Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 64 65 66 67 68 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
only for those who refuse to adapt.
Exactly.
-
Social darwinists, the pair of you ;-)
-
If only we hadn't coded up the pesky internet thing
if only you hadn't done such a shit job of it.
that turns clients into criminals
oh, right, it's the laws fault that you're breaking the law.
The law has been there all along, it's just been unenforced. that you've got comfortable with copyright breach through filesharing and downloading doesn't make it now ok.
does that excuse work in a court of law?
"I knew it was wrong but cos I got away with it for so long I thought it was ok"that go way beyond the gains the recording industry hope to make.
divide and conquer eh don,
it's not the recording industry, it's the media industry, including film, music, games, software, books and anything else under copyright law, where the creators and rights owners choose not to distribute for free, and that can be digitised and slipped through the presently un policed waters of the internet -
Seriously Rob, don't be so bloody arrogant.
I said
when you were on the street directly hawking records Simon.
I also said
And I do make the distinction between hit record commerce and everyday music commerce.
ie street level versus board room level.
-
oh, right, it's the laws fault that you're breaking the law.
Yes! Finally we agree.
The law has been there all along, it's just been unenforced.
Seriously though I do think that copyright laws are a good thing, I've said it before but I feel oddly compelled to reiterate (maybe its the gravitational pull of this giant thread):
1) The laws are unenforcable without hamstringing technology to a point that the market wont tolerate.
2) It's not necessary to enforce them, it's only necessary to improve the usability, accessibility, quality and added value of pay systems.Some of the stats quoted in this thread seems to back this up.
-
oh, right, it's the laws fault that you're breaking the law.
Sometimes, yes. And with the changes that have been forced through in the last couple of years doubly yes. In fact, Shane Jones admitted this in the select committee.
Sony et al were quite happily flogging MP3 players over the last few years in full knowledge that the folks buying the things *had* to break NZ law and Sony's own Copyright in order to use them.
-
of those you disparage as having "misappropriated their employers money".
I don't disparage them, I just think the people who did it with their own money were more heroes than people who do it with others, I'm all for abusing the system to make a worthwhile project happen.
90% of the acts who released records in NZ over that period would be keen to know how it was done
it was indeed possible
The trick was to know your market.
The bats did 2 albums which clocked up over 130,000 a piece with international producers getting $40,000. They've Never paid that off.
The chills blew money out their arse at the end there. it almost killed martin.I'm pretty sure Carter never paid off his SJF bill, and Headless Chickens finally came into the black a mere 10 years after they broke up.
Aside from those ridiculous cases that should never have been playing on the level they were billed at there were a lot of bands who covered their costs, just, cos they did it at a level suitable for the income they could return. ie they recorded at a level that didn't shame themselves and manufactured at that level.
The problem now is that where as sales usedto return on average 1000 - 500 in a certain league they now max out at 200.
200 or under doesn't cover production costs, so the choice is do it and pay or don't do it and put the money toward your own life.
the possibility of 15 cent a song on emusic is infact better than nothing, but doing nothing is better than losing money, so doing nothing is now the surer bet than nothing, if that makes sense.
And I just got to say it was rich of jake to take a dig at me re emusic when mr internet hasn't even bothered to put his own catalogue on there. I'm the skeptical one remember. I need to know that average income are more than the phone calls and effort it takes to put stuff up there. if its 10 copies downloads I wouldn't bother but then no one could actually give me details of average happenings on any download site. I know the figures for amplifier and I'm still deciding whether to spend it on a 2 scoop boysenberry ice cream or 2 peanut slabs. -
by the way simon you are a hero for your early propeller work. the fact those 2 albums were done the way they were put you in my admire books forever. that was pioneering spirit.
-
Hey Don, I wish Google was paying all musicians/labels, sadly that is not yet the case-but hopefully after 3 years of work and quarter of a million on legal fees the independent sector is actually going to get some remuneration from them. Allot of people have been working very hard to make this happen, including the MERLIN board which I have been lucky enough to sit on (along with Susan Ferris-who is a lovely lady) since 2006. It is also worth noting that both Yahoo and Google's first response to allegations of not paying Independent labels for use of their copyright was 'we don't pay independents-only majors'
I agree that criminalizing fans is a waste of time-Metallica proved that in spades. 'Lobbying for intrusive and chilling legislation' is an argument that could go for the next ten pages but I think it is fair to say we disagree on this point.
Yes I agree that the past effort was poorly written and didn't serve the purpose for which it was intended, but I strongly think that copyright must be balanced against fair use by the public but i personally don't feel that copying a work that you don't own is fair use of someone else’s property. If we (and I really do mean we) can find a half way point between the arguments that allows for people to consume media without being a criminal and allows copyright holders to have some level of protection from those who choose not to pay then we are part way there-how we can do that when I look at how far some of the parties are away from each other is an intimidating problem to say the least. I think copyright holders have to re-evaluate their position, but I don’t think they should have to "accept" that trading/copying files is the social norm so nothing should be done about it
take it with a grain of salt if you like but I believe the only way this is going to get anywhere is if some common ground is found
Mark
-
I don’t think they should have to "accept" that trading/copying files is the social norm so nothing should be done about it
Okay, Mark, what do you think can actually be done about it?
