Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Word!
-
y'all webstocked out yet, Russ?
-
In other news APRA has a new press release:
RIANZ & APRA confident about code of conduct
[...] Since the TCF issued the draft Code of Conduct on 4 February 2009 for public consultation, the dialogue between RIANZ, APRA and the TCF has continued.
RIANZ and APRA are confident the discussions with the TCF will lead to a Code of Conduct which will satisfy copyright holders and ISPs, which will satisfy the requirements of Section 92A and which, if adopted by ISPs, will provide certainty for all parties moving forward.
“We are confident the concerns that rights holders have had with the draft Code of Conduct, including issues such as counter-notice procedures and costs, will be satisfactorily resolved,” says RIANZ Chief Executive, Campbell Smith.
[...]
I believe we will achieve a positive result before Section 92A is due to come into force on 28 February 2009. We are confident a code that is both reasonable and effective can be agreed between us prior to 28 February.”APRA’s Director for New Zealand Operations, Anthony Healey says: “We recognize that ongoing public discussion has identified some concern regarding the content and operation of a code, particularly with regard to a user’s right to object to a notice of infringement.
“Contrary to reports and concerns we have never been opposed to the idea of an independent third party considering objections and adjudicating where necessary. We are not opposed to this approach provided the process is fair and timely. This is one of the issues we have been discussing with the TCF this week.”
That's a change of tone.
But still the same old same old:
Online copyright infringement is doing serious harm to the creative industries in New Zealand and around the world. For example, it is estimated that 19 out of every 20 downloaded songs infringe copyright. No legitimate business model can compete with that scale of infringement and loss and nor should it. At the same time we recognize that any process established to deal with this infringing activity must be reasonable and fair.
-
I can't actually remember my original point there, to be honest. It was probably along the lines of `this idea isn't one that can be implemented in a modern capitalism; if you want to try it, you've got bigger problems than the record companies'.
I agree, and was what I was trying to say to Giovanni. Possibly my pleading tone for different solution wasn't clear.
Thanks, Keir
-
godspeed, young man, and may flights of angels sing thee to the game
-
Can I just put an "Ewwww" on that, Kyle?
-
We were lucky enough to get Peter Jenner on Media7 last year. He's a major proponent of what he calls the "music access charge".
The problem I have with it is that it will never be enough for the industry that thinks it is missing out on revenue, and that it doesn't fix the principle problem of the broken business model that will continue to see a downturn in sales.
As Simon says, ludicrous claims have been made and been accepted into lore (that spelling is intentional) for so long that they have become the backdrop for bad law (that too)
-
Sorry, that last post was brought to you by People Who Think 39 Pages Is A Bit Much To Work Back Through(tm)
-
Because his theory is up the proverbial small watercourse without a paddle?
This doesn't make sense to me, much like your original comment, which is why I asked you to clarify. To date, it's not much clearer.
More to the point, you are carefully eliding the distinction between getting paid to do x, and getting paid to do x well. (Nobody is owed a living for digging holes -- one does it in one's garden all the time after all; however, the guy at the bottom of the coal mine does deserve to be paid for what he does.) Likewise, nobody is owed a living for writing; what they are owed is a living for writing in a way which benefits society.
No, I'm not eliding anything. No-one is owed a living, full stop. One might make a living writing, because an audience perceives value and chooses to reward a writer by paying them. Copyright (when properly applied) should ensure that the writer receives revenue. Whether it adds up to a living is based on the amount of value the audience places on the item, and the size of the audience willing to reward the writer. They don't owe the writer anything. They choose to reward the writer.
Many writers do not find favour with the audience, or as much favour as another writer may. Their writing may be hugely significant to the society but receives little recognition outside a small niche. Or they may just be a bad writer. Whatever, they don't receive revenue or enough revenue to make a living. That, to me is pure Adam Smith economics - the market will decide. No-one is owed anything and receives revenue only on the basis that their work holds value in the marketplace.
But this is a diversion and not the main point at all.. Giovanni wrote:
So long as we are discussing how to reform copyright, shouldn't we aspire to recognise the work of a Keri Hulme for the actual benefit it provides to the society in which she lives?
Gio, I can't think of any mechanism for measuring the impact of, let alone compensating, any individual for benefiting society that isn't a form of welfare benefit apportioned on some incredibly arcane scale and requires a substantial number of bureaucrats to run.
Adam Smith wept.
And when I asked you to clarify, you wrote:
The way you measure and reward social impact for most things is through the sensible creation of property rights. Modern capitalism: it works! (For a given value of `works'.)
Quite why the creation of (or, rather, alteration and continuance of currently existing) sensible property rights here wouldn't work is somewhat unclear to me. (If the objection is that they don't seem to be, why are music companies posting record profits? Etc, etc.)
If that fails, then there's the generic government subsidy solution, which may be inelegant, but you could run it pretty efficiently. If that fails, then we're all dead by now anyway.
We were talking about recompensing, say, a writer for the increased tourism that may or may not have been engendered by something they wrote. How do "property rights" come into this?
to which you responded :
Weelll, in that case it's one of your classic positive externalities; there's sfa you can really do to help in that specific instance in a strict economic sense.
In none of this can I discern any reference to what I wrote initially about a bureaucratic solution except your point that a government subsidy might be the only way to manage it. But I'm unable to discern any method of estimating the impact so that fair recompense can be made, Adam Smith notwithstanding.
Do you have any focussed input on that, Keir?
-
@Sacha
I take your point about the plurality, but a) that's not how the political world views the diffabled* and b) united we stand and they see more of us than if we stand alone.What we need to recognise and get government to recognize is that a one size policy doesn't fit all and that we're all individual people (and citizens and voters and taxpayers, dammit) and need to be treated as such, instead of commodities.
*not committed to this term yet, just taking it for a test run ;-)