Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Wow, that's unhelpful.
Tough. This canard gets raised again and again, on DVD's that I've legitimately bought (because I'm obviously a criminal and have to be reminded of that at every opportunity), on every campaign from the xx AA(NZ), in Government papers from MED (who like to characterise filesharers with terrorists, by the way) and on countless blogs.
Usually, I use it as an indicator of the level of thought put into the statement by the speaker, but I can't quite reconcile that with you and Kyle (I don't know Patrick, but it's one of the reasons I called him an idiot).
Without a common ground, we will never resolve what people see as the problem here (regardless of which way you view the matter). The law provides the common ground, because no-one shares the same moral viewpoint, which is why society developed laws in the first place.
The law defines copyright infringement and theft as separate things. Thus, copyright infringement is not theft.
-
I bought the Prisoner DVD box set and, while we were staying in a place that had no reception for a month, we decided to watch an episode every night. We got to about ep 9 or 10 when we realised that, while the story line is as opaque as ever, the acting was truly awful (even the great man, himself) and we gave up.
I think he was an actor for his time, when his time didn't expect greatness on the telly. I respect The Prisoner as a breakthough piece of television, and I relish my memories of growing up watching it, but I'm afraid it doesn't stand the test of time as an inherently good piece of television.
-
Islander
not everyone wants an agent. Or needs one. They cost (between 10-20% of a signed-up book) and the relationship either works or - as in my case- doesnt.
That's fine. I don't either. The price we pay for that choice is having to be extra vigilant when looking at contractual obligations.
This all has nothing to do with copyright, however - it's about doing business. The fact that the business you describe was to do with use of your copyright material is not material to the discussion about the nature and need for copyright.
-
who said stealing had to refer specifically to the removal of the theived item from its rightful owner?
The law, actually.
If you take something from me that I have not agreed to sell to you, even if it is a copy, that is still theft.
No. No, it is not. You still have the item, undiminished by the copy. All that has been taken from you is the opportunity to sell it to me, though there is no guarantee I would have bought it.
You, Kyle and Giovanni (to a lesser extent) are arguing a moral point, that copying someone's creation is unfair and therefore wrong. I'm not arquing about that. With some exceptions (usually do to material that is no longer available commercially), I tend to agree.
That does not make it theft, just because you think it is wrong to do it. Theft is a specific term that applies to a specific act with specific consequences, to wit the removal of property from A by B such that A no longer has access, control or physical ownership.
This is not hair-splitting. It's fundamental to the matter. If you won't understand this, you should get out of the debate and go and live your moral lives somewhere else.
-
Islander
If you mean this, then it's lucky that you are aware of these things. Shouldn't that be part of the process of getting an agent, finding one who also knows about such things, making them aware of your position etc. Caveat emptor, after all, and always read carefully anything you're asked to sign.Please remember that you're not the only "creative creature" in the environment and we don't all agree with the perspective you've stated on this forum.
-
Patrick
From a legal perspective you may be right, but the law is only one (albeit an important) consideration. Morally, my definition of theft still stands.
Copyright is a legal construct. There is no other way of discussing it. If you wish to take the position that copyright infringement is theft, then you are wrong. We live by laws because, if we waited for everyone to act according to a moral code, nothing would ever get done. (and whose moral code would we use, hmmm?) As a minor point, you haven't defined theft, you've merely said that copyright infringement is the same as theft.
So what exactly were the specific so called unproven chestnuts I rolled out in my Herald story? Please bear in mind that a news paper story has to be written so it is readable and relevent for a much wider audience than the (mostly) sophisticated audience in this forum.
A newspaper story must still be accurate, however. Write the objective truth, not one-sided fictions. RIAA talking points are not facts.
From your article, then: (If a para is not mentioned, I agree with it)
Paras 2 and 3
- While a "three strike system" is often how such an approach is characterised (I have done so myself, but only in the blogosphere, not the MSM), the legislation makes no reference to how many warnings may be given, and defines "repeat infringer" asa person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
Thus your paras are not strictly accurate, indicating a lack of detailed knowledge of the Act. While the thrust of your piece is in line with my thinking, the devil is (as always) in the details.
