Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
I said "America is a republic, and you can use that word in much the same over there", as in, you can use the word 'Republic' in place of 'the state' in America.
thanks.
how far off is nz from being a republic?
that is what we're aiming for I assume? -
I'm seeing figures posted by the 'industry' but I'm not seeing artists putting their hands up and saying "we're losing money to piracy' with evidence to back it up.
Mark, are you talking NZ or internationally? If the latter, the evidence is not hard to find, although I'd add the provisos that a) I think the losses are grossly overstated by the recording industry, partially because of b) the tumble in sales cannot soley be attributed to piracy or downloading, there being a number of factors not least of which is the way the recording industry has alienated the consumer on so many levels
If talking the former the losses are harder to quantify if only for the simple fact that most NZ music is fairly hard to find online to steal even if you wanted to. Sure there is some but you need to look and is countered a little by the ready availability of so much NZ music in places like Amplifier and iTunes. If you have a computer it's much easier now to buy much NZ music than it was historically to buy the physical form for many New Zealanders.
-
I'm seeing figures posted by the 'industry' but I'm not seeing artists putting their hands up and saying "we're losing money to piracy' with evidence to back it up.
Is this an argument that people use in relation to software/dvd piracy? That people wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't have gotten it for free?
I've seen it a fair bit in relation to music, does it get play in other similar fields?
-
Mark, are you talking NZ or internationally? If the latter, the evidence is not hard to find, although I'd add the provisos that a) I think the losses are grossly overstated by the recording industry, partially because of b) the tumble in sales cannot soley be attributed to piracy or downloading, there being a number of factors not least of which is the way the recording industry has alienated the consumer on so many levels
I am talking about both. The figures from overseas come from god knows where and are not reputable. I have yet to see any artists post figures showing how much piracy has cost them. Even Metallica's tirade back in the day lacked actual numbers.
If talking the former the losses are harder to quantify if only for the simple fact that most NZ music is fairly hard to find online to steal even if you wanted to.
Then why did the industry feel the need to persuade Tizard that s92a was necessary?
If you have a computer it's much easier now to buy much NZ music than it was historically to buy the physical form for many New Zealanders.
Well, that's pretty much my point, Simon. The current copyright regime has allowed new business models to emerge that provide greater access for creators and consumers. Why, then, did it have to be "fixed"?
-
Is this an argument that people use in relation to software/dvd piracy? That people wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't have gotten it for free?
I've seen it a fair bit in relation to music, does it get play in other similar fields?
The opposite is used as a basis for estimating the impact in the software industry, and the arguments from the MPAA are pretty much the same as the RIAA. And, as I said to Simon above (but forgot to link to) the figures are not reliable.
I know a few people who have downloaded copies of photoshop ($12-1600NZ) and the like who would never go near it if it had to be paid for. Once, I used a copy of Photoshop that was paid for, but not by me. Now I use the GIMP on the Mac and PaintshopPro on windows, when I must (and is paid for) and don't miss Photoshop at all.
When I'm looking for new software, I lok first in the open source area, then the shareware and finally, if I can't find anything else, at commercial software. Partly because I'm cheap and much software is way overpriced, but more and more because open source is so good these days, with hundreds of developers working to improve and extend it in order to meet their own needs and then sharing it with others.
-
With regards to the numbers being down in the music industy (...well for record/CD sales), I don't doubt that they are down a lot. But I also think that the music listening public are to some degree voting with their feet regarding the perceived high price that the music sales industry are attempting to charge, just as much as the public are rubbing their hands with glee & thinking "free music".
In short it may not be a simple case of the industry being down the difference between what the industry forecast regarding extrapolated earnings and actuals are....The economics part of my brain recalls something called Ceteris Paribus. Someone with a friend in Statistics NZ could probably make a better meal of explaining what the factors are and providing some independent estimates. Else if anyone wants to pay me to do that piece of work quite independently (of both undue influence and probably rigor)...make my day ;o)
-
The new model has a smaller margin, but much greater (potential) reach, significantly smaller risks (excluding promotion) and then there's the thing called "the long tail".
To what degree is the old guard still clinging to a belief about their turf and attempting to extract as much as they can out of the back catalog? And really perhaps it's the back catalog that is one of the big issues?...as the costs of the developing the back catalog were higher, being in-line with the old model and wanting to reap the benefits of the long tail on that volume of work in which the labels have much greater control. This being the old stuff that was recorded way before the internet cast it's shadow into contracts and before the lastest generations started realising that they could do some of what the labels were doing themselves using the web instead of wringing their hands....perhaps that's where the Emo's came from and another example of why the net is bad, bad, BAD!
