Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
but we don't live in the 18th century any more mark.
they still had slavery then.my position is that it is incorrect to hold these views knowing what we know now living in the world we live in now.
-
I just had a listen to the Kim Hill interview which was quite well done
lessig says copyright is an incentive to writers to writer more works, like giving a pet a snacky treat to get them to do tricks. Dead writers can't produce anything new so he thinks their rights should be removed.
In this view of copyright there is no acknowledgment of ownership of creation as seen if you create anything else, a table, a chair, a house. His view of copyright is condescending in nature. If you start from that viewpoint ie a disrespect of other peoples efforts you end up fighting for the removal of their control over the results of their labour.He doesn't think all copyright is bad though, just that some of it needs adjustment, although he doesn't approach the subject like someone who wants to adjust things.
his big hobby horse is re mixing. using other peoples work in a non commercial way to create new art for fun. There's nothing wrong with this and it works perfectly well when done for ones own amusemen,t but with technology people want to put it up on you tube and then it becomes a public performance. its a difficult road to travel. yes some media owners are responding too heavily to use of their content but should this reaction be cause enough to campaign to remover their control of their work. Take the recent examples of people using musicians work to promote political views that may differ from the creators. (our own don McGlashan, and various US musicians objecting to McCain's appropriation of their work for his message)
To put it in terms an individual not involved in media creation might understand, how would you feel if someone used a photo of you to promote something that you were against? Something that offended you. would you support their right to freely use your image? In a way it becomes an either or situation. Throw out copyrights protection to control the use of their work to allow some legitimate use but open the flood gates to wholesale abuse as we've already seen.
Perhaps establishing some sort of process to contesting judgments would be a better course of action rather than tearing the system down.he says the system is broken due to modern technology and says if copyright owners would just embrace the conditions they could profit from it then goes on to cite projects like flickr as a way of making money through the sharing culture.
What he neglects to address is that 'people' plural inclusive don't make money form these types of things, a very small group of powerful money men make money at the expense of the many, and these positions of top dog owners of good ideas are few and far between.
what we're seeing from his ideal world of sharing is an even more bottom heavy structure where there a many at the bottom and a few global businesses at the top, buying up the control and sucking up the money to be shared amongst even fewer people. If he's trying to knock down big business then this is the wrong way to go about it. -
My comment was more aimed at your suggestion that we should watch what we say not to spoil future careers in officialdom, though.
haha, yeah, well I've never practiced that policy myself but um, it's a public forum, and in nz a reasonably popular one and if you're using your real name that kinda makes you speaking in an official capacity for what ever you represent.
That's all well an good until you enter territory contrary to your personal view point. like getting a job with a culture organisation like nz on air. -
This particular comment of yours has just made my day 10% sadder.
don't be sad Giovanni, remember this is a country that votes for change apparently. just cos you're campaigning on a policy of circumnavigating the law doesn't mean you won't get voted in.
look at the last bunch that just got in. They got voted in on a "grass is greener, but we're not going to show you the grass or tell you anything about it, just take our word for it" platform. -
You'd be surprised to know that I agree with you.
???!!!!! (is that enough surprise?)
hopefully russell doesn't have any political ambitions. As hip and street as bittorrenting copyright material is it's not the sort of thing you'd want to be seen to be pushing if you were involved in anything arts in a professional capacity.
-
Cough ...
interesting segue from giving props to the assistant minister of arts and culture to giving a link to downloading pirated material, in an add on discussion amongst people who were interested in owning legitimate copies of media.
If the readers would like a more legal (is bypassing zones illegal?) way of purchasing the item, here's an alternative to buying an edited version.
borrow your mums credit card and buy it from
overseas and watch it on your brothers laptop if your tv and dvd player doesn't do ntsc, or possibly in pal format although this listing doesn't give episode length for bbc so it may be the same length as the region 4, or not.
UK -
Muldoon announcing the 1984 election
to be fair, a different time.
a different attitude to alcohol. drunk driving was still practiced as a discretionary law infringement in some quarters.
pretty irresponsible to turn up at a tv talk show plastered, and like wise irresponsible to inflict him on viewers if you're trying to establish your show as one of intelligent debate. tarnishes the brand, how ever amusing it is to see a drunk person make a dick of himself. -
She was supposed to be governing the country not playing Werewolf at Kiwi Foo camp.
part of governing the country is to be in touch with what is happening in your country, who your country is.
One couldn't say judith didn't give that a really good go.as assistant to the minister of arts and culture judith did extremely well at letting people know her door was always open to assist, listen, help where she could.
I remember attending a national part house conference with david carter. I asked him what his feelings were on the importance of arts and culture in nz. I was expecting a spiel about how important arts an culture were to national identity, quality of life and general enjoyment of the country you live in. What he said was he had no opinion on it and I should ask another member of the party.
Judith was flawed in her work as minister but it was talking to unenlightened morons like David Carter that made me appreciate a government that took this sort of stuff seriously.
Judith was out of her depth on 92a but it seems her advisors and the opposition were no more in touch than she was.
Judith was out there amongst it and obviously passionate about her work in arts and culture. It could and has been be so much worse and I guess we'll find out soon if it goes down hill. There are plenty of stuffy out of touch dorks in govt, there's room for someone who varies from the mold, surely.
-
Just watched the final epsiode of season 1....lol!
of dexter?
-
So are we cool with this as 'response to Lessig'?
its matthew pooles thread, ask him.
I don't know how much of this thread you've read jon but my response was directly to lessig and matthew's comments on him.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. is this one of you're oblique conversation starters again?? cunning. I like that.
listen jon , why don't you discuss the points you want to discuss, jump in there and go for it. if there are people that have thoughts to contribute to those lines then you'll get a conversation, if not, it'll peter out and go silent.
these are seasoned internet users, they can handle multiple threads in one comments section.and you haven't offended me, my skin is thicker than that, and I do have a sense of humour.