Para 4
the illegal downloading of copyrighted content is theft We've covered that above. The rest of the para is agreed.Para 5
Whilst the good news is that the amended copyright act will absolve them from the liabilities associated with pirated content crossing their networks or being cached on their serversActually, it won't if they have no policy or refuse to take down content after an accusation has been made. (refer s92C)
But agreed on the technical difficulties (although your estimate regarding numbers online is at odds with the latest information from StatisticsNZ )
Paras 6 - 9
-agreed mainly, although I've seen nothing yet from the TCF and ISPs to indicate this. You, in your day job, may well have better access to such information.Para 14
Illegal downloading occurred well before Napster. Napster was a solution to the problem of finding music to download. And Napster only applies to music.There's been illicit downloading of books and software since the Internet began. That's why Project Gutenberg restricts itself to books that are outside copyright, going so far as to note in its readme files that in some countries certain works may still be under copyright protection and that users in such countries should not download such items.
Para 15
Unfortunately Napster didn't take copyright into account and music industry lost money hand over fist as piracy rapidly took hold.The biggie. Prove it. The RIAA's own numbers indicate that CD sales were highest while Napster was running. My personal opinion is that the unprecedented sales the industry saw during the late 80's and 90's was not due to population growth (the curve is well out of whack for that) but due to people repurchasing material they already owned on vinyl. And that this was a surge that eventually petered out. But the music labels had got used to their profits and need someone to blame. Enter Napster, stage right, brand new (and therefore scary) and easy to blame.
There are plenty of reports that claim piracy and counterfeiting cost over $200billion a year, but there is no source for this. The reports are all quoting each other in a merry-go-round of attribution. No-one did any research supporting this figure, yet economic policy makers assume it to be fact and regulate accordingly.
Now, I may be wrong in my theory about the CD Hump, but at least I stated it was a theory. You, on the other hand, stated it as fact in a "news paper story" - nowhere is it mentioned that this is an opinion piece. Apart from the disclaimer, there's no mention that you are not, in fact, a Herold reporter, but are employed by Telecom. While Telecom disclaims your views, they can't be considered an impartial player in Internet politics.
The big change from the 90's that did have and impact on downloading was increased broadband (except in NZ, but let's not go there today). Anecdotally, I remember emailing someone in the States who was complaining that his telco was late putting his T1 line into his apartment (!!!)
Para 17
The major issue with DRM (IMHO) was that it broke legitimate use because it was inherently flawed. Also not mentioned is the fact that the labels broke the law in many countries by installing software that was extremely difficult to remove, just by playing a CD in your computer. I don't think your readership could be unable to understand that.Para 18
Whilst legitimate alternatives to illegal music downloading put a serious dent in music piracy, the lack of a copy protection free alternative meant music piracy continued unabated.This doesn't even hold together. If a "serious dent" was put in music piracy, how was it then able to "continue unabated"?
The rest of the piece is, in my opinion, not well written, but not expressly wrong.
I'm glad you finished on the significant point of "innocent until proven guilty".
While we might agree to disagree on some areas, I suspect we are essentially in unison that section 92A and B are going to be a dismal failure and
Correct.
will refrain from trading pointless and unfounded insults with you - If you are as rude to any new voices in the copyright debate as you were about me then I suspect there wont be many new voices or informed debate.
Fair comment, as will I. Apologies for that.
-
Apart from yesterday's one, of course
-
Thanks for the kind words (Not!) Mark Harris
Thanks for deserving them. Your piece contains many of the old unproven chestnuts that have long been trotted out (as Steve says) any time copyright gets mentioned. Provide evidence for them and I'll withdraw my assertion.
Your definition of theft however seems to be a bit light - wether civil or criminal, Taking someone elses property (e.g. downloading it) without their consent (as in not purchasing it via a legitimate channel) strikes me as a pretty clear cut definition of theft.
Thus my complaint. You see, Patrick, this is incorrect, under the law. Yes, it is illegal, no, it is not theft. It is copyright infringement. It has its own act. If it was theft, it would fall under the Crimes Act.
The real issue here is that this legislation tramples over one of the key notions of what makes a democracy work "innocent until proven guilty". Having some an ISP deciding my criminal status is a real concern.
That's something we can agree on, at least.
By the way, Xtra had nothing to do with this story
My apologies. It's just that I haven't noted your voice in the copyright debate before.
-
you're making a statement about where you think that what you write might fit in relation to the public discourse.
Surely the act of publishing is that statement in itself?
-
Holy crap. Wikileaks just took on the UN
This will make or break them