-
I am talking about both. The figures from overseas come from god knows where and are not reputable. I have yet to see any artists post figures showing how much piracy has cost them.
We know how much the downturn has killed album sales. Regular year on year figures are published weekly. From that it's fairly straightforward to work out losses.
The question of course which is harder to answer, is how much is due to piracy, and that I don't know.
-
how far off is nz from being a republic?
that is what we're aiming for I assume?I suspect it will occur if and when somebody needs an opportunity to rebrand a bunch of bureacratic stuff and requires a sense of occassion. Unencumbering some new govt, from the legacy of the past...<insert suitably enthusiastic rent-a-quote from Kevin Roberts here>. Whether NZ is a democracy under an irrelevant Monarchy, or a Republic it probably won't make a jot of difference outside the likes of No Idea and Woman's Weakly. Theatre, pure theatre.
I'll return to chanting my mantra now. inhale Circle of influence, exhale Circle of Concern ;o)
-
And, as I said to Simon above (but forgot to link to) the figures are not reliable.
That link is a little irrelevant though to this discussion at least. The story relates to piracy in general..be it software, watches, handbags or Nokia phones, all of which I can readily buy with 100 metres of the the room I'm in right now, or for that matter anywhere in Asia.
The downturn in music sales is easily accessed data. The jobs lost are a fact. I personally know quite a few. But exactly why is another thing. Does piracy play a big part...only a food would deny that but there is more to the picture.
Mark, I agree with you about S.92a...I think it's another Napsterism.
-
Whether NZ is a democracy under an irrelevant Monarchy, or a Republic it probably won't make a jot of difference outside the likes of No Idea and Woman's Weakly. Theatre, pure theatre.
it'll make a difference to me. for a start we won't have to use the concept of 'the crown' which just feels plain weird (shiver) in this day and age of independence. That whole "cos we allow you to" argument can fuck right off and we can get down to "cos this is fair and right"
-
I don't doubt that they are down a lot.
you'd have to ask someone who was working in the industry.
hmmm
who me?
ok, in the last 25 years figures on similar new releases have dropped from 400 - 600 copies sold to around on average 100. this is shitty indie music mind you.
Factors that have increased are accessibility to it ie its easier to get now for people who don't have easy access to a neighbourhood store.further examples of acceptance of piracy are friends with burns of albums, even local ones.
one particular example I remember a couple of years back was staying at the house of a relatively new girlfriend and finding a burn of my own album she had nicked from her work (she worked at a radio station that shall remain nameless). that felt kinda weird.
This was a reasonably cool indie type person, strong supporter of local sounds etc. for those arguing it isn't happening as much as people think, you just got to look around, be honest with yourself,
otherise you'll be saying the moon landings were a hoax etc etc.simon's not making it up that the generation of his daughter don't even think to buy. my sisters kids are the same. its not about making criminals (technically law breakers) of them. its about education, and perhaps a little deterrent, as presently there is none. even though the law exists and we understand why and there is a real cost and it is someones property there is no muscle behind that law , which is why no one respects it or abides by it. and it'll stay that way till something changes.
-
The downturn in music sales is easily accessed data. The jobs lost are a fact. I personally know quite a few. But exactly why is another thing. Does piracy play a big part...only a food would deny that but there is more to the picture.
I don't deny that there is a downturn in mainstream music sales. I don't deny that there is piracy. I do have trouble with the music industry's automatic assumption that the former is solely caused by the latter. And I'm not a food, despite what some may think ;-)
Personally, I think it has as much to do with some crap formulaic content, brutish enforcement behaviour, reduced disposable income (cost of living has been rising for over a decade) and a economy that has been out of whack globally for some time.
George Ziemann has some interesting stats and discussion. Wharton Professor Peter Fader has an equally interesting analysis of the Napster phenomenon, charging that sales were actually better while Napster was running. It's fair to say that there's as many analysts who disagree with the music industry's position as there are those who agree.
I agree that jobs are disappearing and it seems a little callous to say "that's life, get over it" but it's true. The revolution isn't about "free content"; it's about abundance and control moving from the supply side to the demand side, and this is thanks to digital technology.
Judith Tizard cites reduced demand for services at York Studio as evidence of piracy damaging the industry, but is it really? Is it not more that artistes have an increasing range of technology available to them in their homes and less cash to lay in front of a production team? Granted, they're missing out on a lot when they DIY in terms of expertise and experience - a good editor can protect a creator from their own excesses - but that's their choice and they can only learn from each experience (we hope).