Personally, I don't think it's technically possible to prevent it, without breaking both the product and the medium. Culturally, that it happens as much as it does (and I suspect we would disagree about the actual amount) is partly due to the inept manner that the major labels have a) responded to the "threat" and b) not responded to the demand. And I don't think the majors are alone in b). Artists can't earn anything from digital music if they don't have any of their product online. And if they're back-catalog bands whose work is no longer in stores, then you can't really claim that unauthorized downloads are "lost sales", can you?
I'd also still like to see some reliable figures as to how bad the situation is, along with the analysis used to arrive at those figures. To save time, I don't regard anything out of the IFPI or the RIAA as "reliable". What are the NZ figures? Which bands have lost money due to downloading? I've asked before, of various individuals, and I've done what research I could, but all I get is "it's really bad, the industry is being decimated", so if you have anything to share, I'd appreciate it.
It's possible that the potential audience has been politicized to the point where they share because they can, in spite as much as a desire for new music. If that's the case, I can't see any sort of education or cultural reprogramming having any impact at all.
So, what to do? I'd honestly be interested in your suggestions and discussion.
-
Mark, the middle ground is hard to find when so much hype and mis-information is being thrown around by the likes of the BSA and RIAA. I think a start would be some acknowledgement that:
1. The Internet has, on balance, been a good thing for the music (and software) industry.
2. That our kids are *not* supporting drug dealers, the slave trade and arms dealers when they watch something on youtube or share an mp3.
3. Admit that this is a battle between some mega corps for control of supply, or at least control of ticket clipping.
To explain 3 further, the way I see it is that the recording industry wants ISPs and the likes of Google/Amazon to pay it even more money. The latter group want to reduce their liability (obviously).
Once we have things laid out like that then maybe we can get a sensible approach to all this topic. Right now Copyright infringement is being used as the big stick to curtail some pretty basic civil liberties that we have gained over the last 2 or 3 hundred years. That's unacceptable.
-
Don-thanks for this mate. I agree that there has been way too much misinformation on this topic, but I think both sides are guilty of this. Calling labels anti democratic or saying their motivation is to control peoples freedom and choices makes about as much sense as calling people who were against 92a pirates who don’t value creativity or the basic rule of law
Just for the record I think both of the above are laughable at best
I think that in the arguments that have gone around for the past 4 months both sides have been badly guilty of generalizing the others stance and motives, part of the reason I want to have this discussion is a genuine attempt to try and at least start a process where people are talking – as opposed to shouting at each other – on the issue. I run a small label and music marketing company in Auckland that employs four people, we are not a Major but we do work with them on a consistent basis (particularly Universal and their MD Adam Holt); I am also the chairman of the local Indie label trade body IMNZ and I sit on the MERLIN board and the NZ/Australia rep (http://www.merlinnetwork.org)
I look at allot of the decisions that have been made by organizations like the RIAA and cringe, suing college kids gets nobody anywhere and swinging a hammer when a friendly email will do is a fools errand. My viewpoint comes from a guy who works with local bands (The Datsuns/Minuit/Concord Dawn/Pig Out/Fur Patrol/Cut Off Your Hands etc) and tries to develop them to a point where they can have a career. I say this so you understand that I am not a copyright zealot who is towing the IFPI line (we have our own battles with them as indies as it is and are actually in the middle of suing them over the Kazaa settlement) and that you may at least be open to the fact that what I am trying to get across is from a NZ perspective.
To answer your points…
1. The Internet has, on balance, been a good thing for the music (and software) industry.
I would go further and say that the Internet has been the best thing that has ever happened to music. Yes piracy is a major problem, but the way in which you can now reach people without using the traditional gate keepers of radio and TV is amazing. Bands like Concord Dawn and Minuit would never have the career they have now without the web. This is of course balanced against file sharing which has of course been a disaster for music companies as it destroyed the limited supply/purchase model of the past 50 years. Same goes for opportunities for movies (blair witch project), software (linux), gaming (second life) and the list goes on. How the industry recovers from the change of model has yet to be seen-but the one major fact that will not change is that people love music and other people love making it, how that works out over the next 5 years is for everyone to figure out.2. That our kids are *not* supporting drug dealers, the slave trade and arms dealers when they watch something on youtube or share an mp3.
