Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Fucking bullshit he is, Rob. Just stop it.
fucking is not russell....... stop it yourself.
how do you know who I was talking about if its so completely bullshit. I didn't mention his name and you say there are atleast three lawyers in the chat.that's my reading of the vibe of that thread, it's called an opinion.
how about a little mutual respect as you agreed offline or do you want to push it in the other direction again. I certainly don't.
Graeme by my reading on other matters seems a very thorough and thoughtful man, I like what I've read of what he's said regarding other things. not merely someone who "sees things his way" which I think grossly under represents him.
But that's just my opinion based on reading his comments here. I don't know the guy outside of that. -
but their objection to judging by exception seems to vanish when looking at Booker Prize -winning novelists
er, no, I don't factor that into my thinking. my argument has been predominantly based on non "rockstars". I've mentioned that point many times to contradict the likes of jon's unfortunate comment early this day.
My perspective is very much the non exception, the community level artist if you will. I have a lot of respect for Keri purely because she talks in here with knowledge and experience, not because of her book. -
interestingly on the other thread of hysteria the resident known lawyer is getting flak for not getting too worried about 92a. how dare he use his knowledge of the law to remain calm.
-
Else share and be happy that others find value in your creative outputs, build your following and I'm sure more than a living would follow through many opportunities...if you're good. (is this the Dubber approach?)
- oh you're sure more than a living will follow are you jon?, that's a nice sentiment if nothing else.
I don't know what you do for a living jon but it seems unlikely that you're living the life you preach. No offense meant but there's an awful lot of "I'm sure's" going on here and really no one has any reason to be sure of anything.
I like your lateral thinking and jovial contributions on other days but you're well off your game today.as for dubber he's a lecturer in radio for birmingham university, ie an academic ex of nz's broadcasting school, might have even been a lowly musician once but never achieved much success wise if he was. he ran a jazz label in nz, which probably didn't make him squat and he's now telling everyone else how to run their careers without actually having anything at stake himself. I've talked to dubber and am good friends with one of his work colleagues who regularly eggs me on to give him shit.
Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. I'm still waiting to see those actions and will gladly embrace them if he makes them successful. -
Do you hear that Patents & Trademarks, you have now been judged as corruption? Shame on both of you.
As if!
see above reply to mark.
I've tried to be quite specific to my area of knowledge, ie regarding the master, the recorded work.
not patents which apply to an idea, or trademarks likewise. my issues deal with the recorded work.now how bout a response to my query about your stance on protection money. should we now start charging wheelchair bound citizens "protection money" for their ramps and lifts?
explain to me how this works across many other protections offered in a fair and civilised society. you seem to be talking about a strict capitalist society which is a different ball game altogether, although we seem to be moving towards that model too. shal we do away completely with free health care too and make people pay for that, shall we make laws only enforced for those who want to pay for them to be enforced, is that a good way to steer our civilisation? -
Nope
- then you're deluding yourself, your response to the whole saga speaks volumes. no apology,no " I didn't know who I was speaking to" or anything, shear bloodymindedness, that's quite deafening in its volume. I'm not saying its bad, I'm just noting it.
nope
- that's better then, but we're still not going to let you forget it
and nope,
- really? every single thing you've said, and you've said a lot. some of it even contradicts itself, perhaps you should have said maybe for that last one, keep a sense of mystery going.
-
Yes, he was playing devil's advocate, and it hasn't been the overall thrust of his argument at all as I've understood it.
Then you haven't understood it, sorry. Rob has argued that copyright means property and that intellectual property is the same as physical property, and I didn't think he was playing devil's advocate when he wrote that.
that would be for me to say whether giovanni has understood my argument and in this case he's quite correct, that is only one of many points I've raised, by no means the central thread of it.
I've been trying to argue that forms of intellectual property, not all intellectual property (or simply the "thought" only) have properties similar to physical property and should be treated likewise.
Things like photographs or films that someone has created, or a recorded work readily identifiable as that person, these are the things I see as property. yes they are copyable but the value and ownership is not in the copy. they are the recorded work, the master if you will and quite separate from the idea behind the film or song, ie the composition or script.
if I was in soft cell and you tried to sell me a copy of my version of tainted love with my voice on it and my crappy synths etc. That's just plain wrong, you have no right to do that.
its different if you're trying to sell me marilyn manson's version, cos its a different recorded work and I can tell by listening to it its not mine.I'm trying not to confuse the recorded work line of thinking with copyright of ideas (the composition, the script, the photo of obama that lead to the drawing) cos I see them as different and in need of a different approach. I'm not forwarding a view on that really, and to pull in rules and ideas dealing with that to apply to this new kind of 'physicality' just confuses and clouds the matter.
I think you have valid thoughts on this but they don't necessarily apply across the board. -
"Says more about thee than me"
you've got to admit though mark, it says a lot about you.
in your defense you didn't know who you were talking to at the time (you didn't did you?)
and I think there's a degree of devils advocate in your discussion too, I hope, -
Er, wow. Just, wow.
/me picks up my bags and walks away.
if you don't like that image and can't see the similarities just for the sake of argument that's up to you but the situation with technology and enforceable copyright has many.
is something a crime because it is not policed and enforced?
of course it is.
distributing copyright material is against the law, we know that, it is impossible to stop under current conditions, this is also true,communities banding together to distribute copyright material is no more a socially acceptable and admirable action than street gangs banding together in force to break to loot and unguarded store, or strip a car or any one of a number of other laws. I don't know why you'd think it is.
I did ask a specific question to you don also and would be keen for a direct answer on it, ignore anything else if you wish, thats up to you.here it is again.
but just to be clear are you arguing for full rights to copy and share as one sees fit of any content? maybe we're arguing at cross purposes?
is your objection purely on how it is policed? -
sorry, I missed out an important word in the above post
it makes me wonder if the point is to make a fair system for legitimate users or maintain the free - for - all media infringement conditions we have now.