Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
robbery talks about fairness, constantly. How is it "fair" that our economic contribution is being undermined to support the RIAA and their likes?
I'm not comparing open source software to music. I'm comparing music to other huge industries that exist to create profit. I'm on your side to spread wealth to you. im not dissing open source software developers or the hippy life style, I'd prefer it to the dog eat dog structure we live in. What I'm saying is if we have a dog eat dog self profiting society then why would we as a society expect any portion of our people to give away their stuff. I've sen no argument forwarded to explain this apart from thats the way it is, shut up and be grateful for what we give you. That argument doesn't show an evolving civilization.
your comment about economies being undermined by the likes of me is funny, you should come round for dinner and we'll discuss it. you'll have to bring a chair and some food though as my present exploitation of the world doesn't create the income to provide either for you. you're falling for I see rich rockstars and stretched limos on my screen there for all musicians are like that.
simon can probably give us figures on proportion of world profit created by music compared to say something like law, oil, or any other industry.
take our own country as an example. there is only one fat cat here, niel finn, and he's not that fat. there are a lot of round table fat cats though. -
I don't have the time to be diverted right now (although I admit to having some sympathy for Rob's arguments and have yet to see any tangible argument as to why IP cannot evolve into a a right somewhat akin to property.
hi simon. busy time here as well but interesting discussion. I think I may have pissed my client off by continually reading from a laptop screen while I'm supposed to be recording his flute solos.
if you do get a spare moment can you explain the elvis's recordings into public domain. I was repeating something you had said in a previous discussion and may well have got it wrong.
-
They've had a long, long time to exploit the worth
you're also seeing exploit as a one stop one efforrt thing.
the act of making distributing promoting and 'exploiting' is on going and involves cost.
in a way removing any benefit to the estate of the creator kills or diseases the life of the work. why bother promoting and placing a work once you no longer benefit from it. ad companies can use it to sell things the artist would never have endorsed, children of media creators get cut off in their prime where as children of oil moguls get to live the sweet life in decadent glory un fettered (yes I'm pushing for both to be put out on the street and made to work, lazy fucks). just a degree of fairness about it, is that too much to ask?I also create stuff covered by copyright. However, I say that anyone can take it, use it, and adapt it if they like. I get paid reasonably well for it, too.
sorry robin, no offence ment to you or any one, I'm merely taking devils advocate as I stated way back on my entry in this discussion.
my indie cred statement wasn't directed at you at all. I almost felt I had to defend myself cos don was lumping me in with some kinda corporate monster sctick.
can you give us some more detail on how your work situate functions. how do you make stuff for free and get income for it?
-
and the protections demanded by the likes of robbery do next to nothing for the local artist on the one hand
dude, did you miss sasha outing me, I think I can quite fairly speak for the local artist, being one, working with many and fiercely independent and outspoken on it, I am that dude. I'm so indie it hurts sometimes :) (but in a good way)
-
and now in queens english
things are created and they're sold for profit and we live off the proceeds or pass it on to people of our choosing, that's how it works for us all at the moment.
-
Society has no bargain with trade secrets, we don't expect them to become public, and they are never published anyway.
kfc's 11 herbs and spices for example.
(salt, pepper, msg, and 8 others no doubt)
what are their legal rights there. do they ever expire? -
Besides, what is so wrong with trying to make things better for people?
there's nothing wrong with it, its a great goal, but it is not the rule we apply to most other forms of business. landlords don't make things better for society, they make things better for themselves but gathering income for rent of their property. its completely selfish in motive, and so is most business, but the business of creativity is expected to be selfless and for the good of society. that's a double standard.
its all well and good if you're the part of society that isn't involved in creating stuff you can't lock away. as a fair society its our responsibility to make sure we're consistent across the board.intellectual property is a relatively new concept and people have difficulty understanding it.
I think a few commentors have watered down the drift of the issues here. its not about protecting airy fairy ideas.
I like to think of the elvis recordings example. its a clear case of a definable item ie elvis's early recordings that are passing into the public domain. the owners of the original recordings could and should have the right to exploit the worth of those recordings but be cause of expired copyright they can now be duplicated and sold by people that had nothing to do with that material, even me. I can't see a reason for this to happen because people who want those recordings can easily and legitimately purchase them.
if oil well ownership expired after 50 years and we could all have access to them then I wouldn't have an issue with it but it doesn't work like that so it seems one sided.
elvis may well be part of our culture but in the society we live in I don't really see what that's got to do with anything. things re created and their sold for profit and we live of the proceeds or pass it on to peole of our choosing, that's how it works for us all at the moment.
if we lived in a communist society then all well and good, but we don't, yet. (viva la revolution) -
But the bargain is that we'll give you that incentive, but we get complete access to it in the end.
that seems a strange bargain to make in a capitalist society. i'm cool with the whole peace and hippy love vibe society thing but is that really the world we live in and the rules we apply to other aspects of our life,
-
What seems to be missing from this conversation is how best to ensure to support artists, writers and so on.
to me the argument of copyright isn't really about feeding artists, its about recognising the property of creative effort, recognising that just because you can't hold something in your hand doesn't mean it isn't ownable.
A "right" to restrict copies does not "naturally" exist, so it must be granted.
if you cast your mind back to pre law times you protected your property physically. someone came into your camp and tried to take your stuff, you beat them off with a stick.
in more civilised times (allegedly) we recognise the concept of ownership and established laws backed up by police to protect our property. this didn't stop people trying to steal your stuff but it put society on your side in seeking to protect or recover your stuff.in keeping with the more civilised vibe we've recognised to a degree that ownership rights should be extended to the things that are not physical.
go back a few decades and you've got a book or an album, and someone tries to copy or steal it, and you respond with a big stick to protect your property.jump forward to now and you'd be hard pressed to even see the people nicking your stuff, you're still protected by law and they're still nicking it but you can't stop em (for now)
a right does exist in a fair society as much as a right exists to stop someone breaking into you house. we recognise that if someone makes a recording it is there's. we know this, we just avoid seeing what we are doing by taking it without their knowledge and kid ourselves that cos everyone is doing it its not really an issue the person we're stealing off is invisible, but we know what we're doing
it doesn't make it any less wrong because everyone is doing it. 2 decades ago people were jumping in cars and driving drunk. that was no more right then than it is now, just more people did it.
-
"Referencing" is one way of acknowledging that broader historical/cultural context,
completely agree with you and I like aspects of referencing but all too often people say its referencing when its just plain copying or stealing. there's a sizable difference although the edges of ffair use are slightly fuzzy its not that hard to tell.
A mate of mine, Mark From the enright house has this excellent song called might as well have stayed young. I absolutely love this song and one of the main reasons I loved it was the last line of the song which goes "we might as well have stayed young, for its been useless to grow older". This line comes after various lines about what he did in his youth (even though mark isn't old).
mark later explained to me that he got the got the inspiration for this line from from a German poet where that guy explored similar themes.
firstly this line is in a different language and its inspired by themes discussed in someone elses work. if mark had just lifted the line virbatim I would have felt differently about it.
tha's a bit of a diversion from copyright though
i'm cool with the whole open source peace love and sharing vibe so long as all society plays the same game, ie open surce gas, land, food, power and internet connection