Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A gallery that buys a work holds the copyright to it.
the art gallery example may have been a bad one in some contexts cos an owner of a painting doesn't have the right to copy it unless it is expressly sought. when you buy a work from an art dealer you don't necessarily buy the right to use that work in duplication. I think its more complicated than that unfortunately.
i agree with the real world commercial value of some of this stuff. you could probably pick some of it up for pocket change.
nightmare though it may be that's what lawyers are for. some people are quite good at working though this shit apparently.
With something like shortland street how hard can it be. they keep accurate records.people have used that excuse for licensing music but apra keep records of songwriters and publishers in an easily searchable data base. these people can be contacted, yes it can take a bit of effort, but it can be done. for every difficult one there 5 easy ones.
I have people ring me up and ask to use my works in a commercial way. its pretty simple really. -
further thought on the its our culture argument.
why don't we as a society buy the rights to items we see as important to our culture, just like we do with works in art galleries. all of that stuff is paid for buy the gallery or by someone who loans it from their personal collection.if its an outstanding piece of culture then buy the rights and let everyone have free access to it. seems a simple solution doesn't it?
we're not short of cash for things like the america's cup loser teams where we flicked 20 mill discretionary pocket money to them.
lets see what the rights to the screaming mee mee is worth.
simon, I'l start the bidding. I'll give you a fiver for them, and will donate them to society. (that's fiver as in dollars, not million) -
(I'm sure you wouldn't be keen on the government owning your master tapes if you took a recording grant.)
if they fully funded the projects my argument would be flimsy, but any grants received are only every a tiny portion of the whole project so that's not really applicable.
perhaps that's the same for the works on the archive site? Unless everyone on board gets their full normal pay for the project then its only partial funding. if everyone did get their fully normal industry rate pay then there is an argument to say its a commissioned work. I doubt if it is this way in nz though.If archives did want to make these culturally significant works available free to all nzers then they could look at buying the rights to the works, as the would with an item in a gallery.
we've apparently got enough money as a country to flick a few million discretionary cash at america's cup race losers to keep em happy, so we're obviously not short of cash,have archives looked at purchasing the rights to any of this, or generating the funds to do so. I'm sure there is the argument that archives is skint but that's why you lobby and apply for funds, to be non skint. have archives actively pursued that angle?
-
Rights owners and archives voluntarily licensed their work to us as a matter of public good, and they should be applauded for doing so.
top people, their shout etc. just on my morning walk past the art gallery which shows works of public interest free of charge.
it occurred to me that what they do is similar to what this archive project does.
how do galleries acquire their works? -
The video seems to be playing really well, apart from the odd issue for the likes of Richard.
all depends on who your internet providers are. I've got inet and xtra and both are shit at various times. can't even watch youtube without interuption some times. got to let it load first.
not all broadband is created equal it seems. obviously nz is much worse of than many other civilised nations. like them across the ditch.
Downloading files would be great, but then so would fast and reliable broadband -
It's still the State that "allows" you to do stuff, whether it's topped with a crown or "Hail to the Chief".
true, but the crown has overtones of ruling class and masses working to support them, "hail to the chief" has similar (america after breaking free from a Crown type system went right back to treating its president like royalty???, idiots)
I was under the impression (possibly wrong) that we are working to a more enlightened way of thinking that treats everyone equally, stupid idea that it is.I'm raising it to counter he argument that copyright is how it is cos we say so,
Under my ideal copyright would be as it is because of a bunch of well thought out and fair concepts that align themselves with how things are in other sections of society. -
if it was downloadable (which I understand won't happen due to ancient attitudes to copyright - Robbery, waddya think of that!?)
sorry
I wasn't really reading this thread.
seems you're talking about a few issues in that comment.
one present internet connections suck so its hard to get a good viewing going with out stalling and line interruptions. kinda makes the whole viewing on line thing pointless and unpleasant.
if you could watch it seamlessly, it remembered where you were up to if you had to pop out and started again from where you left off next time, then it wouldn't matter which hard drive it was on, essentially it would be easy access to you.also if NZ paid content owners for use by their country then maybe you could download it. as it is we plead broke, call it culture and guilt the creators into putting our names on the guest list. (I'm guessing this is how it went own russell and will retract said slur if you say archives paid the owners). I'm familiar with this technique cos I conned my way onto many a guestlist in my youth.
If of course said content was fully funded by the tax payer then that's completely cool, it belongs to us. we should be able to download it. -
I don't doubt that they are down a lot.
you'd have to ask someone who was working in the industry.
hmmm
who me?
ok, in the last 25 years figures on similar new releases have dropped from 400 - 600 copies sold to around on average 100. this is shitty indie music mind you.
Factors that have increased are accessibility to it ie its easier to get now for people who don't have easy access to a neighbourhood store.further examples of acceptance of piracy are friends with burns of albums, even local ones.
one particular example I remember a couple of years back was staying at the house of a relatively new girlfriend and finding a burn of my own album she had nicked from her work (she worked at a radio station that shall remain nameless). that felt kinda weird.
This was a reasonably cool indie type person, strong supporter of local sounds etc. for those arguing it isn't happening as much as people think, you just got to look around, be honest with yourself,
otherise you'll be saying the moon landings were a hoax etc etc.simon's not making it up that the generation of his daughter don't even think to buy. my sisters kids are the same. its not about making criminals (technically law breakers) of them. its about education, and perhaps a little deterrent, as presently there is none. even though the law exists and we understand why and there is a real cost and it is someones property there is no muscle behind that law , which is why no one respects it or abides by it. and it'll stay that way till something changes.
-
Whether NZ is a democracy under an irrelevant Monarchy, or a Republic it probably won't make a jot of difference outside the likes of No Idea and Woman's Weakly. Theatre, pure theatre.
it'll make a difference to me. for a start we won't have to use the concept of 'the crown' which just feels plain weird (shiver) in this day and age of independence. That whole "cos we allow you to" argument can fuck right off and we can get down to "cos this is fair and right"
-
I said "America is a republic, and you can use that word in much the same over there", as in, you can use the word 'Republic' in place of 'the state' in America.
thanks.
how far off is nz from being a republic?
that is what we're aiming for I assume?