Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Imagine RIAA, MPAA in Control of Handbag Industry
that was a really bad analogy, and they lumped the 2 media together.
films have zones, but music doesn't.
and its not about sharing handbags its about copying them so in this analogy it would be letting their friends manufacture an exact copy of said handbag, similar to name band knock offs.
if they'd tried a little harder they might have come up with analogy that had more knowing similarities and a few punch lines. -
No I was abstractly trying to point out that the line that is applied to what is and isn't culture or of cultural value is vague.
and it should be irrelevant to the property rights you give something.
it simply doesn't matter what cultural value society gives something to the rights the owner or creator should have.
the master tape in the cupboard unheard, and the master tape that spawned a massive hit that a nation feel defines them (there is no depression in nz?) should have the same rights.
I'll swap you my dear departed grannies wedding ring for you culture defining moment simon if you guarantee me I can leave to any illegitimate spawn i might have? -
excuse me mr moderator (jon). i'd like to point out that the moderator is diverting the discussion to non copyright things, like his hate of singing and wellington. is this some sort of clever ploy to get ideas flowing?
-
your family has had it long enough and you'll have to hand it over.
yes your lordship. ruling class type, I apologize for not recognizing you needed my property sooner.
so you're saying no to finding out what market value for master recordings is?
I kinda like the idea. country pays market rates for it to make it available to its citizens, just like it does for a piece of land it wants to make into a road or a park. then mark can sample to his hearts content cos his country has done right by all its people. (sigh, butterflies and candy floss.) -
I wasn't talking about "whether copyright should be infinite".
Ah, well there goes the confusion there. I was under the impression you were using 'creative works are created by both creator and audience" so artists can't claim full ownership.
The discussion at the time was in relation to how creative property is different to physical property and why it should be treated differently. you raised a point regarding cultural value which is parallel to creative works, but not all creative works are considered culture and not all culture is considered creative work. A creative works cultural value to society should have nothing to do with the property rights assigned to it. it exists as a stand alone work before anyone gives it cultural value. to use jon's example of a work locked away in a cupboard unshared. the property rights on that item should be the same as one that has been exposed to the publiced and embraced open arms. the items are the same.its true that "Cultural Value" and "Creative Capital" ie its accelerated worth over time does rely on how much people like it, but I fail to see how that counts against the rights of creators to control over their works. Its nice that people like it but why tar all creative works, liked and disliked with the same brush as the more liked works. I think it is irrelevant to my point of "why can't creative works have infinite property rights"?.
but if you say you weren't raising the point to further the argument against infinite rights then that's cool, we don't have a disagreement. I acknowledge you point and we agree it has no influence on the extension of property rights part of the discussion (see above quote).sasha
It's just not the dominant understanding - yet.
robbery
"you've put forward an idea, a hypothesis , one that hasn't been agreed with, hence not adequately raising a valid difference at all."
ok, so I've said in other words it is not the accepted view point, and you've said it is not the accepted (dominant) view point. so how are we disagreeing again?
Try that in a pub conversation and see how far you get.
I don't converse in pubs with people who resort to violence or aggression. all my discussion mates have a thick skin and a good sense of humour.
I was defending my point, you weren't attacking it although you appreared to be, but you've clearly stated you weren't ieI wasn't talking about "whether copyright should be infinite".
so we're sweet.
unless of course you were disageeing in which case..... -
But please Rob, perhaps you could accept that people have worked really hard in all good faith to bring people the material that's on the site now, and the content that will be added every week.
Totally.
I'm just throwing some ideas around Russell, re the download thing and possible solutions to it. not meaning to offend, and its helping the discussion to explain the issues, so all good I think you'll agree.But.......while you're chatting to some of these people and you find an easy clearance for ownership (who the hell let a high six figure clause through in this country anyway. there should be anti ego clause in these things, unless its sam neil then its fair cop I guess), see what their selling price is. As you said, commercial value isn't massive on some of it.
I know some of this stuff is hard to acquire and as brenda said there are frequently other funding partners that aren't nz on air as I though there would be, but still,
......down on their luck aging film maker, needs a few reddies to fund a habit, I'm just saying there's a potential opportunity there (do I have to say joking, yeah, probably.... joking) -
(which I know challenges traditional views about "authority" and ownership).
respectfully sasha, why are you dissing me for questioning the relevance of your point to establishing whether copyright should be infinite when you yourself just stated "challenges traditional views about "authority" and ownership". if its challenging tradition then surely it hasn't been accepted as the go just yet. why am I the weird one for questioning it.
-
Rob, I have never been offended about being confused with someone else's posts. I made it clear that I was talking about demeaning this forum, not me personally.
ok that link goes to the comment to mark, someone who hasn't been shy about disrespecting others points of view, as is the way of internet discussion. but, as you'll see I addressed your comment a couple of posts down and explained I did have a point with my comments, that were relevant to an attitude to art. the cake and eat it attitude.
but that's cool. its all about understand what each other means, and I'll admit with my crappy keyboard leaving out key letters in my posts and my failing eyesight that isn't always easy.
whether keir was referring to me in his comments on respect for experts is unclear. I didn't read it as such but I'm cool if he wants to clarify that, or leave it. I thought it was referring to respect for simon's knowledge (and lets face it, the dude is an almost unquestionable encyclopedia on all things music industry, its almost a little scary) and islanders outstanding achievement which surely get her a few kgs of respect. not that anyone's ideas are above examination but there is plenty of experience on here with copyright, and some who not so much.
for you to single me out for 'questioning' is a little 'personal', or maybe i'm just imagining it, anyway. I can let it drop, if you can.
-
Perhaps you could say more about who would get to decide what was "important" and to whose culture.
the musical and film equivalent of who chooses for art galleries.
I'm not trying to run the show and make efforts to not make it about my personal experience.
you have to establish enlightened guidelines for your system and then let them work for you.
Art galleries do ok for art (although I'm sure a hard core art enthusiast would disagree) but they're a good starting point.
This however doesn't diminish my argument for copyright length extension. just addresses your cultural needs argument. If culture needs it, then buy it. it's how the system works for everything else. -
Getting them all to agree to put it up on the internet must be a nightmare. And then if one disagrees, what do you do? Cut out that scene?
not knowing enough about how it all works for tv but for film and short film you're paid and sign a release contract, and that's it, you don't have any rights or involvement after that. as far as I know that's how it is. none of this actors have control thing, unless they negotiated that into their contract, which is highly unusual and you have to have star power to ask for it, then its not in the picture.