Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
From where I sit, Gray's definition of "excellence" seems to focus on profitability and therefore seems a bit binary.
completely agree.
for someone who just spouted his load about acknowledging the past he goes on to ignore it. 'Acknowledged excellence' has often been the little known underdog and not profitable, and what was profitable has in contrast often been a sad sad pile of steaming. Just cos it sells well to the masses doesn't mean its high on 'excellence'. -
in today's press
thousands of nz artists have signed a petition protesting against new legislation to battle illegal downloading.
That's a very misleading opening statement and misrepresenting the actual intent of many of those artists.
they signed a petition to protest the guilty without proof part of that as stated later by their representative artist guy. -
without lazy key typos
what do you reckon the figure is for nz, a country where majors stayed away from a large portion of the local output?
-
that 90% figure is easily an under estimate.
what o you reckon the figure is for nz, a country where majors tayed away from a large portion of the local output.
Also noting in the flying nun case where a major acquired the label, early recordings were not done on contract with the indie label so ownership of the label doesn't necessarily mean a major owns all the catalogue at all.
other labels to consider are the pagan catalogue (not sure if trevor owns this or not) propeller, that catalogue you linked to the other day where I'm pretty sure the entire catalogue is independently owned an managed, wildside, and various smaller label operators like salmonella dub who own all their stuff, FFD, who do likewise etc.
many if not most local recordings were funded independently so that means he who pays owns,if you take local content as every recording made in nz regardless of how unheard or crap that recoding is, how much of that ownership would remain with the artists or their indie labels?
-
How copyright extension in sound recordings actually works:
its very black and white.
what about artists who control their own works?
They don't take that into account when building a case against copyright extension based on evil record labels getting 90%Why don't they say reject extensions to record label owned property, or why no be more specific, oppose extensions to major record labels.
in an effort to build a case to hurt the big boys they're putting forward a case that will hurt the small players too, the one's they're saying they're acting in the interests of.
I'd like to see a figure that says how much media is independently owned too. they say 99% of income will go to major label and major artist stuff. 90% of my music collection which is pretty huge is indie artists and labels. all my friends and associates have similar collections.is all very well to attack industry dodgy stats but pulling in your own doesn't make the case any stronger.
-
Nice approach, Rob.
yeah it was all a ploy to drive traffic to the site an simon was in on it all along. :)
glad you like david's stuff though. he's one gifted lad. and prolific. -
You're very gracious Simon, but you were clearly pretty pissed off
I understand your perspective russell but simon spoke for himself and you can take him at his word regarding what he just said.
he said he was not in the slightest offended and he's said it before.
he reacted in my defense a couple of times in the other thread and
I've had contact outside of list with him and he's voiced his coolness there too.
My aim is not to offend someone I respect, but I was trying to get a point across and I didn't achieve it. Simon and I were at cross purposes and he's way better at expressing his views than I am.It works here because we all respect each other's knowledge and experience, and that wasn't being done.
that's not true regarding my respect of simon.
And its not true regarding how many people on here react to others in threads other than copyright.
predominantly it is civilised but there are lots and lots of examples of people pushing their views on others, as you'd expect when you get a bunch of well read opinionated people in one space.I've sent you an email on the topic in private and I hope you will take it in the spirit intended.
as for sacha's baiting, if you're consistent you'll deal with it.
-
I'm not offended by Rob. He's a very passionate sort of guy, and mostly in the right direction. It's all good.
thank you simon.
-
any moral authority on this.
absolutely not.
I'm on record as saying I watch dexter before it screens.
Its commonplace and accepted as normal, I'm just questioning this aspect of it, in myself as well.
I know you understand the business model, and my intention wasn't to teach you it, but to attempt some degree of clarity with it.There is no other way of seeing them.
possibly, I can't really comment in general terms like that, some of them are available on dvd. some not.
dexter, but not season 3I don't have any moral high ground over you and I used the term we to make that clear and make this about society, not you or me. It is society that is accepting it more and more, me along with it. I do have issues of conscience over it and in a way enforcing the law removes the need to balance that.
perhaps if piracy was stemmed then media providers would pull finger to supply legitimately in the ways people want.
there have been some really good suggestions on how that might be implemented and I still love the idea of meeting the desire to share music in mixtape fashion with a license that allows that in a fair and not too costly way.
that those channels have not been implemented doesn't make it legal though.
-
There is no cost to the copyright owner in me having access to this information.
This ignores the business model behind creating media works.
The value of an item is not in the individual instantiation of said item.
it is in the potential or estimated saleability of that item, which is I admit a mind fuck of a concept and different from the normal physical object model. but it is clearly understood, we just choose not to think about it mostly.
When someone makes a 200 million dollar movie they're not focusing on an individual copy of that movie being the 200 million investment, what returns their 200 million and pays their staff. One instantiation is not the product. its potential views of it that represent that.
When we watch it without paying we are 'stealing' from that potential pool. Sure one person doesn't make much of a dent in that pool but if every 'one person' did the same thing - it collapses.
and yes I know there are some flops which don't return their investment but that doesn't change the underlying concept.The same goes for tv business models, the value of a program and the model they use to achieve that value is based on potential viewers that advertisers can indoctrinate with their products in return for free to air, and or subsidised by taxes and lisense fees.
When we watch it without 'paying' the fee (watching ads, license fees taxes etc) then we are 'stealing' from the potential pool.
We don't like to think about it but that's the underlying structure of whats going on.The argument that there is no guarantee we would have bought it
as illustrate by markthough there is no guarantee I would have bought it.
is bollocks. We consume it - we buy it. if we didn't want to buy it we wouldn't have downloaded it. what is really meant is we didn't want to pay for it, which brings back the stealing analogy, taking something without paying for it.