Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
So what are you going to do about it?
-
It has already been pointed out to you that this is rubbish. Plenty of people here have day jobs that bring income BECAUSE of ownership in creative works.
ok, fair point.
People who have told us on here that they are in this position.
islander has spoken up about her position and its implications.
I haven't seen others in a similar position speak out as clearly in these threads. Islanders example is interesting because its a an important body of work that most people have heard of.
The music equivalent would be neil finn talking about his copyrights.
but even if Finn did speak it would be hard to do it openly and honestly because a large part of public attitude to copyright is dictated by PR. Lars from metallica knows that only too well.
He objected to people avoiding paying for his music in the wrong way and look where it got him. He was in the right, but he chose to be the person that stood up and said it and..... well it wasn't pretty was it. -
@Gionvanni
I think you make a very valid point - We all want access to high quality docos, films and tv shows as quickly and as cheaply as possible, yet at the end of the day they can cost large sums of money to make so in effect there is an ecosystem that needs to be sustained through reasonable laws and common sense interpretation. If there's no living to be had making said docos, films tv shows etc then we'll loose ultimately...
3410 At the risk of sounding like an apologist for those scumbag lobbyists in the entertainment industry and those idiot cardigan/walkshort wearing lawmakers in the Beehive - who said stealing had to refer specifically to the removal of the theived item from its rightful owner? If you take something from me that I have not agreed to sell to you, even if it is a copy, that is still theft.
-
So what are you going to do about it?
are you talking to me?
-
who said stealing had to refer specifically to the removal of the theived item from its rightful owner?
The law, actually.
If you take something from me that I have not agreed to sell to you, even if it is a copy, that is still theft.
No. No, it is not. You still have the item, undiminished by the copy. All that has been taken from you is the opportunity to sell it to me, though there is no guarantee I would have bought it.
You, Kyle and Giovanni (to a lesser extent) are arguing a moral point, that copying someone's creation is unfair and therefore wrong. I'm not arquing about that. With some exceptions (usually do to material that is no longer available commercially), I tend to agree.
That does not make it theft, just because you think it is wrong to do it. Theft is a specific term that applies to a specific act with specific consequences, to wit the removal of property from A by B such that A no longer has access, control or physical ownership.
This is not hair-splitting. It's fundamental to the matter. If you won't understand this, you should get out of the debate and go and live your moral lives somewhere else.
-
Islander
not everyone wants an agent. Or needs one. They cost (between 10-20% of a signed-up book) and the relationship either works or - as in my case- doesnt.
That's fine. I don't either. The price we pay for that choice is having to be extra vigilant when looking at contractual obligations.
This all has nothing to do with copyright, however - it's about doing business. The fact that the business you describe was to do with use of your copyright material is not material to the discussion about the nature and need for copyright.
-
I think you make a very valid point - We all want access to high quality docos, films and tv shows as quickly and as cheaply as possible, yet at the end of the day they can cost large sums of money to make so in effect there is an ecosystem that needs to be sustained through reasonable laws and common sense interpretation.
I think everybody here agrees on that, as well as on the fact that the existing framework has become unworkable. It's just that whenever that basic theft/not theft point gets rilitigated, I feel dutybound to make that particular observation. It's pretty much a reflex, and it adds little to the discussion. But what are you going to do?
Regarding the "we all know the moral boundaries", I don't know, i's always easy to rationalise in a self-serving way. A friend of mine once explained that he downloads stuff, but not from New Zealand artists, which strikes me a bit as saying "I burgle, but not from people in my street". Still, at the end of the day that's exactly what I do: take TV shows impossible to obtain otherwise or that I can't be bothered to wait for, or music that is no longer for sale, or the odd song that I'd like to sample but is not held at the library - all from "majors", effectively, no small artists or productions involved. Lots of Italian television for the kids through their web channel, even though I'm sure I'm not supposed to format-shift it. It's a thin moral ground, but I'm reasonably comfortable with its repercussions in the real world.
