Hard News: Save the King's Arms
217 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
a few more gigs timed to allow one to enjoy the music
Kraftwerk came on at 8.30 on the dot. I was asleep by 10.30! Another reason why they rule. (Yes, I am a nana. I accept it. If you people don't give me, um, some *pharmaceutical help*, I'm going to bed. And loving it.)
-
[regarding Bhatnagar's plan for a compulsory 50:1 punter/bouncer ratio] This really does not make any sense.
I guess it's a form of outdoor relief for the thug fraternity, funded by a tax on entertainment.
So if a bar has a fire limit of 500, it'll need 10 bouncers? What will they all do, apart from get bored and start fights.
(Ok, there are some decent bouncers around, but probably not enough to meet the demand for these sort of numbers. Especially as places that just don't *need* security will have to employ thugs for the first time).
-
Having the place packed is the optimal profit situation for them, so it's not in their interests in either the short or the long term to just cut back on the number of paying customers.
Considering how many of the commenters mentioned difficulty getting to the bar, that's not necessarily the case...
90% head-count and +50% drink sales might be a better better proposition?
-
Anecdata: I have never bought a drink at the King's Arms. Not once. The sheer horror of getting to the bar is too much.
-
Venerable venue vanishes
once upon a time
deep down Christchurch
way out in the suburbs
back up close to the hills
there stood a rockin venue
made of sweat and wood...
... dreams blazing brightly
formally known as
The Hillsborough
...closed for years
now ashes
and dust
motes
in th'
sun...yores nostalgically
A Punter
Throw yer arms around me... -
Considering how many of the commenters mentioned difficulty getting to the bar, that's not necessarily the case...
90% head-count and +50% drink sales might be a better better proposition?
Might be. Might also not work out like that. Trouble getting to the bar is usually because too many people are at the bar. Which is not bad for the bar, just the people. Probably there is a diminished return once the bar is running at capacity, but it's still a return, if people also paid for a ticket. It's not in the bar's interest to turn anyone away short of their legal head count (unless they are causing trouble).
In my experience, when it's getting really hard to get to the bar, that seems to massively increase the volume of sales - people know they won't be able to casually saunter up, and instead buy everything in huge rounds, which is much more efficient for the bar - less transactions, of higher value, and the ability to multitask, pouring several drinks at once.
Which is shithouse for some customers, and the staff - I personally can't stand places like that. But are the owners going to care? I doubt it. As I was saying before, there clearly are enough people who actually like that kind of thing to keep it going in perpetuity.
-
Anecdata: I have never bought a drink at the King's Arms. Not once. The sheer horror of getting to the bar is too much.
I shamelessly try and get other people to go to the bar for me.
-
I only just caught up with this thread, and am interested in some of the copyright issues being discussed:
It's not a copy. The original is a photo. The image on the web site is published and therefore a new original. By scanning it and republishing it you have ownership of the derivative copyright.
But the web image almost certainly is a copy. The definition of "copy" (see section 2 of the Copyright Act 1994) covers "in relation to any description of work, reproducing, recording, or storing the work in any material form (including any digital format), in any medium and by any means".
Unless there has been some modification of the original work, the web image will be regarded as a digital reproduction of the original photo, and so will be a "copy". So section 14 of the Copyright Act 1994 means it is not a copyright work in its own right. And if it's not a copyright work you can't infringe it.
I am assuming, by the way, that copyright in the original expired some time ago...
-
Scott - that's what I thought. But Kyle seems to have done a lot of situation-specific research.
I intend to do more research of my own (by which I mean ask someone) when I get a chance.
-
3410,
Trouble getting to the bar is usually because too many people are at the bar.
Don't know whether you are familiar with the KA but, as mentioned above, this is not the problem. When it's packed you can't move anywhere without great difficulty.
-
No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.
Your campaign has borne fruit. He pops up in a story (unillustrated) about a certain local parade o porn stars.
-
Which is shithouse for some customers, and the staff - I personally can't stand places like that. But are the owners going to care? I doubt it. As I was saying before, there clearly are enough people who actually like that kind of thing to keep it going in perpetuity.
Nah, I don't buy that. I don't think anyone who goes to the KA would object to it being more navigable on a big night -- even party people need to get to the toilet, if only to do another line.
And, as I said earlier, it appears the change is finally going to come. There's a lot they can do with that space -- there's a lot of un-utilised space behind the bar itself, and a dormant kitchen in the back corner. One likely change is to move the main entrance to the side of the room, running past the public bar.
-
But the web image almost certainly is a copy. The definition of "copy" (see section 2 of the Copyright Act 1994) covers "in relation to any description of work, reproducing, recording, or storing the work in any material form (including any digital format), in any medium and by any means".
