Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So what are you going to do about it?
are you talking to me?
-
It has already been pointed out to you that this is rubbish. Plenty of people here have day jobs that bring income BECAUSE of ownership in creative works.
ok, fair point.
People who have told us on here that they are in this position.
islander has spoken up about her position and its implications.
I haven't seen others in a similar position speak out as clearly in these threads. Islanders example is interesting because its a an important body of work that most people have heard of.
The music equivalent would be neil finn talking about his copyrights.
but even if Finn did speak it would be hard to do it openly and honestly because a large part of public attitude to copyright is dictated by PR. Lars from metallica knows that only too well.
He objected to people avoiding paying for his music in the wrong way and look where it got him. He was in the right, but he chose to be the person that stood up and said it and..... well it wasn't pretty was it. -
Morally? I download quite a lot of BBC TV, documentaries in particular. I know these programmes will never screen here, I can't watch them in BBC iPlayer and there is frankly no other way I'll see them:
Not knowing exactly which programs you're refering to and based on recent recommendations from you (you were condoning downloading a freely and easily available music series) well many of them you could buy. Is it being a hassle to buy items justification for taking them without recompense and permission?
You don't just walk out of a shop without paying the price because the queue is too long?
In a shops case the price is cash, in a tv programs case its viewers watching advertising or the nation pays the bill from license fees and taxes, or you buy it on dvd locally, or internationally by mail order, its pretty easy.We all have our own threshold in what we find morally wrong or right. Individuals will re write the law in their own mind to suit their own personal outlook. As I noted, much of the discussion comes from the perspective of someone who has nothing to lose from the equation. Islander most definitely does.
It is annoying that programs sometimes take forever to reach us, and we justify to ourselves that we're "just time shifting when we're watching it", and" tv should do their job better to bring this stuff to us when we want it".
I wish they would, and given finances they probably could.
My understanding is it costs more to screen programs early, cheaper if you wait a while, so if we want to see them earlier we'll just have to lobby for broadcasting funding to get a bigger budget from taxes, if that is an issue that were willing to pay to correct.The fact of the matter as Kyle so clearly pointed out, if you think about it honestly we know this when we download, and we justify and argue over words and semantics to make it ok for ourselves.
it helps to personalise it to put it into perspective.
Using islander as an example again. (sorry)
who here is going to say they're prepared to download a pirated digital copy of a book of hers knowing full well no money will go back to her or her chosen financial partners. (this is assuming you can buy a full price copy of the book, be it slightly difficult to do so or not and available format isn't an excuse either).
If not then why can we do the same thing to the media strangers.
Is it because we like to distance ourselves by objectifying them as evil corporations that give little money to the author? (surely that's a matter between the artist and their chosen distribution network, not for us to decide).
Do you research every item you download to see if the artist negotiated a deal you think is favorable, and the distribution network isn't making too much profit by your standards so there for they're worthy of full price?its a lot harder to take something off someone without their consent when you have to look them in the eye.
I object to "evil majors" cliche is it clouds that simple view. Not everything we take is generated in greed and how would we know. We mostly don't bother to check cos its too much trouble, and even if we do check,.... its too much trouble.
-
we don't amendment the Crimes Act to define ways in which it's permissible to take physical property without permission.
it maybe tv fiction but aren't police and military allowed to commandeer private property if necessary for the public good?
-
Pat
the illegal downloading of copyrighted content is theft. There's no simply justification for doing it, period.
russell
I think you're wrong legally
???????
do you mean technically as in in the use of the word theft?
or are you saying pats illegal isn't illegal?the moral bit is a matter of perspective and opinion
-
For real?
no of course not, and I doubt simon would take such a comment seriously, or at least I hope not. Simon's got his own field of experience and opinions based on that and nothing I say will change than and nor should it, and I hope he respects that I have my field of experience in circles different from his which produce different results. I think it was simon who noted how diverse music production is. well this is a case of that. we may have started from similar positions be he's charted a much different route.
half of the long post was opinion and personal perspective and multiple instantiations of that can co exist. there isn't one way of doing something and only one way of viewing it.
the only serious issue was my objection to Simon building an argument of an assumption that I meant something which is clearly not in my post.
I did not mention marketing costs in my post(whatever simon's point was regarding them). That was not my point, I was talking about other levels of projects.
