Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
the people at amplifier.co.nz will be able to tell you about a lot more sites dealing in pirated kiwi stuff. they're the ones who let me know.
-
but I'm not seeing artists putting their hands up and saying "we're losing money to piracy' with evidence to back it up.
Anyone got any?
I know of a few.
The terminals new album was put up in its entirety on a nz music fan site. the site specialised in bringing left field and hard to find kiwi bands to the attention of its readers. The disturbing thing was that this album had only just been released and was easily available through normal channels. oviously with this stuff it was not available through the neighbourhood store in america or germany but this stuff never was and didn't excuse the blatant disrespect to the band. it was available as usual by standard mail order from a number of channels.the band had to track down the owner of the site and ask him to remove the file and to point people in the right direction to legitimately support the band and buy their disc.
The same site also had one of my labels albums up, which annoyed me cos I have kept all my releases in play and accessible. I approached the site and asked them to remove the file and point people to either the label site or one of the other sites that stock the material but they neglected to do the last part, but did remove the file.
The files would till be up an active if I hadn't stumbled across them. and its interesting to note that these files were put up on a fan blog, ie by people who are supposed to be into the music and should know that the material is legitimately available.
I recently found one of my own albums (ie music I wrote) available for download on somone's personal site. they were telling people the liked the music and here it is. I emailed them and they took the file down and also pointed the article to the label site and myspace.
once again, only found by google accident. I don't know if there are more examples or not cos its a lot of work to track them.I don't think there's any of mine on bit torrent but liam finn is on there as are pheonix foundation etc and there are lots sharing it.
that good enough for you?
-
The jargon of economics and the legalese are hardly inspiring, but intention to try to discuss and progress the topic is.
I wasn't commenting on the jargon but the implied attitude, which I'm sure you can also read. comments like that create different classes of citizens all contributing to the society they live in but some seeing the results of their labours treated differently than others. the underlying message of entitlement to the works of others is as disturbing as it would be in thinking you could take anything that is not rightfully yours. obviously mark thinks the work of others is rightfully his, but he hasn't forwarded a logical, fair or valid argument to explain why.
I'm not the only one who thinks so apparently.and mark the master is the physical object and the work it contains.
I'm saying I see no reason why that 'master' can not be owned sold and administered like any physical thing. just cos you can make a copy of it doesn't reduce its right to protection. -
Either you don't share the rights by putting them in a vaut (or whatever) and never letting them see the light of day, or you implicitly form a contract with the Crown (call it what you will, under whatever type of state you live in. but as it's NZ...let's just call it "the Crown" for now) to protect your rights via copyright.
what's the difference between the two works, ie the one in the vault and the one in the public domain. are you saying you have a right to indefinite control over he one in the vault?
Why should sharing make that right to control any less? you're getting penalised for contributing to society?if you do have a contract with the state (and I dispute that there is a need for one or that it is logical or fair, but lets just pretend there is one), wouldn't you have a right to seek compensation for the state mishandling said protection and essentially voiding your supposed right of restriction of copy by witnessing wholesale breech of said right and not doing all in the states power to stem it, or practically anything at all except providing lip service. by the contract with the state argument section 92a is the least they could do . (not that I'm for a second arguing that 92a as it stands is a valid response don, just to stop you in mid leap, I'm on your side on that)
-
I want the content that's on it to be released into the public domain
as lyrics,
as sheet music
and as the expression of the one who recorded it first, in the form that they used.you get the first 2 anyway. you always have, although you have to buy copies of it or write it out yourself. photocopying sheet music isn't allowed but apparently you can transcribe it.
can't for the life of me thing why you would think you have the right to something I paid for though ie the recorded work.
can I come and have access to that wall you painted in your house. it could be argued it is art, its paint on a surface after all, and possibly has more depth than some stuff currently passing for modern .... but I digress."benefits derive", "incentive to create", you are talking about servitude or puppy dogs here aren't you? cos it doesn't sound like you're talking about your equal in society.
scobbie snacks all round, get back to creating you lazy bastards.
-
However, the realisable value of a master tape depends entirely on cultural context as it is only useful for making cultural products. Despite what Rob thinks that is not an "add-on".
well to take your house example sasha. a building is very much a cultural thing. look at our old houses and buildings, they tell us who we were, we preserve and protect them, but we do not take ownership of them after 70 years, that ownership can be past on and transfer by the original owner, it is never stripped from anyone.
it is very much a cultural item as any walking tour of wellingtons back streets will tell you, but is treated differently. assigned greater rights of ownership and control, something that is happening slowly to recorded music as we become more able to deal with abstract concepts no doubt.