That would be copying one digital file to another digital file. Or printing it out again on a printer. Or printing out another photo from the original negative.
The process of scanning an image certainly is making a new original. It's not the same as the original, though it will look similar.
(at least this is what we've been told by a local Professor of law who deals with civil torts and intellectual property)
I should note, this hasn't been properly tested in court, so this was his best practice advice. Gordon's advice on the source of the original is as likely to be an issue for libraries.
-
3410,
I should note, this hasn't been properly tested in court, so this was his best practice advice.
Right, but bear in mind that such best practice advice is there to keep the client, as much as possible, out of legal disputes. This is a different thing from advising whether a client is likely to prevail in such a dispute.
I suspect that, if it was challenged, a scan of a photo would be found to be a copy. A "copy," I would argue, doesn't have to be physically identical, but merely functionally identical.
(IANAL)
-
The process of scanning an image certainly is making a new original. It's not the same as the original, though it will look similar.
Here's my completely uninformed take on it...
Whether a scan of a photograph does or does not constitute a "copy" or a "new work" could be borderline...
But surely as soon as I photoshop some ghostly-grey writing over the corner, its definitely a new work?
btw. the writing might say "copyrite me, this year"
-
The definition of "copy" is wide. It is not limited to a copy in the same form of media. Scanning a photo into a system is probably copying under the Copyright Act.
I don't want to be arguing with a law professor, as I'm sure he knows his stuff, but the case law says for a work to be "original" there must be a degree of skill and labour involved in its creation. Simply scannng a photo into a system wouldn't, I'd have thought, meet that test.
On the other hand, if the person scanning the original photo was making decisions about resolution, tone, contrast etc, or was touching up the image, then maybe. But it would have to be more than minor or incidental.
(IAAL, but IANALP)
-
Since it appears to be an unanswered question, and New Zealand is a common law country, this discussion on the status of copies as original works, as it applies to the status of UK scans in the PD Wikimedia Commons project, might be of interest.
-
Further to the last link; it seems the copyright question may be answered sooner rather than later, at least as far as the UK is concerned, as the National Portrait Gallery has launched a lawsuit against a Wikimedia uploader.
-
I don't want to be arguing with a law professor, as I'm sure he knows his stuff, but the case law says for a work to be "original" there must be a degree of skill and labour involved in its creation. Simply scannng a photo into a system wouldn't, I'd have thought, meet that test.
He related it to reproducing a photograph in a book.
A photograph might be out of copyright, but your publication of it is in copyright. So if we wanted a legal copy of that image we had to go to the original photograph, and not scan the one in the book. He then said it was very unlikely we'd ever have any problems scanning them from the books, so that's what we do.
His thoughts were that publishing on a web site was the same as publishing in a book, in legal terms.
-
Kyle, that certainly fits with what I was taught in an IP law class. Copyright in a direct copy vests with the copier, and that applies whether or not the copied work is in or out of copyright. However, if the copied work is under copyright you're then on the hook for contributory infringement as well as direct infringement, and the courts will almost invariably assign your rights to the original holder if it goes that far. So you end up with absolutely nothing - no proceeds, and no rights.
-
Kyle, it's an interesting argument, but I would probably disagree with the good professor based on my understanding and interpretation of copyright law - at least insofar as the reproduction has not involved any significant skill, labour or thought.
I do agree a photo of a photo/artwork, where the photographer has had to adjust the light, check compositon, focus etc., might qualify as copyright work. But I suspect a lot of archival work involves simply scanning a document or work without much thought as to those issues.
This is probably an area where we need a few good cases to sort out what the law is.
This is also why we need another copyright thread...
-
I know this is partly my fault in this case, but I love how discussions here eventually tend towards copyright.
I would like to propose a law: "As a Public Address discussion grows longer, the probability of the discussion involving copyright approaches 1"
-
In N.Z. it is entirely untested, a bit like author's moral rights.
In the U.S.A. slavish reproduction does not make for new copyright.
In the U.K. there have been court decisions that hint at both for and against the attachment of new copyright.For a good summary of the history of law in this area and the current wikipedia case, see
http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-get.html -
I would like to propose a law: "As a Public Address discussion grows longer, the probability of the discussion involving copyright approaches 1"
Henceforth: Darroch's Law.
-
@Russell, you say you don't buy it, but then you talk about the customer's perspective again. I was talking about the owners, who have no interest in turning away any customers that they can fit into the joint.
For sure they would have an interest in improving the place, but you could hardly argue that being constantly packed out is bad for business. And it is constantly packed out, and that's what the complaints here are about. Clearly, despite the fact that everyone would always like any improvements that they can get, they already like it enough, or they wouldn't go there.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.