Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Inimical to the public good

242 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Oh, and there have been a range of solutions where one can get music in remixable form with the separate vocal and instrument tracks. I was really expecting this to take off at one stage, but it didn't.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I am certain that Telecom would be responsive to complaints of obscene phone calls

    Actually, speaking as someone who received an obscene phone call once, and phoned up Telecom to ask them to do something, they were next to useless. Not only did they refuse to do anything, they weren't even sympathetic.

    They do have web pages and information about it now, maybe I just got a bung call center staffer.

    Obscene phone calls aren't always a crime, in much the same way that yelling swear words out to a stranger isn't necessarily a crime. Making threats of violence etc is a crime.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    But there's no principle in our society that says that provision of a service separates you from any responsibility at all for how that service is used. In some instances that's the case, in some it's not.

    It's called 'common carrier status'- telcos have it, ISPs do not.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    Copyright infringement in the form of downloading is not a crime

    Wah? Mark, I thought you had some idea what we were discussing!

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2110 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    Wah? Mark, I thought you had some idea what we were discussing!

    A crime is something that appears in the crimes act. The police will come and arrest you.

    Copyright infringement is a civil matter. someone will sue you.

    It has its own act

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    ... although looking at some of the stuff out of those secret copyright treaty negotiations, I get the idea some people wish to make it otherwise.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    Ah well, that's ok then- I can live with incivility. ;-)
    But it's a funny distinction, since it's an illegal activity. But nice to think that after we are all sued and fined, we'll still be able to say we have no criminal record.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2110 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    It's called 'common carrier status'- telcos have it, ISPs do not.

    Well clearly that's changing somewhat.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    Well clearly that's changing somewhat.

    ISPs have asked for this before, but have been denied. Nothing has changed. Perhaps you could elucidate your statement.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    Wah? Mark, I thought you had some idea what we were discussing!

    [sigh] Do I have to post yet another screenshot?

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    For the record, copyright infringement is an offence, covered under the Copyright Act 1994 and amendments. Theft is an offence covered under the Crimes Act 1961.

    While the argument is often made that copyright infringement is not theft, it is not correct to say that it is not a crime, as s131 of the Copyright Act is "Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects" and reads:

    **131 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects **
    (1) Every person commits an offence against this section who,
    other than pursuant to a copyright licence,—
    (a) Makes for sale or hire; or
    (b) Imports into New Zealand otherwise than for that per­son’s
    private and domestic use; or
    (c) Possesses in the course of a business with a view to
    committing any act infringing the copyright; or
    (d) In the course of a business,—
    (i) Offers or exposes for sale or hire; or
    (ii) Exhibits in public; or
    (iii) Distributes; or
    (e) In the course of a business or otherwise, sells or lets for
    hire; or
    (f) Distributes otherwise than in the course of a business
    to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright
    owner—
    an object that is, and that the person knows is, an infringing
    copy of a copyright work.

    (2) Every person commits an offence against this section who—
    (a) Makes an object specifically designed or adapted for
    making copies of a particular copyright work; or
    (b) Has such an object in that person’s possession,—
    knowing that the object is to be used to make infringing copies
    for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business.

    (3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, every person commits
    an offence against this section who—
    (a) Causes a literary, dramatic, or musical work to be
    per­formed, where that performance infringes copyright in
    that work; or
    (b) Causes a sound recording or film to be played in public
    or shown in public, where that playing or showing
    in­fringes copyright in that sound recording or film,—
    knowing that copyright in the work or, as the case requires, the
    sound recording or film would be infringed by that performance or, as the case requires, that playing or that showing.

    (4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies in respect of
    infringement of copyright by the reception of a broadcast or
    cable programme.

    (5) Every person who commits an offence against this section is
    liable on conviction—
    (a) In the case of an offence against subsection (1), to a
    fine not exceeding $10,000 for every infringing copy to
    which the offence relates, but not exceeding $150,000
    in respect of the same transaction, or to imprisonment
    for a term not exceeding 5 years:
    (b) In the case of an offence against subsection (2) or sub­
    section (3), to a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to im­
    prisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

    (6) Where any person is convicted of an offence against this sec­
    tion in circumstances where that offence involves the making
    of profit or gain, that offence shall be deemed to have caused
    a loss of property for the purposes of section 32(1)(a) of the
    Sentencing Act 2002, and the provisions of that Act relating
    to the imposition of the sentence of reparation shall apply ac­
    cordingly.

