Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Unfortunately, what the delegates heard was "I think that you should not be allowed to make money, and furthermore, I wish to boil your children and dismember your pets."
perhaps as an educated wordsmith you should have chosen your words better to communicate exactly what you were meaning as "one of the UK’s leading experts in the field". Its easy to blame the listener for the faults in your delivery.
if you meant something different then perhaps you should have said it a different way.
-
do people who've never known that experience eventually hanker for something more substantial than downloading bits and pieces - is that even measurable? If they've never known a more substantial experience, will they never miss it?
from what I've been seeing I think that people will not miss what they don't know, although there seem to be exceptions to that rule. I've met a few late teens early 20's rock enthusiasts who really get into the whole packaging quality aspect.
As a sound engineer I'd have to say although mp3 is a worse version of a product, its not that bad to listen to in most situations. it would really show up in a sit down and listen to your expensive stereo in a controlled room environment but who has the time for that these days.
much music is listened to in the car or on head phones while walking somewhere and with the background noise of road and world noises the exceptional sound stage a recordist has captured for you doesn't really make that much difference.
-
Let's pretend copyright ends tomorrow.
reaches for sockpuppets......
well one answer to that would be to enforce your own copyright.
'live' only performances of works, strictly enforced conditions of entry (no recoding devices, cameras inc phones left outside etc)another answer to that would be to produce something around the work that added value to it, like expensive packaging etc, but without copyright there's nothing stopping a thai company just duplicating the work and selling it in competition with yours, and of course they don't have the work creation costs to cover, just the manufacturing done with cheap labour.
we'd see a quickly devalued and watered down media pool. look what free access to music production did. flooded the channels with incredibly variable content
-
Integrity's a dirty word now, isn't it?
it definitely used to be but the whole be seen to be green thing may be changing that.
I was meaning more in a business sense respecting the integrity cos that intergrity keeps value in the work. if you take away the integrity then you get jim carey playing the grinch and the original work loses ts importance and value to society and the owner of the work.
The whole integrity angle makes good business sense and its why there shouldn't be techno remixes of elvis without permission, or sockpuppet bone people with sampled soundtracks from shitty indie bands via mark.individuals may want to fuck with the works but that doesn't mean they're actually talented enough to do it. as upsetting as that may be to some would be artists the right to mess with someone elses work should be by approval only. otherwise keep it in your bedroom and to yourself or develop your own ideas that don't contravene copyright laws. its actually not that hard.
-
under current copyright law - for writers- I do control my work
I was more asking about your feelings on your work after your copyright has lapsed, when you'll be dead and gone of course but your trustees will have to deal with under current laws although simon points out these are changing slowly.
I guess this relates to how artists feel about there wor as property, ownable etc. I've already said I feel my work is mine to do with as I feel like, be that sell it to others, asign rights to my frug dealing cousin, store in locked cupboard etc, but as sasha pointed out my opinion isn't valid (just teasing) so I was wondering specifically how you view your work in its future tense.
its also interesting what you've said about your book being adapted by anyone to a visual medium. Under marks rule you don't get this choice but as you've outlined it and with the help of that dr suess piece it really illuminates how important it is to the intergrity of the art we create that we do have control over what is done with it. some people like suess's wife pimp their stuff off for cash and I guess we can't blame her for that, we all need to eat, but if society vaules our work then surely they should value our choice of vision regarding that work. If you feel no one can yet translate your vision to the big screen and that any present attempts to do so will degrade the original work surely that's a valid and defendable point.
The Suess poem had that key section about how decades of fond enjoyment getting trashed by a multimillion dollar poo, that he spent his life time rejecting. I'm sure we'll see the old "artists think they're so above everyone" angle but that's not really the point,
If creatives didn't have a vision that makes them different then we'd all be happily writing our own stories, recording our own music and making our own films for our own enjoyment. Copyright is about acknowledging that specialist skill and giving the key creatives the benefit of the doubt on the right thing to do with what they've created.
and while I've got your attention I was thinking of making your book into a movie with sock puppets, what do you think? no, ok, just asking. :)
-
as evident in the breakdown of the CD sale figures where the artist is lucky to $2 out of a full price CD sale
was that from my figures? I don't think I broke down the last stage properly.
so label gets $13 of which they have to take out production costs, admin costs and probably investment costs (recording studio, artwork manufacturing etc), which leaves them with ??? from there they can split with the artist the remaining money.there are other models here in that the artist could be the label in which case they can take the full $13 pay their own production and admin costs.
or the artists might have fronted for recording and presented the label with a finished product, possibly even pressed cds there by entitling them to a larger cut of the $13. They might even distribute themselves meaning they get $17.
its not the industry's fault that it costs so much to take an idea from conception to bought product, and its probably not much different from manufacturing any object. I think shop mark ups on most products are pretty consistent with what is added to music etc.
cutting the middle men out of the process makes it all a bit more efficient but having been a middle man cutter outer most of my career I wonder if a better result might have been achieved by getting a few more people on board, paying people for what they do well.
