Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Anyone else discovered their Facebook photo's pilfered by others?
I can tell you when I started blogging it was intriguing the places I found bits of my posts ripped and re-use by some robot somewhere.
That kind of thing might contribute to an attitude that a background noise of copying, if amoral and frustrating, is unstoppable and normal.
I believe type designers have had this for as long as the job has existed.
It suggests to me that if you want to usefully enforce any copyright, you should choose your battles.
-
-
Does (or not) the "reasonably" oblige ISPs to terminate only in "reasonable" circumstances?
I think Cunliffe said that the delay in implementation is to work out exactly what the system will be. Considering the ISPs think it would, practically, be based on accusations and RIANZ has said having to sue would be unacceptable, that's clearly where things are heading.
Since putting it in the Act implies the legislators evisaged a system where someone could be cut off under an ISP-side policy, that seems the most likely outcome anyway. OTOH (and IANAL) I imagine the courts might, indeed, be more interested in things like natural justice and so on.
A side note: I'm reminded of the difficult end of the notice and takedown rules. In the event that someone says x is a breach of copyright, and the user says oh no it isn't, the ISP isn't really game to adjudicate but (I have this right?) the get fined if they leave it up and it is a breach - so they take it down whether it is or not.
-
It's worse than you think. National plans to cut employer contributions to 2 per cent and abolish the employer tax credit and it will also cut the government contribution (member tax credit) to 2 per cent.
And, I get the impression, let your employer count their contribution against your wages in bargaining.
As well, anyone presently receiving Working for Families tax cuts (or any government assistance) will not qualify for the Nats tax cuts.
I think that only applies to their $10 (rising to $15) 'Independent Earner Rebate'
-
The argument, apart the financial one, put up relentlessly by the pro-slavers prior to 1834 was fairly similar to your yours..they are property, and any questions as to why are not rational.
Charming. Part of the reason I've lost patience here is that judged by that standard, frankly, you have not done much better.
Just because copyright has grown or changed, or will grow or change, that does not prove that it should now change in some particular way you or I might advocate.
We're either doing this completely wrong or asking the wrong question.
Oh, not that I've been following that case but surely the copyright is in (for example) the information on the master recording, as opposed to the master itself being your property. You're controlling how people use the recording, not the tape.
-
-
-
For those who've just tuned in, we've had somebody demanding to be told why the copyright term shouldn't (I summarise) be shorter, then a gap, then someone demanding to be told why it shouldn't go on forever. Neither have been convinced.
I've notice in arguing both have expressed polar opposite view on how useful and available material is to everyone else while under copyright, which may account for some of it.
And frankly, I think both needed to do some more work in favour of their position before they can demand rebuttal. For example, what reason for copyright existing at all means it should go on forever?
I think it right and useful and fair that 'creators' (who are not, we should remember, only artists and the work not only art) should be able to profit from their work in a way other than by commission.I think it right and useful and fair that work comes into the public domain. Oh yes I do. I especially think I should be able to use somebody's work if they've been dead for decades. (And again, this includes stuff that is less worthy but sometimes more important than art).
I'm sure both these opions are a product of the times (and while the public domain is the more venerable and 'natural' state of affair that does not actually count for much) but I can't help noticing the are times with an awful lot of cultural and intellectual capitial about the place.
Now: It just happens that a life-plus arrangement satisfies (or satisfices) both those positions.
Now, personally I may have clarified some things with myself in this but I think it's getting silly.We live in a world where you can in principle be sued for singing 'happy birthday' where someone can hear you and where some people apparently want to be able to have you arrested.
We can all have one more go if we like, but then can we talk about something other than the term?
any tangible argument as to why IP cannot evolve into a a right somewhat akin to property
See Robin S above. Because it is not property and does not behave like property. IP does not work that way!
-
@ 3410 - not at all : I had that one coming
-
... although now I think about I would like you all to imagine I made a point about physical property not being inviolate either in some clever way.