    (7) Sections 126 to 129 of this Act (which relate to presumptions)
    do not apply to proceedings for an offence against this section.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    I propose that lowering the $ cost of a legal download to something like $1 per album would make it more advantageous (i.e. less total cost) to legally download than illegally download.

    At $1 an album, though, it's not worth collecting the money. eMusic is the closed I've come to the ideal download service. It has a great community and the MP3s will play on anything.

    I would argue that marginal income is important, and that punters would be more likely to wager $1 that they might like an album, vs having to go through the cost of researching (via HypeM, bfm or whatever) whether an album seems to match their preferences - especially if that album is priced at $15+.

    In the end it's about finding the right carrot so we can all put away the stick. I'm arguing for a big carrot, "the industry" wants a big stick. I'd say that the stick is doomed, but we'll see ...

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    ISPs have asked for this before, but have been denied. Nothing has changed. Perhaps you could elucidate your statement.

    ISPs are having to take some responsibility for what happens on their networks under the new law.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    "the industry" wants a big stick. I'd say that the stick is doomed, but we'll see ...

    the other problem with the big stick is the negative impact it has elsewhere. So, even though it is doomed to failure, it still manages to skew things in unfortunate directions in the mean time.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • mark kneebone,

    just to clarify a couple of things

    I jumped into this forum because I was hoping to get some different approaches to the way things are being handled at the moment with the copyright act and the proposals for notice and takedown etc. Please note that copyright holders and ISP's are currently trying to nut out a solution, so hopefully there will be something that satisfies both parties as a result. Thank you (seriously) for the ideas, I am the first to admit that we live in our world most of the time and it is refreshing to hear other peoples viewpoints on this

    Don Christie (the Don part is awesome by the way), I realise that people have a right to not be accused of things and penalised before there is proof, the whole intention of this notice and takedown is to act as a deterrent, not to open a window for people to spy on people or take away their liberties. Granted that under the current proposal there may be room for this to happen, again I am one person involved in this who represents 70 local labels who are trying to find a way to protect their property, we are truly all ears but we are not going to quit and go and sell band t shirts for a living. My point earlier in this thread is that I don't think notice and notice is enough of a deterrent at all, I think there has to be something more than that in order for people to abide by the rules so to speak but this needs to be balanced with peoples right to do what they like without false accusation and penalty

    Clarke-if i could currently provide the service you are asking for I would. I have a stereo that took me 2 years to build form various parts and components and all it really does now is show up how shit an MP3 sounds. I know it is convenient to say this but I spent this afternoon with a tech company trying to figure out different delivery methods for audio at different quality rates and hopefully this service will be up by Feb, we have been working on this for about 3 months now. The artists are desperate for this, they don’t want to have a year’s work sound like mud because someone decided to buy it off the web instead of on CD. Same goes for artwork, discounts to shows when you buy the record, t shirts the whole lot. We want to treat fans like the loyal people they are, we want them to actually be fans

    Mathew Poole-we are obviously at a disagreement over whether or not taking something that you have no right to is theft or not. You can call it bullshit if you like (and have), but I will always think that if you make something you have the right for someone else not to take it/distribute it/copy it/sell advertising around it without your permission or consent. Hopefully one day someone takes your blogs and does exactly those things with them and makes a fortune from it and then pays you nothing. I don’t mean this is in a nasty way, but in that maybe this experience will give you the empathy for someone who has given up so much to create something only to have it taken from them - when under other circumstances they would of at least considered paying for it - and receive nothing for it, and then turn around and say it wasn’t theft

    And for the record please don’t lump NZ Independent labels in with the RIAA and their actions, it makes about as much sense as comparing Public Address to Fox News

    thanks!

    Since Oct 2008 • 11 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I would argue that marginal income is important, and that punters would be more likely to wager $1 that they might like an album, vs having to go through the cost of researching (via HypeM, bfm or whatever) whether an album seems to match their preferences - especially if that album is priced at $15+.

