Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
All laws in NZ come from 'the crown'. It's not a reference to the person, it's a reference to the state when the head of state is royalty.
yes, that's where they originated from true, but we have or are moving away from that. we're not a monarchy anymore.
wasn't there some sort of commotion about our courts being cut off from the uk courts now, on you're own now and all that?we're heading for a republic if we're not there already and world politics and copyright are no where near the system of publicly admitting power to hereditary succession.
so the question is what relevance does a right granted by an ancient system have in today's more illuminated world and is there any point in arguing based those old conditions, when we obviously should and do look at things in a different light.
-
Umm, yes we do.
true, but mostly in name alone. how much power do they have left over the colonies now?
its hard to feel ruled by someone who is pretty much a tourist attraction. -
Rob did dismiss out of hand some of the relevant intellectual underpinnings from academic cultural theory - that culture is not created solely by artists and authors,
come on sasha, that's not true, I disputed that theory, not dismissed out of hand. I don't agree with it. can't we still be friends?
Some mutual respect might allow deeper understanding. Running an indie record label and a recording studio brings valuable lessons but to think it supplies all the relevant knowledge guarantees a certain lack of illumination.
:) come on mate, just cos you know who I am. I try not to make this about me and in most of my arguments I think Ive succeeded. my critcism of drm is most definitely not about me or my music. you can't find my shit on line even if you did want to download it. i've gone out of my way to make my criticism on NZ on Air not about how and indie label fits into the picture.
likewise my comments on copyright are not about how that reflects on my label or studio, although I do call on my experience and contact with creatives in that argument to back up my thoughts. is that such a bad thing?
I'm sorry if you've taken personal offense and taken my comments on your ideas to heart. While I do agree that there is a partnership between society and what becomes culture I don't think its a relevant thing to introduce into the equation when assessing copyright. not all creative work is deemed culture, and it can be our culture with out society owning it. it confuses the issue which is if I create something should I own it. Its cultural value is an add on side benefit, not the crux of the matter.
I mean counting the beat is very much a part of our present culture and its still in copyright. why should it ever go out of copyright. it doesn't hurt our society to have it owned and controlled by someone.all of these thoughts I have constructed as an individual, not some pigeonholed label, studio dude.
I don't go asking you about your back ground and I don't even think its relevant to the discussion, I take what you say purely on its face value.
I could have been the guy who told islander to get a real job, if that was my point of view. it helps to know who people are purely from the point of not accidentally putting your foot in your mouth.
you know who I am, now forget it and critique my comments purely on what I say. -
The term is there as a pragmatic step. What else can the artist give up in all cases as a form of consideration for the protection of copyright?
The question to your question is why do they have to give up anything in consideration for a recognition of their rights, and do we require this in recognition of rights for something like land,
You have a big farm, i'll just live on one corner of it near the stream, you'll hardly notice, no, I own it etc.the entity that enforces copyright...being "the Crown"
since we don't have a crown anymore, isn't that concept outdated. you're not bargaining with the all powerful wealthy any more, we're developing a society that strives for equality and fairness, even on an intellectual level. apparently we've seen fit to acknowledge creative work as belonging to someone in the past and are slowly developing an understanding of that and extending rights and control.
The entity that enforces copyright at the moment is the law, and the right to sue, ie not much is stopping it, which is why some 'backup' is being looked for by copyright holders. Why have a law if you don't enforce it?.
As pointed out it isn't yet classified as a criminal offense, as in enforced by the police and gets you a criminal record, but it is illegal. when you infringe copyright you break the law.
Interesting to note police are involved in closing down pirate dvd stores and duplication rings so there must be some level of 'force' involvement at the higher levels of it.
so for the the pedants who argue over the terms 'theft' and 'crime', have a go at 'illegal', 'against the law'. a not very well enforced law, like drunk driving was a few years back.
-
So did rob(bery) get an acceptable explanation of why copyright has a term, whereas physical property is forever?
not really so far we've had,
it isn't property - even though it has the word property in the phrase 'intellectual property' and we've seen a continual movement to understanding and assigning greater rights to IP over the last few hundred years and more so in the last 100.Then there was that's the way it is - accept it which didn't offer any real explaination
also the society has seen fit to grant this much right, be grateful which disturbingly harks back to the days of royal decree and aristocrats allowing the masses certain rights which they can take away at any time. example a: some property in the UK can be bought by you but after a period of time (100 years) reverts to the upper class twit family.
hopefully in the colonies we've managed to break free of the old ways and move forward to reasoned and intelligent responses to such questions as "if I create it is it mine". -
Which leads me to the following conclusion. The recording industry has a technical solution for identifying people sharing files, similar to that used in the USA. However, it is not accurate enough to really know whether the sharing is legitimate or not.
This is an interesting concept don.
how do you think they identify potential copyright infringers?From what I know about Internet providers as of now they can identify peer to peer file sharing activity and filter it out. exhibit A : - xnet where ausreus/vuse does not work, although it does on xtra.
- They can identify high user clients and investigate why they need in excess of 20 gig a month. Chances are the guy with the 90 gig of constant usage isn't sending emails. to get up to that level of usage you're going to be downloading film and tv files. This doesn't really help in identifying music files, no bodies pulling down 90 plus gig of music constantly.
- They can identify known pirate sites and see who visits them and what they did when they were there.
- potentially internet providers have access to everything you do on the net, as in everything you do goes through their pipes. whether they can decode and understand everything is just a matter of available technology to them. nothing is invisible. Its just a matter of how far they're prepared to go or how far they're required to go in order to 'police' their roads. Tech heads will have a better understanding of what is currently possible. -
“I called the company to explain that a lot of this material was NOT in fact registered with the US copyright office, instead we did the ol’ poor man’s copyright."
this one smells a little funny.
my understanding is that a creative work is copyright the minute you finish it. the onus is on you to prove you were the first with it which is where the getting your finished disc in a library somewhere thing comes into it.The web host asking for proof of copyright would simply require a letter from the record label (ie himself) saying yep, this is his shit.
Then they have written consent.I would also have thought that someone would have had to have complained. maybe the did and it was bogus.
that end bit about how the label owner didn't keep copies of the material or artwork so is asking the public to send him his own music????? not doing a great deal for the notion that artists and labels are intelligent beings. I'm having a hard time believing it.
-
:)
-
assessment of Judith Tizard - she works hard, has achieved a lot and deserves credit for lots of things, including her attention to indigenous rights and, I have to say, open source software.
well said don.
knowing that makes the present situation all the more confusing.
I don't see the point in rushing through a half thought out idea but maybe they've been working on trying to get any sort of stop gap measure in place first. I don't for a minute think that Judith's motivation is to install a system that will encroach on the public's fair rights, but that doesn't mean that a party with less scruples couldn't use it to their advantage if they were to take power. -
Tony Peak of the Vandals and Newtones, who was super-cool. We'd go in there and leaf through the new wave imports. I think my first import orders were placed via Tony.
same. the had some extreme music just sitting on the shelf, and they actually played a lot of it in store. that was when universities were a thriving bed of alternative thinkers and course fees were nothing or very little, or they paid YOU to go.
its a lot more serious now.