The nature of the music business has changed, and the industry has not caught up. That's what I mean when I talk about failed business models.
That link is a little irrelevant though to this discussion at least. The story relates to piracy in general
Not confined to music, true, but relevant all the same, as the music industry continues to cite these bogus figures. Not comprehensively relevant to s92A, I agree, but hugely relevant to it's big brother, ACTA, which appears to be peeking round the corner.
-
it'll make a difference to me. for a start we won't have to use the concept of 'the crown' which just feels plain weird (shiver) in this day and age of independence. That whole "cos we allow you to" argument can fuck right off and we can get down to "cos this is fair and right"
Completely off-topic but it won't make a blind bit of difference. It's still the State that "allows" you to do stuff, whether it's topped with a crown or "Hail to the Chief".
-
It's still the State that "allows" you to do stuff, whether it's topped with a crown or "Hail to the Chief".
true, but the crown has overtones of ruling class and masses working to support them, "hail to the chief" has similar (america after breaking free from a Crown type system went right back to treating its president like royalty???, idiots)
I was under the impression (possibly wrong) that we are working to a more enlightened way of thinking that treats everyone equally, stupid idea that it is.I'm raising it to counter he argument that copyright is how it is cos we say so,
Under my ideal copyright would be as it is because of a bunch of well thought out and fair concepts that align themselves with how things are in other sections of society. -
Have I previously posted a link to the rumour/possibly a meme that is out there somewhere echoing around about a\Apple going flat rate subscription for music? I thought I had posted the link, but I've been having a few pretty vivid dreams lately.
How the hell will that be broken down?...and how do I get a slice of the action determining the allocation?
"... in this day and age of independence..."
Again off topic. Does anyone else want a piece of the action in sponsoring the buses with the atheist advertising campaign. They've now hit their initial target, but could probably always use a few dollars more. Here's the link to the campaign donation site... I'm unsure if Dawkins is still matching dollar for dollar.
-
further thought on the its our culture argument.
why don't we as a society buy the rights to items we see as important to our culture, just like we do with works in art galleries. all of that stuff is paid for buy the gallery or by someone who loans it from their personal collection.if its an outstanding piece of culture then buy the rights and let everyone have free access to it. seems a simple solution doesn't it?
we're not short of cash for things like the america's cup loser teams where we flicked 20 mill discretionary pocket money to them.
lets see what the rights to the screaming mee mee is worth.
simon, I'l start the bidding. I'll give you a fiver for them, and will donate them to society. (that's fiver as in dollars, not million) -
further thought on the its our culture argument. why don't we as a society buy the rights to items we see as important to our culture, just like we do with works in art galleries
Rob, thank you for proposing a different solution. Perhaps you could say more about who would get to decide what was "important" and to whose culture.
I have a different understand of culture and its importance and because it is different to yours or some book you read doesn't make it any less valid or worthy of discussion.
And all I'm asking is that you treat the understanding of culture I've described as valid and useful. It's not an either-or situation. I've acknowledged your committed practical understanding (which was apparent before knowing who you are).
"Culture" to me - and to thousands of worldwide academic specialists over the last five decades and more - is not some narrow set of products and experiences that is pre-annointed from on high as valuable (and sadly tends towards what boring old white folk like). That's the traditional view many of us got fed in school, and it underpins wildly unfair state funding where classical music, ballet and suchlike get more than their share of the funding and recognition while modern musos, film-makers and other creators struggle. There are nonetheless valid points grounded in that way of looking at things.
Here's the more modern view I've tried to contribute here: every cultural product is part of culture, no matter where or how its value or importance is negotiated, before, during and after creation. As I've said, "creation" is a joint process (which I know challenges traditional views about "authority" and ownership). Culture is also plural and complex and real - and politics and power determine value at least as much as aesthetic considerations. It's no accident that cultural theory has been influenced by hegemonic marxism and other political understandings. Copyright is one process for managing value over time, and its coincidence with capitalism makes it the underpinning of current culture industries.
The well-developed field of cultural theory helps describe that big picture and make sense of our grounded experiences. Other specialist disciplines like law and business obviously contribute strongly to our understanding of copyright.
