Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I can't see anyone arguing for copyrights being extended based on the demand of one person or company.
why should intellectual property be treated any differently than physical property, such as a piece of land. your dad buys a piece of land. passes it on to you etc and so on. no further input required, no contribution to society, just eternal value.
why does a creative property lose its value after a certain period of time yet a physical property maintains it?
-
Look at Rowling, who's gone from beneficiary to 12th-richest-woman-in-Britain in the space of a decade. Obviously she's a bit of an extreme case,
your answer's in your own sentence.
there's how many billion on this planet? rowlings should be excluded from the data cos she doesn't represent anywhere near the norm of creatives existence. ame with the top 200 rock bands etc, they've got nothing to do with the reality of a sustainable and fair system. so they're incredibly rich, and we see them being rich. so are numerous billionaire corporate heads but they live their decadent life outside of the public eye. we should be able to remove these exceptions from the table when making value judgments. -
they would like to lock away 13 year olds for listening to MP3s.
13 year old's can't(shouldn't be allowed to) go into a store and take items off the shelf without paying. even if they can walk out of the store without being caught they've still broken a law. are they exempt from copyright law for any particular reason apart from the public's inability to grasp the concepts involved?
-
Rob, what did you think of Rick Shera's cogent points above?
still reading sasha, got a day job kinda thing going on right now and although I'm reading while my client does their recording I think they're getting pissed off at my inattention. (no I really am listening to that oboe solo with interest, honest)
-
sorry I'm writing here without having read all the way through the thread so apologies if I double up points made.
for me copyright deals with property and ownership. The problem lies with people's difficulty in perceiving ownership and rights in something they can't hold or see. That doesn't mean there are not rights and ownership, just that people in general have difficulty understanding the concepts.
I'm going to argue the extreme side for creatives (devils advocate) cos I see that side of things easily enough, although I see the' community' side well enough too. I am part of both.
if a person builds a cart on which they transport people from one point to another does ownership of that cart pass on to the community after 70 years and if not why not and why should something else b bound by a different set of rules.
There's the culture and value to the community argument but
the cart provided important value to the community.
"the transport defined us as we expanded our empire etc".If someone builds a song, book, panting, should the community have free rights to that song after a certain period.
You can argue that an Artwork is part of our culture and should be for community use, but the question could be asked - why?
just because people like that song/book/painting doesn't mean it should be theirs. We do after all live in a society that attributes ownership and value to stuff. communism shares things, we don't.If someone has a thing they created, and it's too expensive for you to use that product then you move onto another product that fits you budget.
Say for example elvis's back catalogue which has just come into public domain. Why should it be free? Cos his estate wants to charge you more than you want to pay for it? fine, choose some other music then. Why should those recordings be free to us? Aren't his performances of those songs just like the cart the above mentioned person built.The issue here is comprehending what a copyrightable work is, understanding what went into making it and the economic structure that surrounds its creation.
Take a song for example. most people perceive it as a simple and easy creation but having been involved in the creation of many of these there can be in excess of 2 years of crafting to make a song what it is in its finished product and there can be hundreds of ours and thousands of dollars involved in that not to mention the hours spent of the songs that lead to the hit, the ones discarded. In a normal work environment these are seconds, and as a worker you get paid for the time you spent on these too as its part of your job.
so while the population perceives an artist as someone who pisses around between creating income deriving pieces the reality is there's a lot of non glamorous work that goes toward a finished piece that people like to ignore. The 70 years of copyright income pays for a lot of other time and work that may not be seen as directly related to the hit but in reality are all part of the job, and that's if we assume the current copyright laws serve fairly creative types which I don't necessarily agree they do.
if you compare other types of work to creative industries - people who build buildings or make carts or companies etc get to keep the results of their work and pass them on to others as they see fit. There is no 70 year clause for them. what's so different about a created work? The biggest difference is peoples ability to grasp its concept of what has been made. Stupidity shouldn't be an excuse for our society to fleece creative types, just cos they can.
Apply the same rules to all production and work, its what a fair society would do, if that's what we're striving for.current copyright laws are seen by creatives as a blessing when really they should be seen as a taken for granted right. I've notice a lot of 'don't rock the boat' speak by apra cos they seem to think they're lucky to get what they do from law, but media creative types are a bunch of wimps by nature anyway. If they had any balls they'd be out fighting hard ball. They don't, but that doesn't negate striving for fairness in society.
The argument that creatives aren't interested in prosecuting people for downloading mp3's isn't a case for allowing a free for all. All creatives want fair payment for their work, just cos some are desperate and starved for attention enough to not kick up a fuss doesn't make it grounds for removing their rights.
-
There's nothing in nature to stop me from copying your work, there's only the law.
Isn't that like saying there's nothing in nature to stop someone coming into your camp and stealing your food?
previously there was the ability of you to stop them stealing it, but with media now technology has made it so that the act of theft is so easy and un stoppable that people are questioning the creators right to control over their works. Their right is still the same as it was when they could control their works but the population has lost sight of what is inherent in a copyrightable work. because it is easy to steal it is assumed it has little value, little went into it, and little is taken by the single act of copying. -
doesn't feed you or pay your rent
-
They crave the admiration and acceptance that comes from people seeing, hearing or reading their works and that leads to the fame and fortune that comes to worthy creators.
that sentence makes more sense if you startd with the word initially.
admiration and acceptance does' feed you or pay your rent, something you're going to have to do if you wish to devote anything but your spare time between delivering mail and working that second job on night shift to your art.it's a highly romanticised version of the life of an artists which misses out that artists mostly live in the same world as the rest of us, and that world has no room for freeloading, unless its unprotected media through a broadband connection. food rent gas clothes all cost.
-
Naturally, I'm interested in what correspondents to the country's cleverest discussion forums think,
I think its essential that you focus as much of the panels time on the importance of media content remaining as copyable as possible. really hammer that home.
-
sounds dead exciting. No really... *yawn*
:)
yeah well the sound of three guys bragging over a drum beat does the same for me, but each to their own eh.
I read the reviews on their site. uncut, mojo, etc. They're doing quite well, slightly better than getting 4 stars in the southland times (no offense meant to that esteemed paper)