Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Islander - here's some points to consider writers based on what some other people have suggested.
you shouldn't fight the free distribution of your work but use it to promote yourself and then come up with other ideas to bring in money.
1 - why don't you get out on the road doing live performances of your books.
2 - merchandise - T shirts, and souvenir teaspoons. a very lucrative market to sell while doing your 'gig's.3 - Don't be seen to object to people taking your stuff for free or protecting any income streams that you may already have set up. this will be painted as you attacking your audience. Why would you go out of your way to inconvenience people who are you fans and show it by grabbing your works however they can?. (free off the internet being the easiest and cheapest). Apparently it progress when its at your expense, don't fight it.
4 - remember that because you create this stuff you owe society because you've unintentionally made something that it sees as culture, and culture doesn't belong to you. Be grateful for having the privileged of contributing and show that gratitude by keeping your mouth shut if you object to a low standard of living. No one likes a whiner.
There were a few other pointers but those are the basics for you. Hope that helps. ;)
-
Based on Rob's link the US should be cutting it's trading ties with China any day now
sorry I should have provided a link IFPI
won't they have to extensively argue over a code of practice and whether intellectual property is property at all, and then set up a special new court to deal with it all first?
you make it sound so simple. -
curses for making me read big business site Giovanni but from IFPI's site
Music Community Calls for Swift Action To Enhance Global IP Protection As Part of Special 301 Process
Under Special 301, USTR is required to identify countries that fail to provide adequate and effective protection for U.S. intellectual property and to take appropriate actions, including the possible imposition of trade sanctions and the loss of certain trading privileges.
that's pretty heavy.
if the nz govt doesn't stop russell downloading episodes of the flight of the Conchords America's going to break off trade with us. -
one is possible if not very probable
probable? you used the word probable on that one?
I hate gambling but I've got $100 that says no one is going to get their internet cut off for accessing you tube videos in the first year if ever.
and the reason I say that is cos there's a clear currently used path open to content owners to approach youtube to remove owned content.
do you want to reconsider the word probable?
"distantly, vaguely, outside chance just to take rob's $100" is a far more apt description don't you think, and if that's the case then there is a definite quotient of scare factor in making a statement that says it is a real possibility.
what are you thoughts on arthur simon? do you know him? -
No, rob, that's a possibility, under the law
with a high degree of scare factor involved was my meaning.
its so incredibly unlikely as to be laughable and should never have been raised as an argument for the anti 92a case. you're not seriously telling me you believe it will happen. I'll put $100 on that if you're up for it.The other two are sheer fantasy
to be accurate, alleged sheer fantasy. you have no studies to say that 80% (or what ever number pulled out of thin air) of music on the internet is legal I take it.
I personally dont know what the figure is, and neither do you, but your point has merit, Arthur most likely does not either.
I'd hardly get excited about anything he says just now as I mentioned above. -
What about Arthur Baystings' "80% of music on the Internet is illegal"? I mean, do they actually listen to what they're saying?
I was disappointed with what Arthur had to say at a recent Apra discussion. He didn't appear to be well versed in the facts on many issues, disturbingly so. But the same could be said with some people arguing against 92a, like the guy who thought he was going to be cut off for downloading his mates song from myspace.
don't take Arthur as the standard for arpa's position. I certainly don't
-
Is a nonsense line that means absolutely nothing beyond the scare factor which doesn't take too kindly to any scrutiny
Like "you're going to have you're internet cut off for watching you tube videos"?
-
But what's you personal stance
I've stated my personal stance at length.
But I'm not trying to be a high level spokesperson on this and I'm not trying to stir up a movement of people to fight against a law that doesn't even have a finished code of practice yet.and for someone who accused me of being obtuse and avoiding answering direct questions I notice you answered none of mine.
here's one again
what do you think is going to happen next week. paint us a picture of how you see next week going down, or the week after that
I want to hear this from the perspective of someone who on Radio New Zealand fanned hysteria by saying it was quite possible you could be disconnected for watching a video on youtube.
A reasonable person might imagine that the content owners would approach youtube with a take down notice but you suggested to the eager panicked ear that the media owner would much rather pursue each individual viewer using 92a to get that viewer cut off for accidentally watching said youtube video. Is that cos they've got nothing better to do with their time?
Do you not see the ridiculousness in that line of thinking and the irresponsible nature of saying something like that to an audience of people who mostly don't know any different from what you might tell them? That's just plain stirring,So I want to hear what you really think, in your calm and collected mind, is going to play out in the next few weeks when this law is active but with no code of practice, and if you really truly believe that people like ant healey or cam at rianz are going to push for actions that are going to harm innocent people?
Should I really have to write to every band I think might be good?
it would be the polite thing to do, but my point was you know these people, and your flipancy regarding this sets a bad example to a reading audience that thinks if Russell does it then its ok.
You're treading treacherous water if you want to be a media spokes person with a foot in both camps, as you say you are.
You appear to me to not have any real part of your body in the camp of the people like the terminals who are actually quite upset that people are taking their music for free when they are trying their best to get it made and out there. (yes I have spoken to them on exactly this issue regarding another download site that had their complete catalogue available)I'm not sure that makes me the bad guy.
no it makes you someone in a position of media power who is sending out mixed messages.
Gotcha isn't really an argument.
and dismissing my points as a gotcha doesn't make em any less valid.
The DVD you pointed to is Region 1
Not true. I gave a uk link as well which at the time took you to the correct page. in the original post its now a dead link.
My point was your flippant attitude to it once again as a media figure encourages similar behaviour in others. I don't know why you think this doesn't matter.you fan the flames of the situation in your public position and then cry fowl when media creators try to take measures to protect themselves. what do you expect to happen?
-
I'd have had time to lead Chris to a logical conclusion.
you flounder a few times and I only hope this is because you were concentrating on driving safely while using your mobile phone and you better have been using hands free.
But essentially Chris lead you to a logical conclusion in the end, rather than you him, and you were talking over him as much as him you.
He also got you to say you don't have a problem with the concept downloading is illegal. you clearly answered no you don't.
yet we have you giving people directions on how to download
copyright material that is easily available from web stores.you said you don't file-share box-office movies or music then say you downloaded an NZ band specifically The Terminals album and from people you could easily contact if you needed to.
if you're going to be a spokesman for media issues you're going to have to get your story straight.So why would you enact the law next week?
what do you think that really means?
nothings going to happen till the code is up and running so essentially it a law in waiting, its completely ineffective so what's the point in getting offended by it. Chris is right. its completely based on what the code of practice is.
what do you think is going to happen next week. paint us a picture of how you see next week going down, or the week after that.
Do you think they're going to start handing out notices? how's that going to happen when they haven't even figured out at isp level how to manage this. its going to be a long time till anything gets up and running. A big non event. -
I'm not doubting his ability as a lawyer, or his historic role in the NZ music industry. That's what makes the disclosure thing all the more puzzling to me.
wasn't the context of the discussion that it was on bfm where Chris is a regular host as lawyer and it is well known who he is and his interests.
listened to as a link off PA it's out of context but in the environment it was broadcast .... he's known as much as people know who havoc is.