Simon's talking international major label stuff and I'm talking nz label stuff. they're completely different. I have no interest or experience in international major label goings on cos I live here in nz, and I don't find it relevant at all to the majority of music media created here. That's my experience and the experience of pretty much every band I come into contact with and that's a lot. Of that I have "coal face" experience and its pretty close to the grass routes we're all so keen to support at the cost of evil middle men, who I actually think have their place which was one of my opinions voiced. I think this cos I've done it the solo way quite a bit. its fucking hard work. -
google could perhaps be substituted for a lawyer's advice when negotiating a deal and I'm still a little speechless after that.
I like your debating style mr grigg. persistent to a point.
I like it better when mark's on the receiving end but art is art and I appreciate it.you know what I meant re lawyers. there is good information out there, hell you've pointed out a good swag of it in these here threads.
you conveniently ignored my subsequent point in "just don't go there", don't deal with people who do massive convoluted contracts. yes you do have a choice.and before you diss online advice - is your advice as good as a lawyer? I take it you didn't pick up a law degree between sipping fruity cocktails in the tropics? personal experience counts for a lot though and I'd probably take your advice on contracts over the local lawyer who's main experience is transferring house deeds.
but feel free to focus on the letters rather than the content. its good debating skill.
I do it myself sometimes and who can blame either of us, even with the relaxed life styles we lead there isn't time to analysis every single word.I'll take you declining to address issues raised as conceding to the content within.
he key point though you can not argue, you read into my comments something I didn't say, and the post history holds that as true.
(yes I've done it too before you point that out, but its only a civil offense, not theft)
-
Kindly refer back to my 323 post
looking for that post but can only see 324.
while you may not be the only creative creature here islander you are in a position few people in this country are in in that you have created a viable work which is internationally recognised and is directly and significantly affected by 'lets try a world without copyright' thought.
Its apparently quite easy to sway popular thought to get behind vague notions. I like simon griggs recent comment on his blog
And you have to conclude that the nation talked to itself into a change of government for no good reason beyond the fact that they talked themselves into a national malaise.
it may be interesting intellectual conversation for most on here because they have very little invested in it, unlike islander who has an item or 2 of quite significant value.
Islanders opinion is doubly important because of this
on top of that she carries herself as a well reasoned and thoughtful person.
the reason many of you don't all agree with her perspective is cos you don't walk in her shoes. you have day jobs which bring you income outside of media creation and ownership.I was thinking about what islander said about the characters in her book and how copyright protects them from being used and abused by others and how she wants copyright to protect them,
all this talk of civil offense, its not theft etc.
how about this.
respect.
Islander wants her characters which she created left alone.
fuck the copyright angle of it for a second and how you can do what you want after 50 or 70 years.
this is what someone who created something which we acknowledge as important asks of us. is that so difficult to respect?
leave it alone and create something of your own if its so easy.
that's what copyright enforces. argue your way around it on it an "its not theft" its an infringement angel all you like, its against current law.don't help yourself to her work without due financial recognition.
simple concept really, respect.
society can't handle that? then make laws and enforce them.
its society's fault that it can't act with suitable respect. its society's job to fix that.ps sorry to use you as an example islander but it helps to put a face on the anonymous crime.
-
behold that is a long post,
an additional note, the aformentioned no money person could have contributed another 5 worth albums in the 10 years that no one would front the cash to make it happen. we have a long history of losing large periods of potential great works from talented artists because we apply the "front your own cash" rule.add to the beautiful loser list one of a favourite artist that never made that follow up album they were going to
I'll start, the gordons, (and no bailterspace doesn't count).
-
wild illogical swings.
well definitely cross purposes here.
The thread reads like this
you saidBut for all that, the basic premise that the artist signs to a label, pays all the costs out of their small fraction, and then owns nothing at the end, is one of the things that will cause labels to flounder.
I said
you underplay the role of investment capital in that equation simon.
No, because most of that investment you talk about is marketing cost.
I didn't talk about any marketing cost, you imagined I did, but I didn't mention it in my post, and I wasn't thinking about it.
