Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
doubt over whether buying the failing Echo Records stores in the South Island several years ago was a sound move.
it didn't work out well for either franchise.
where echo was a well laid out manageable affair when real groovy took over they moved to the barn in tuam street, put out the trestle tables and made the whole shopping for music experience unmanageable. Being all things to all people isn't a good thing in an industry that deals in genres. galaxy with its niche specialty store is a much better shopping experience.The shops have also suffered from dissatisfied staff who felt they were badly treated and reflectd that in their attitude. this impacted on shoppers and stockers badly. I personally pulled all my stock out after key personnel left, rather than deal with the disinterested and lackluster replacements.
all that said in its heyday it was a great store to visit, although there were a few good stores around back in that time.
-
some of the comments in the riaa article are charmingly naive.
Man, why is everyone always trying to be keeping a group of old, rich, litigious men down? They're just trying to make a few more hundred million dollars by screwing over the entire country, give them a break! I bet when YOU manage to get a monopoly stealing artist's rights, YOU'RE going to want to prosecute every teen who doesn't pay you a 200% markup!
by their logic all artists produce only gold and every single song ever released has benefited no one but old rich men.
a tiny bit of a generalisation don't you think.
maybe a little bit of over simplification of the issues? -
that mcCain story brings up an interesting guilt until proven innocent angle.
though McCains team could easily put up clips on their own site and not have to worry bout that pesky youtube law shy thing.
then copyright holders could sue them directly. -
So, the notion of 'plagiarism doesn't exist because there's no original ideas' plays right into the hands of those who have the power to make something of 'unknown' works,
very true, but the fact that major corps mostly choose to back the tried and true doesn't mean there aren't a good many new ideas being made, just that they remain unheard of till ground swell brings them to our attention, or major corps attention.
I've been surprised by a number of good films lately based on recent books I hadn't heard of.
also there's been some good tv like dexter, the wire, battlestar, even bits of lost, reasonably adventurous.so someone somewhere with money and power is paying attention. sadly at the top end of money and power they're a lot more cautious, and I can perhaps understand that but as a consumer of media hate the lack of risk taking.
-
no prob sam f, I got your positive vibe
-
Only in circumstances where that to which you claim copyright is unique and truly original. That is to say it bears no reference, similariity or suffers no other point of origin than the creators mind. Which in musical terms would require an extraordinary standard of proof.
reading your point again 81st I take it you were making a 'nothing's truly original' point.
The law doesn't require it to be quite so black and white. ie you can't say its a guitar pop song so you're ripping off the beatles,its more its a collection of notes in this order and words in this order thing.
There's a lot more plagiarism going on than actually comes to court though cos you've got to have a good enough reason or motive for suing someone for ripping off your ideas and then be able to prove it.
I had a personal case where an ex band member took an one of my compositions modified it slightly, slapped new words on it and released it as his own song.
There was a pre existing recording of my composition so I could have taken it to court and proved it but the ex band member sold f all cds and I wouldn't have covered the costs of pushing the matter so I didn't bother, plus my musical peers had pointed out the transgression to me so I didn't have to prove a point cos it was already proven.
copyright infringement has an element of 'worth-it-ness' to it. if its a hit single by a band, writer, artist making lots of money out of your idea then you pursue it like an ambulance chaser, otherwise, its how upset do you feel about it and how much are you willing to pay to push the matter.
that whole louis louis vrse wild thing. did that ever come to court? same riff, different words. maybe they didn't think it was worth it.
and for those who say there's only a limited pool of ideas and we're running out so the concept of plagiarism is unrealistic.
its surprising how the new slants on things keep coming so we're apparently we're not running out just yet. -
Thanks sam, I think..... although a contrarian would just say the opposite for the sake of it, where as I've made some valid points although it takes a fuckin' sledge hammer to make them sometimes,
sensitive bunch of know it alls on here :)........ (sprint)......
-
Hell freezes over as I agree with something robbery says ;)
if we all agreed on everything it'd be a pretty boring discussion.
though now that you mention it the temperature outside did just drop a couple of degrees....... -
There's nothing preventing McCain putting adverts up on youtube,
there's nothing preventing McCain from approaching the copyright holders or artists and asking if he can use them, going through the right channels or paying the standard fees for usage.
that he didn't do that looks pretty bad for someone looking to represent 'the people'. -
and continuing on my apology to misreading sasha yesterday, your point does have merit in assessing worth in cultural value, but as far as any individual item is concerned its future worth as an acknowledged item of cultural worth or just some throw away novelty pop song should be irrelevant to assigning control to it.
or to look at it in reverse,, that a country uses some art, literature or music to define its cultural identity shouldn't be used as an excuse to undermine the control and ownership of an individuals work.
its nice that people see the "bone people" or "counting the beat", or a "bill hammond" as a way of identifying themselves with pride, i'm not seeing that as a good excuse to strip the creators of their control. how big the item gets in terms of importance varies greatly and isn't part of any bargain any artist makes. I can't speak for other artists but I'm not thinking this song will make me more money if I can get to be a culturally significant item, although now you mention it, that's not a bad idea, slip a few more references to jandals and nz landmarks in, there could be a career in that.
it worked for don McGlashan