    I'd buy hundreds of albums if they only cost me $1 each.

    But removing the physical object doesn't get rid of 90% of the cost. I'd like the band to at least get a couple of bucks for each album that they sell. And all the other people on the chain that made it available digitally.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew E,

    Would anyone like a large helping of alleged copyright infringement take-down notice irony?

    You would?

    OK, here you go, in all it's deliciousness.


    Enjoy.

    174.77 x 41.28 • Since Sep 2008 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    I spent this afternoon with a tech company trying to figure out different delivery methods for audio at different quality rates

    Eh?

    - Get the mastering engineer to produce a FLAC (or WAV) file at the same time as they create the MP3.

    - Stick it on the website as a downloadable item.

    What's hard. www.cytopia.org have this going now, and if hippies can do it, you surely can?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • mark kneebone,

    Rich-fair call, the delay is in the billing and delivery and making it automatic and then making it work with our distributor and then making sure people understand it

    Since Oct 2008 • 11 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    mark - just quickly before I head off:

    what's wrong with the fine for frivolous take down notices

    and

    Please note that copyright holders and ISP's are currently trying to nut out a solution, so hopefully there will be something that satisfies both parties as a result.

    if those two parties come to an arrangement does that become law or do we just pretend that the recording industry is the only one that would use the Copyright Act?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • jon_knox,

    My thanks to Mark and all the others who have made this thread a good discussion.

    Are there any other sites or web enabled applications such as hypem, lasfm, emusic, metacritic....that music lovers should be aware of? (Hypem just found me a Queens of the Stoneage cover of an Elliott Smith song, that is sublime).

    For what it's worth, I think a subscription service for the individual artists is perhaps the way to go. Couple of dollars a month for access to a range of content (live versions, B-sides, demos...whatever) and some sort of update about what is going on, particularly when the world is so big, with so much variety and a fan's location is so small/limited.

    The provision of a subscription type service may also keep an artist ticking over with things to produce for the net and may be a somewhat natural by-product of the creative process. (perhaps even covering situations where the creative process was a bit dry last month, so here's a couple of tracks from an old gig).

    As a fan do I want to listen to the same old album versions?...Not really, but it beats not listening at all. Pales by comparision with listening to a variety of rich, alternate recordings and gives people the thrill of listening to something new again/feeding the addiction.

    Belgium • Since Nov 2006 • 464 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    we are truly all ears but we are not going to quit and go and sell band t shirts for a living.

    Sorry, Mark, but your old model is gone. I recommend you find a new one that doesn't entail treating your "fans" as criminals before they've done anything. That's what you're defending, in s92a.

    I can understand not wanting to sell T-shirts but trying to monetize each copy of each song is like trying to stamp "MINE" on every grain of sand. You need monopoly for that to work (i.e. no one else is allowed to deal in your business, and by "you" I mean the traditional music industry) and you need scarcity to push the price up. And your stuff just is not scarce any more.

    I'd hate to see labels that add value to an artiste's career disappear. Most of the muso's I know need all the help they can get. ;-)

    You need to look at the value-add and look to make your money there, because your old product is now a plentiful commodity. And if that means selling T-shirts, then that's what you've got to do.

    And it doesn't really matter whether you think it's right or wrong that this is happening. It IS happening and it's not going away and you have to deal.

    But, sincerely, thanks for coming by with your ears on. I hope you pick up something that can help.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    Such sad news this morning, with Real Groovy going to the wall. What of life's great pleasures has been taken from us.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2562 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    @geoff
    Yep and, at the risk of being trivial, it wasn't piracy that took it down but naked competition.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    Sorry, Mark, but your old model is gone. I recommend you find a new one that doesn't entail treating your "fans" as criminals before they've done anything. That's what you're defending, in s92a.

    meh... cheap electronics and advances in computing these days makes big recording outfits all but obsolete these days anyhow. like i say, if they're focusing their business on unrecoverable costs then, "hello mr darwin."

    <che assumes there will still be a free market when wall st stops falling down>

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.