Islander of course reminds us that rights of creators to not only earn a living, but also retain a measure of control on the uses of their work is bloody important. Periodically it's worth trotting out this posthumous Dr Seuss piece.
-
There is no cost to the copyright owner in me having access to this information.
This ignores the business model behind creating media works.
The value of an item is not in the individual instantiation of said item.
it is in the potential or estimated saleability of that item, which is I admit a mind fuck of a concept and different from the normal physical object model. but it is clearly understood, we just choose not to think about it mostly.
When someone makes a 200 million dollar movie they're not focusing on an individual copy of that movie being the 200 million investment, what returns their 200 million and pays their staff. One instantiation is not the product. its potential views of it that represent that.
When we watch it without paying we are 'stealing' from that potential pool. Sure one person doesn't make much of a dent in that pool but if every 'one person' did the same thing - it collapses.
and yes I know there are some flops which don't return their investment but that doesn't change the underlying concept.The same goes for tv business models, the value of a program and the model they use to achieve that value is based on potential viewers that advertisers can indoctrinate with their products in return for free to air, and or subsidised by taxes and lisense fees.
When we watch it without 'paying' the fee (watching ads, license fees taxes etc) then we are 'stealing' from the potential pool.
We don't like to think about it but that's the underlying structure of whats going on.The argument that there is no guarantee we would have bought it
as illustrate by markthough there is no guarantee I would have bought it.
is bollocks. We consume it - we buy it. if we didn't want to buy it we wouldn't have downloaded it. what is really meant is we didn't want to pay for it, which brings back the stealing analogy, taking something without paying for it.
-
This is not hair-splitting. It's fundamental to the matter. If you won't understand this, you should get out of the debate and go and live your moral lives somewhere else.
Wow, that's unhelpful.
-
3410,
[W]ho said stealing had to refer specifically to the removal of the theived item from its rightful owner?
Most dictionaries.
If I say that in my opinion, an elephant is type of hippopotamus, that may be my opinion, but it is nevertheless wrong.
[S]o long as we are talking about the evolution of society in a new media environment, couldn't we stretch our morals a little bit further than the existing capitalist blueprint...
Sure, but we can't get very far into the discussion if people insist on misusing some of the key terms.
-
This ignores the business model behind creating media works. The value of an item is not in the individual instantiation of said item.
Incidentally, we recognise this in other domains. Take pharmaceuticals: there are drugs that cost nothing to make and plenty to buy, and that's in recognition of an intangible, the intellectual property. Because the second pill may cost two cents to make, but the first costs one hundred million. And most of that cost is employing the right people and their highly trained brains.
-
3410,
PS. my last comment was written about half a page ago.
-
Who does culture belong to?
-
Sure, but we can't get very far into the discussion if people insist on misusing some of the key terms.
You say misuse, I say properly understand. But if you think that no principles are up for discussion, but just the technicalities of how to apply the existing copyright laws in the new tech environment, say so.
-
This is not hair-splitting. It's fundamental to the matter. If you won't understand this, you should get out of the debate and go and live your moral lives somewhere else.
It's good to know that downloading music and TV shows that you haven't paid for isn't a moral issue. I feel much better about doing it now.
-
But if you think that no principles are up for discussion, but just the technicalities of how to apply the existing copyright laws in the new tech environment, say so.
Which would be ironic given that there's been a lot of argument against the current laws, often on points of principle.
-
Wow, that's unhelpful.
Tough. This canard gets raised again and again, on DVD's that I've legitimately bought (because I'm obviously a criminal and have to be reminded of that at every opportunity), on every campaign from the xx AA(NZ), in Government papers from MED (who like to characterise filesharers with terrorists, by the way) and on countless blogs.
Usually, I use it as an indicator of the level of thought put into the statement by the speaker, but I can't quite reconcile that with you and Kyle (I don't know Patrick, but it's one of the reasons I called him an idiot).