I was talking straight recording costs. These days an album done seriously but on a budget will clock up between $5000 and $20000 for an indie release done with some though.
straight manufacturing costs if you make discs (indie level $3.5 a disc packaged = 3500 - ???)
promotional costs (phone calls, promo packs bribes and drinks with people)
straight set up costs for your infra structure to market. no everyone is a wizz at myspace, or has a van or ...etc etcat a small label level that's still quite a bit by new zealand standards, and you have t remember, this is an nz based discussion group so its fair to think and discuss this stuff with an nz perspective.
to be perfectly honest there are a only handful of artists in nz who are at risk of being fucked over by a major for the simple reason that majors don't want to know about most of what happens in this country, and mostly if they're overseas majors they don't want to know about you over there either, cos you're a bad risk and they have plenty to choose from in their own country. We're not quite as important to the rest of the world as we'd like to think, I think you'd agree there.
everyone else making music in nz iis in the indie or self release pile and there are a lot of them, many many more than the major label bait you focus on. so to focus on this 'evil majors' angle is almost irrelevant to the space most of this group live and work in.
of the ones who do get to deal with majors bic runga's brother in law is her manager and a lawyer and he represents most of the other key players so nz is pretty well looked after for guardians of the innocent artists.
The other factor making majors less harmful in nz is the local players are predominantly reasonable people, rodney or alistair at universal are pretty harmless and unlikely to fuck you over . they live and work here. although you may know different and I'm all ears if you want to spill the beans on any local evils. I didn't like that paul ellis guy when he worked for sony but I think you said before we have a pretty good crop of enthusiastic locals.
yes internationally majors have been pricks, its well documented, so well documented that most everyone who isn't a coked up rock n' roller is cautious and wise to it. we get it. be careful.
one of the ways of being careful is to avoid, go small, know the people you're dealing with. There are many many options label wise now beyond the big 4, there is no reason to go near them if you're scared of them. get a small label with people you trust to back you as an alternative to taking out a bank loan which you won't be able to pay back. start small and build up.
I get what you're saying and that you're saying it from a global perspective looking at a long history of evil doing but to keep harping on about it is just scare mongering to throw people off a reasonable system when implemented safely and out into the go it your own market place and that's not necessarily good advice across the board. Not everyone who gets in bed with a label is going to get screwed, and from an nz perspective a tiny tiny percent are dealing with a product that will go big (neil finn, omc, split enz, misex, ffd, you could count em on your fingers and toes for global success for nz, we've had fuck all that have really turned a coin, the rest have had a good time and come back with a lot less than they left with)
locally success is slightly less than a mac donalds wage for how ever long it lasts (see shihad).From an nz perspective the majors are evil so go it alone argument doesn't wash.
locally indie is the thing. and they may be able to front you your start up cash.then you said
And once again, if you are not the sort of artist who can't hustle their way into finding $5000 or $3000 or whatever it takes to have career beyond the pub, or finding an independent label to do it, then I'm not interested.
I like how you slip independent label in there like its a different way of getting backing for your project.
investment is investment, and yes there are companies you want to be wary of, but indie label is not doing it yourself. its a smaller more trustworthy version of the evil 4.getting an indie to pay mr kneebone to pimp you shit is a lot different from advising people to borrow $5000 to do it yourself.
you were initally saying bands should front the cash themselves then you changed it to or get an indie. that's a bit of a wild swing don't you think.
and just one last point to see if I can make a post touch the top and bottom of a page.
What I'm looking for in an artist is someone who can write and perform really good music.
you hope like hell they're not complete losers who can't tie their own shoe laces but once you're hook on their music I tend to make excuses for seeing their project through.
There are some reasons you don't want to get involved with some artists.
That they can't front up with multiple thousands of dollars is not one of them. Coming from the experience and background you and I both have and being solo flyers most of the time I can see why you might say that cos you don't want to take on the responsibility of seeing it through on an individuals budget, but most professional indie labels understand it is their job to make things happen, that includes funding things.There is a big difference between being completely self sufficient and working with an indie. the main difference between an indie and a major is scale and apparently the likely hood of getting ripped off if you've kept your head in the sand and not read a music mag article post or book about music in the last 30 years, all of which will fill you in on what can happen.
Me, I'm still going to choose the music I get involved with on the basis of how it moves me, and if they're not complete evil sneaky dishonest fuckwits hopefully we'll see a good album at the end of it that makes the effort worthwhile, that is the main reward after all.
if they can afford to pay for everything themselves then more power to them, do that and release it yourself or through a label, but if they can't afford it and there are many many many people in nz in this position that doesn't mean their music is worthless and it doesn't mean they should put themselves in financial danger to "make it". that's just not good advice. be careful is good advice.
shall we play a round of let name a hopeless loser who produced amazing music that we wouldn't have got to hear if we imposed the come up with your own cash rule?
I'm spoiled for choice and also I don't want to offend people who I really respect, initials CM perhaps? stunning artist, couldn't make an album for 10 years till I pushed him through. love the man and his work.