what they say they would do first in the absence of actual post effect studies.
seems entirely reasonable.I would personally rather some other country tried it all out first while we watched and learned., but then we could just do our bit too.
-
quote>and the whole Q&A was posted and published on Lovemusic.co.nz without permission.</quote>
Which raises a swag of copyright issues and contradictions in itself.Does Campbell have the right to publish his own writing?
The questions were directed and given to him, What are his rights?Did RIANZ breach print rights in their effort to explain music rights? (oh the irony)
Did geekzone use copyright law to get RIANZ to remove their page, interesting in that that would come from a core base arguing to restrict movement to enforce copyright judging by the gist of many of the questions.
-
If Bic Runga isn't 'major' and 'high-profile' then who is?
The point is creative freedom and others have been attacking Campbell and RIANZ on the grounds that Campbell makes stuff up and sited the example of him saying bic runga had to take a job flipping burgers.
so far the public record shows no such thing so rather than discount everything Campbell says re copyright infringement and the plight of artists based on this dubious twisting of words we could perhaps see serious consideration of his comments, in particular his Q&A with geekzone readers where he pleaded a fairly reasonable case for copyright holders. He did make one mis step but addressed a lot of commonly mis represented points demonstrated a willingness to work to make a fair system and that he had been listening to concerns and taken them on board. An acknowledgment of that would be a pleasant change.
-
That they know when to let it go.
come on man, can't I enjoy the moment :)
its not as amusing as when mark told islander to get a real job but it's still has its merits -
so are you saying everyone is a zax.
what makes someone not a zax for you? -
Matthew Holloway did the right thing and withdrew what he's said about "flipping burgers".
hardly, he still insists on twisting the whole thing around to be an example of Campbell being full of shit.
This type of exaggeration happens regularly. In 2007 the head of RIANZ Campbell Smith allegedly told a Parliamentary Commerce Select Committee that Bic Runga had to take a second job or as Bic Runga called it '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" (incidentally, Campbell Smith is married to Bic's sister, Boh Runga).
He also left out the key line
Thanks for your concern, but most musicians are just happy to be musicians.
not thanks campbell for your concern but thank you people who mis interpreted campbell's statement and fueled the hysteria.
She didn't mention campbell and people are stretching if they think Bic who is managed by Campbell would talk to him through her myspace page.
Trying to turn her comment into some sort of criticism of her manager is just wishful thinking.Holloway still comes off as the one who is prone to exaggeration and tarnishes his endeavor and those who are associated with it by playing these kind of tactics. Holloway should drop the whole trying to discredit Campbell thing and stick to the valid points he can prove. a good one is the no fines for mis accusation comment. Leave the smear campaign alone.
Campbell was mixing one role (RIANZ CEO and submitter) with another (artist manager).
I would read that more as he was relating personal experience and expertise to back up the submission that unchecked downloading is hurting his artists. Trying to read in some sort of malicious lying theme to defraud the committee is just off.
She hadn't asked to be involved in the issue at all, and I didn't envy her.
trying to distance her from the views of her manager based on what? once again we don't have her saying "I don't want to be involved in this issue", we have her saying the uproar seemed silly. ie "some fuss", and ended with "thank you for your concern".
A very oblique reading of a pretty straightforward statement that doesn't attack Campbell's credibility but still people try to use it in an attempt to do so.
we could ring her up and ask her actual view I suppose. Shall I do it?