Without a common ground, we will never resolve what people see as the problem here (regardless of which way you view the matter). The law provides the common ground, because no-one shares the same moral viewpoint, which is why society developed laws in the first place.
The law defines copyright infringement and theft as separate things. Thus, copyright infringement is not theft.
-
3410,
You say misuse, I say properly understand.
Like Mark said:
Theft is a specific term that applies to a specific act with specific consequences, to wit the removal of property from A by B such that A no longer has access, control or physical ownership.
This is not hair-splitting. It's fundamental to the matter.
-
It's good to know that downloading music and TV shows that you haven't paid for isn't a moral issue. I feel much better about doing it now.
Not what I said, and you know it. My point is that it's not theft.
-
The same goes for tv business models, the value of a program and the model they use to achieve that value is based on potential viewers that advertisers can indoctrinate with their products in return for free to air, and or subsidised by taxes and lisense fees.
No need to teach me to suck eggs, Rob. I work in TV production these days. The point is that these programmes will never screen here. There is no other way of seeing them.
If anything -- The Daily Show on C4 being the most prominent example -- people downloading these shows sometimes actually creates a local market for them.
If you've ever watched copyright material on YouTube, you don't really have any moral authority on this. The principle is exactly the same: you've made a copy without permission and watched it.
When we watch it without 'paying' the fee (watching ads, license fees taxes etc) then we are 'stealing' from the potential pool.
We don't like to think about it but that's the underlying structure of whats going on.I've talked to the programmers at both the Documentary Channel and TVNZ 7 about potential acquisitions, based on stuff I've copied and thought was great. The odd thing that might be picked up will probably appear five years late, but most if it is just too hard to acquire because of the way that business operates.
BBC Worldwide, the Beeb's commercial arm, has some serious questions to answer in that respect -- it's just too hard for public broadcasters in particular to acquire a lot of the programmes the corporation produces.
And even if BBC iPlayer does become available for a fee (which I would pay in an instant) to international viewers, it's still not an ideal solution.
The BBC's blanket policy of retiring programmes after a week or two to meet "rights issues" is just stupid -- there are no relevant rights issues to Niall Ferguson's Briefings lecture; it's a couple of BBC cameras pointed at a lecturn for a public-good lecture. And yet, you get this when you search for it.
I'm not about to deprive myself of information those circumstances.
And I don't file-share box-office movies or music. I can pay for those.
-
Like Mark said:
Well, I could quote Proudhon and say that private property is theft. Which is representative of a current of thought that still has come purchase, even in liberal states who formulate redistributive inheritance laws or similar policies.
But if we are only allowed to undestand the concept of theft in a narrow legalistic way, while everything else is up for grabs, then just say it. I'll grab my coat in a flash - after all Mark already invited me and mine to do just that.
-
Without a common ground, we will never resolve what people see as the problem here (regardless of which way you view the matter). The law provides the common ground, because no-one shares the same moral viewpoint, which is why society developed laws in the first place.
Very well, then. Since society developed copyright law, let's devise a way of enforcing it that deals with the digital domain and be done with it. I'll join the RIAA presently.
-
Well, I could quote Proudhon and say that private property is theft.
Proudhon doesn't make law.
You can discuss the nature of theft if it rocks your socks. What I object to is the equating of copyright infringement with theft.
-
3410,
But if we are only allowed to undestand the concept of theft in a narrow legalistic way, while everything else is up for grabs, then just say it. I'll grab my coat in a flash - after all Mark already invited me and mine to do just that.
Well, I don't subscribe to that invitation, and frankly, I don't understand why you're getting upset by my comments.
-
__Wow, that's unhelpful.__
Tough.
Actually Mark, it is really unhelpful. I'm struggling to know how to rein in robbery after his pathetic and insulting comments to Simon Grigg yesterday (he pretty much did every single thing I'd asked to refrain from doing), and I don't need someone else acting up.
You don't have the right to kick anyone else out of the pool.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.