To dismiss academic knowledge as just some book I've read is sad evidence of the deep vein of anti-intellectualism that this country really must get over. Any "chip on my shoulder" is probably similar to what Keir was saying - about the sheer lack of respect extended to some disciplines and those who have gone to the trouble of developing some expertise in them. You should be able to relate to that, surely.
the one time you were demeaned is when I misread a name on a post, and you got your full apology for that
Rob, I have never been offended about being confused with someone else's posts. I made it clear that I was talking about demeaning this forum, not me personally.
You put a decent effort into actually listening to what people say and respecting what they bring to the conversation and we'll be fine.
-
My own Counting the Beat story - imagine a packed school assembly with hundreds of teens enthusiastically belting out that song. We had a way cool music teacher..
-
Perhaps you could say more about who would get to decide what was "important" and to whose culture.
the musical and film equivalent of who chooses for art galleries.
I'm not trying to run the show and make efforts to not make it about my personal experience.
you have to establish enlightened guidelines for your system and then let them work for you.
Art galleries do ok for art (although I'm sure a hard core art enthusiast would disagree) but they're a good starting point.
This however doesn't diminish my argument for copyright length extension. just addresses your cultural needs argument. If culture needs it, then buy it. it's how the system works for everything else. -
Culture has it already, by default. Culture is not something separate.
-
Rob, I have never been offended about being confused with someone else's posts. I made it clear that I was talking about demeaning this forum, not me personally.
ok that link goes to the comment to mark, someone who hasn't been shy about disrespecting others points of view, as is the way of internet discussion. but, as you'll see I addressed your comment a couple of posts down and explained I did have a point with my comments, that were relevant to an attitude to art. the cake and eat it attitude.
but that's cool. its all about understand what each other means, and I'll admit with my crappy keyboard leaving out key letters in my posts and my failing eyesight that isn't always easy.
whether keir was referring to me in his comments on respect for experts is unclear. I didn't read it as such but I'm cool if he wants to clarify that, or leave it. I thought it was referring to respect for simon's knowledge (and lets face it, the dude is an almost unquestionable encyclopedia on all things music industry, its almost a little scary) and islanders outstanding achievement which surely get her a few kgs of respect. not that anyone's ideas are above examination but there is plenty of experience on here with copyright, and some who not so much.
for you to single me out for 'questioning' is a little 'personal', or maybe i'm just imagining it, anyway. I can let it drop, if you can.
-
(which I know challenges traditional views about "authority" and ownership).
respectfully sasha, why are you dissing me for questioning the relevance of your point to establishing whether copyright should be infinite when you yourself just stated "challenges traditional views about "authority" and ownership". if its challenging tradition then surely it hasn't been accepted as the go just yet. why am I the weird one for questioning it.
-
Rob, I don't think Keir's comment on the other thread was about you. It seemed like a similar frustration, that's all.
I was addressing what might generally make cultural products different from real property. I wasn't talking about "whether copyright should be infinite". There are others here who know far more than me about that. I respect their expertise and I have enjoyed their contributions.
By all means question an understanding of culture which I acknowledge is more firmly embedded in academic discourses than popular ones, despite a long and robust history of thought. It is "the go" in that sense and provides a much more coherent and relevant explanation of culture than those older approaches which are still part of our intellectual furniture. It's just not the dominant understanding - yet.
I can handle a robust debate with anyone who will listen attentively to what is said and not feel afraid of asking for clarification when they need it. That goes for me too. I take my part in any conversation seriously (perhaps too much so at times), but I sure don't think I'm right all the time. I have a lot to learn and I enjoy hearing other perspectives.
However, what kind of response do you really expect when instead you blithely dismiss stuff?:
"you've put forward an idea, a hypothesis , one that hasn't been agreed with, hence not adequately raising a valid difference at all."
Try that in a pub conversation and see how far you get. I'll admit that "don't make me laugh" might have been a better response from me, and perhaps over a beer that's what would have happened. Anyway I'm really over talking about this and hogging bandwidth. Let's move on.
-
Very cool that people are starting to put their visionary" hat and sunglasses sets" on and talk about some different models and work through the implications thereof. (imagine Ali G saying" RespeCT")
However I've found that when people are ballsy enough to actually put their ideas out there about processes, others do actually have to tread quite carefully. The best approach I've come across is to first & foremost TRY to view the concepts with empathy to the person who made them, before reverting to more critical thinking. De Bono's (not Bono) 6 thinking hats can be a useful technique for considering other points of view, before reverting to that perennial old favourite, the black hat. (yes even if someone has slagged you or your idea off previously and even if you suspect that there is an element of taking the piss...).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.