You can keep saying "if I create something I should own it" but that just shows you really don't understand the broader nature of cultural creation or the negotiation of cultural value over time
you're saying this to a guy who spent the last 25 years specifically working to preserve our music culture? (not that it matters who I am or what I do but you already know).
I have a different understand of culture and its importance and because it is different to yours or some book you read doesn't make it any less valid or worthy of discussion.
I disagree that just cos society deems some form of personal expression (music art film etc or culture if you wish) to be of value to it that society should have the right to strip the creator of ownership after any period of time. Creatives are not societies slaves. they may make art for any number of reasons, (personal expression, income, impress the opposite sex etc). There is no contract in that. They're not bargaining with society for anything. And as a fair society we grant the right to possession of the results. it just doesn't follow logically to strip that no matter how much society likes what a creative does.oil fields are important to society and we don't strip ownership of them from anyone. why is what we deem to be culture any different. society seems well able to enjoy and share culture for the life plus 70 years we have control now. I don't see what the problem is with life plus 71 years, or 75 or 200, what hassle does society really encounter that it can't over come. how is society really served by making recorded works a free for all after life plus 70? what changes?
I may be grumpy at times but I'm only offended when people waste oxygen and demean shared forums, not when they disagree with me.
dude, you really do have a chip on your shoulder. I've tried to be quite light and pleasant with you, but you don't seem to do likewise.
the one time you were demeaned is when I misread a name on a post, and you got your full apology for that,
please, don't take life so seriously, and certainly not internet discussion with people you don't know.
notice how i'm not offended by your 'waste oxygen' comment. what good would it do, its meaningless. -
However, the core issue right now is not really whether life, five, ten 100 years is the correct term, the core issue is that as a society we are trading away so key civil rights to help with the short term enforcement of Copyright. this is at the same time as Copyright holders are demanding huge increases in term.
That's the core of the issue you've been pushing, which may well be different and not in conflict with the one I'm talking about.
I don't think extended terms is in conflict with your issue of civil rights. its not your civil right to strip someone of their property rights yet that is what happens at the moment in copyright material.it is your civil right to be innocent until proven guilty, looking for people breaking a law doesn't infringe that right if applied properly and with respect to the innocent. I think fine tuning of section 92a to make it required that there be proof of breech is a good starting point.
what other ideas can you throw in to make 92a workable?I'm not so much demanding as asking the question, why is it like it is?
It will be hard to get those rights back once they have been handed over to the people robbery doesn't represent and this is bad.
ah, I see what you did there don, that was a bit of an in joke :)
I'm not following you on that comment though (apart from the joke bit).
the only point I'm pursuing (pursuing, not demanding) is the concept of infinite copyright and why it follows that if its property enough to make it yours for life plus 70 years why is it not property forever in the same way as land or a company. actually there's an interesting comparison.
a company is an identity which you can sell. it isn't necessarily a building or plant or anything, although it can be. the company identity doesn't expire after a certain time and you can on ell it to whoever or keep it in the family. it is property.I don't know what rights you think I'm pushing for but its not the erosion of personal privacy or prosecution without proof.
if its the right to strip someone of the ownership of their creation after a certain time period then you're fighting a similar battle to the right to keep slaves because they always have been property. it doesn't fit in with the logic of how our society treats the rest of us.
just so we're clear what rights that you have now do you think I'm pushing for you to be stripped of.
-
There's a reason why the Governor General opens parliament, and why the PM has to indicate to them that they can form a government. If you want a different example, America is a republic, and you can use that word in much the same over there.
can you use the phrase the crown to refer to american government?
I think the point I was trying to make is we have moved away from the thought process that had rulers and the masses. our rulers represent us, or are supposed to. we're not there for them any more. that's my point I guess -
Answer one and he moves on claiming you haven't answered "this one".
That wasn't me claiming it, it was simon, rob stowell, kerry etc who felt no one had answered it sufficiently in a logical and clear way. Apparently that still stands. I listed the answers above, they don't seem to wash with a few people. they want to know why they should expire if they're deemed to be enough of a right in the first place to give creatives control over it.
-
"natural" right ("natural" is a loaded term)
I'm confused about that argument too.
do people mean other property is defendable on the grounds that you can club someone over the head if they try to take what's yours. surely if you as a 'caveman' thought some collection of notes you used to call your family in for spit roast oxen was yours cos you wrote it and used it, (and in modern times we do deem music to be ownable if only for a limited period of time at present) then you could by your own natural logic of the time go club someone who was using it without your permission. does that make it a natural right now?