We're seeing it already with self distributed material from bands, yes they make more of the total cut, but the total cut is way less so in a way they end up in the same place they would have been, only with less exposure, ie without a label and distribution network behind them they reach only the people that come to their gigs or are in their direct field of contact.
Perhaps the ISP usage detectors will add so much cost/bloat that the artists will only recieve a small fraction of the revenue.
they already measure how much data you download. its how they pump up what they charge you.
1 gig, 2 gig, 5 gig, 10.
you pay for the more stuff you download, and then, (damn it, just read that dr suess thing and am thinking in rhymes).
all broadband isp's let you know how much you have used so you can budget your remaining allotment to that important last episode of private practice.
I don't endorse or not endorse the control of piracy through isp monitoring, I just note it as inevitable.There was a better route they were trying before this, the honesty system when media makers looked to the public to respect copyright law, but it seems that's not doable, to the point of taking the piss, and that piss being endorsed by people you wouldn't expect to jump on board the piss train.
I liked more the concept of ISP's sharing some of their quite reasonable income with content providers seeing as how the more you pirate the more ISP's charge you. without working out how everyone gets paid it would be a way of keeping media a free for all but you pay for it at isp level.
I'm wondering if ISP's were approached with this concept. I'd like to imagine it was discussed and rejected in favour of the policing option cos they didn't want to share. that would make it easier to see them as no cooperative demons, which they may well be.
-
my novel works best in your mind.
couple of questions for you islander.
how do you feel about your right to control your work?
I take it some time in the future when copyright lapses someones going to have a crack at your novel an stamp their own vision on it.
how do you feel about that?people have said up thread that copyright hinders cultural progress, which I think is complete bollocks cos culture isn't a thing you need to rush toward, it is what is and has happened, there's no schedule to it.
do you think you have an obligation to others in society to donate your work so that they might play with it? -
A new technology that essentially allows content owners to profit from piracy will get a high-profile test this month from MySpace and MTV Networks.
interesting development. wonder how that works for small players. ie people who have one off movies. you have to have something you want to advertise, and all income can't be paid in advertising, some of it has to be real money to pay for the production costs.
more what I had in mind was dexter.com and you go there and get out your credit card and you buy an episode and watch it. I'm imagining it bypasses the ISP usage detectors cos it comes from a registered 'media' site which they'd know cos they know where you're visiting etc.
maybe there's a $1 episode which is riddled with mind numbing ads and a $2 episode which is pristine ad free. -
people will share by other means, such as loading up their 250gb USB devices with data, or by more actively trading DVD's on the likes of Trade-me or other examples of networks that don't actually push data over the domain of the ISP
and I think media creators will consider that enough of a difference to be acceptable. sharing by copying off a friend is a world away from free access from strangers. its back to the situation of home taping from your friends.
I also see the move as a barrier towards to encouraging investment in broadband. (getting them to build all that bandwidth to handle a smaller volume of data and with much greater responsibilites/costs).
expanding networks to accommodate pirated content isn't the best motive I've seen put forward for development. its akin to nz post expanding their network for small packages cos more people want to send drugs via post.
however......I think we're going to see more viewing via the net and if they do it right I'll be able to 'watch' the latest episode of dexter on the day it is released for a price, just like the rest of the world. That's going to have a massive impact on current sellers of the product such as tv and cable networks, cos they'll want to keep selling ads and or subscriptions to their services.
We're already seeing nztv smarting from the internet bypass with programs like private practice only an episode or 2 behind america where as previously they'd be happy to let it sit for a good few months to let the price drop.There is tremendous opportunity to improve the situation, to bring a new set of ideas forward, rather than just getting stuck in the traditional view.
there has been for sure, for almost 10 years now, and yet we've seen one instance of radiohead and a whole bunch of advertising and not much else.
the thing about the traditional view is it is the way all other business in the world is done, you have something, you sell it and you stop people from stealing it under protection of the law.
yes there are modifications of this as in bars letting people in to see bands for free in order to sell them drinks or interweb services that let you use their product for nix in exchange for exposure to advertising, other than that though, not much. I personally would prefer we didn't all go the product placement advertising route for everything. -
thanks kerry and islander,
I was thinking of it more as a discussion than a fight, and a good one, but I do object to being told that my experience as a creator means nothing and I don't know anything. I'd hope I had some view on creating and its value after 25 years of being involved in it a all levels.I freely admit there are more qualified people than me in many fields, I wouldn't dream of challenging mr encyclopedia of music industry on most points, or the issues writers face, but I have a fair idea of the problems facing musicians from many sides of the picture, as a consumer, writer, publisher, producer, master, slave, lippy bugger and a few other perspectives.
Thanks for your insight into what being a working writer entails too Islander.