Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think the crux of the resistance is guilty upon suspicion with no discussion at all.
As I said, I'm not the isp. maybe its find the 40 gig user, check out the usage, get some proof (continued visits to bit torrent sites, regular downloads of files named the dark night.torrent, 24 hr bit torrent connection, rapid share visits etc).
That's fair cause for suspicion and then given the opportunity to refute etc. -
How do the ISP's make that sort of decision?
If I was an isp (and I'm not) and I was trying to track high user pirates. I'd start with the 40 gig plus a month for consecutive months users.
There is some good free to share video stuff out there but not 40 gig plus a month for consecutive months. you have to tap into the mainstream sources to keep that up.
hopefully if they do go through with measures they will give people a chance to respond. if your answer is you downloaded 40 gig of movies from free sites (giving links) then one would hope that would count for something. if you couldn't explain the usage then maybe that gets you to your second warning.if you were designing the system how would you run it?
-
notes for mr pilcher
in future when referring to artists opposing 92a please make it completely clear that said artists are opposed to prosecution on grounds suspicion which goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" thing we seem to have for the rest of society,
It is not necessarily that they are against efforts to stem piracy of their material but specifically this bill as it stands breaks fair play.
its an important distinction.also note that it is not just about music piracy, there is a great deal of traffic in the movie biz.
I doubt 92a will catch much music piracy (how are they going to see a 4 meg song or a 80 meg album) but it could easily nab movie piracy with their 700 -1400 meg files and hd 5gig files. -
wouldn't be under threat until about 2030
unless the posse got together and 'changed' copyright in a backwards direction. then it would be an issue, and then nz would have to consider who they want to hurt by turning the rights back, not that it would probably be nz's call, as we would follow international precedents, just like we always do
-
We are simply protecting the interests of New Zealand artists and musicians"
that should be artists and musicians. apparently arpa don't specifically act in the interest of australiasian members ( a response they gave when recently queried on the topic recently).
other than that your analogy matches awkwardly (targeting suspected users before proving misuse, specific references to david byrne tracks perhaps) but I like the general gist of it, you should see if you can fabricate a real story along those lines. I think many people might actually buy it. -
I just copied the list off your page as an example.
true majors cherry pick the earners,
The point I''m trying to make is that 99% of known income doesn't equate to 99% of copyrightable material and in new zealand's case the ratios are very much in the other direction, mainly because new zealand's musical output isn't that profitable on a global scale and hence not that appealing to fund.so being anti copyright extension from an nz perspective based on what major labels own and profit from isn't quite the stand against corporate control that it would be in other countries.
overseas you'd hurt the rights of mostly majors, here you're eroding the rights of mainly small operators and individuals.
-
pagan/antenna record artists
greg johnson
voom
darcy clay
eye tv/nixons
sam hunt
tadpole
billy tk
ted brown
waratahs
sth side of bombay
merenia
al hunter
Hallelujah Picassos
The Parker Project
Death Ray Café
Smokeshop
Rikki Morris
Tex Pistol
Holidaymakers
Rhythm Cage
This Boy Rob
Chrome Safari
Johnny Bongo and Debbie Harwood
Cheek Ta Cheek
Jim’n’Jo
Obscure Desire
Ardijah
Ray Columbus
The Rapture
Billy T James
1006Wentworth Brewster & Co
Prince Tui Teka
Scotty And Comost of his catalogue wasn't shihad/bic/pluto/straw peple
interestingly there is now a
pagan records pimping metal somewhere in europe who obviously didn't have access to the internet and google when they chose their name. -
I control the early Suburban Reptiles stuff because I paid for it and the band recorded it at dates I booked. Phonogram released it but that didn't give them ownership.
in nz, (my point of perspective) there are a lot of stories like that, quite simply because the act of getting a major to fork out for anything was kinda laughable, being tight arse disinterested bastards and all.
What about the mee mees / blams stuff, didn't you go into hock for that? I assume you booked and paid for it.Toylove's masters were sold for $1 between majors at one time or so the story goes.
-
have you got an estimated
-
Sure it's higher,
have got an estimated figure on all master tapes produced in all studios (home or otherwise) in nz and the % that are owned by major labels?
I'm going to go for 70% artist or indie owned, possibly more based on my work in archiving local music. I very rarely come across any recordings that were funded by a major.much of nz's output was own funded. I remember murray cammick and graeme brazier having a loud argument over ownership of the last wild side release of graeme's album. I think murray paid for it all himself and graeme was saying how he was going to sell his house tp buy the tapes and murray would be sorry. I don't know how much of wildside's output had external money in it. Apparently not the graeme brazier one.
And much of Pagan's output is owned by Sony & EMI now.
by owned do you mean licensed through or purchased outright, ie that sony emi have bought the masters and now have sole control over the recordings and all the filthy money they can make from them?
I know he sold bic runga's early recordings to them but there's a lot of other stuff he's run through the label, did they buy all that?The only 2 cases where I was trying to salvage masters owned by a major was the flying nun stuff and there were questions raised about whether flying nun had the right to sell the masters to anyone as they were recorded and funded by that acts at the time and no ownership had been transferred. These are early recordings from before the mid 80's
I also do a lot of work in recording studios and know that a lot of recording never sees nationwide release. The person paying the bills for the recordings is almost always the artist making them the owner of the masters and the copyright holder.
The boing boing clip referred to 99% of income being major label/major artist.
I'm saying that yes indeed 99% of known income probably does go through majors but that is not 99% of all income nore 99% of all mastertapes, The unknown incomes are predominantly independent in nature (do indies declare their sales figures to anyone other than the tax man? I know I don't, and self release bands certainly wouldn't). I also represent a catalogue of over 1500 recorded works (individual songs). none of these are controlled by a major label.It would be a doable exercise to estimate the number of NZ works controlled by majors as there is a comprehensive list of nz released recordings, can't remember the name of the book but I'm sure you've seen it.
Sure there's the peking man, exponents, dobbyn, recordings etc etc, but there's a swag load of un represented stuff too.
Those masters are also affected by copyright law and are not benefiting evil majors (or anyone else mostly as they sit in peoples garages gathering dust)
can't remember but I think you told me that you resisted attempts to buy your catalogue so that's another archive of material not owned or accountable to majors.