This is a tough one-kiwi kids are not funding terrorism by copying a Datsuns song, I think that much is obvious. But I don’t believe that it is a harmless transaction. I don’t agree with the whole ‘I’ll try it and then buy it if I like it’ theory nor do I believe that because they are copies then it isn’t a lost sale. I think this is the same if I use a cracked copy of photoshop as opposed to buying a legit or if I buy a 2 dollar DVD of Lord of the Rings from a guy in Bangkok market. People have the right to create and charge what they want for their product, I don’t believe that people have the right to copy something because they want one. Historically there have been a sever lack of legitimate places to purchase music but that is no longer the case-maybe the industry now has to contend with a generation of people who are used to stealing music because they couldn’t get it in other places but to me that is no excuse not to try. These artists and their labels are creating their music because they love it but they are selling it because it creates income which allows those people to keep doing what they do. Arguments aside on the validity of this argument I can’t say that copying is okay, to me it is a simple fact of you don’t own it, you have no right to it, you can buy it legally and easily (and at better quality) you are just choosing not to.
Education has to play a big part to play in this3. Admit that this is a battle between some mega corps for control of supply, or at least control of ticket clipping.
For us this is simply not the case. 83 Indie labels in NZ, all NZ owned, all of them trying to find a way through this mess. We don’t (and that is the position of the IMNZ who did consult its members through two separate organizational get togethers to discuss this position) feel that copying is justifiable nor do we believe that there should be a minimum quota allowed for ‘reasonable use’ through copying. We aren’t advocating knocking kids doors down or cutting off phone lines so grandma can’t call her ambulance when the heart machine stops working (my all time favorite scenario over the past 4 months) but we want to see a fair system (3rd party, low cost, presumption of innocence) that adjudicates over potential copyright infringement.We want to protect the work that we create, and we feel that is a fair position. I am realistic about this, I know that I am probably in the minority on this thread in my views on copyright and the web but I truly do want to find a way where can at least start to find an answer.
Asking the ISP’s etc to pay us even more money is a bit over the top-lets start with some money and go from there is our attitude. Some ISP’s sell programs that are marketed for moving large amounts of data overnight. Call me crazy but this sounds like file sharing. I think ISP’s make good money on file sharing and the associated data cost, and I think that they can contribute to the cost of reducing it or paying compensation to people who are losing income because of what is happening on their networks.
Rightio, sorry that was so long
Mark
-
Pirate Bay geezers get jail time although it seems largely token.
-
"It used to be only movies, now even verdicts are out before the official release."
heh, seems only appropriate.
I'll be interested to watch the appeal.
-
The whole thing sounds like a digital Suez Crisis - a judicial victory for the MAFIAA, but a political victory for the Pirate Baysiders. And the Baysiders won't be taking this ruling lying down.
-
Arthur Baysting at the supermarket a while ago and he was enthusing that APRA had just signed off its best year ever,
this is the guy who brags about his new expensive offices built from apra income in front of a ragged bunch of local chch musicians, while dishing out free drinks and gourmet platters of snacks which according to the venue putting the meeting on are bloody expensive.
All this while the average yearly apra income of probably everyone present was under the cost of one of those platters.I requested some important figures from apra and I still haven't received them.
although I did receive the number on the $500 plus list. there are aprox 400 nz resident apra members earning $500 or more which entitles them to an extra vote. Make of that what you will.other questions I asked were
1) what is the total take of money from nz?
2) how much of that is returned to NZ residents?
its been a few months now and they still can't give me those figures. Apart from that being pretty pathetic one wonders what kind of local branch of an organisation doesn't know what the cash flow though its books is, or even thought to look into it before. -
Hi Mark
Ok given this:
I would go further and say that the Internet has been the best thing that has ever happened to music.
let's agree to try not to break it whilst we are attempting to funnel funds to needy musicians. Whilst *you* might not be advocating cutting off grannies connection, that is exactly what the new(ish) legislation allows. And remember musicians and there representatives aren't the only Copyright holders our there, the software industry is much meaner than you guys and I shudder at the power you are placing on our hands. If you give me the ring of power...
I also think you are chasing the wrong targets with ISPs simply because they dare to offer off-peak rates. This has been a long established MO for telcos and other utility organisations who attempt to spread the peeks and troughs of usage.
However, I am very sympathetic to the idea that the artistic side of our culture should have broad support. I thought the last Government made fairly good use of our taxpayer $$s on that front.
But, let's also agree that the Internet is treating this group unfairly because it is so easy to breach their Copyright.Iin that case let's place a tax on Internet usage (which is essentially what the RIAA is asking). However, instead of that tax going directly to recording organisations it will go to the Government. A certain %tage will be used to support the role out of a decent infrastructure and the rest to compensating 'victims' of Copyright infringement.
I think under this model the Indies stand a far better chance of seeing $$s and you don't put at risk the business model of independent ISPs, which NZ also desperately needs. This does not stop you reaching deals with Google et al if you are able to do so.
In return I would ask that the music and movie industries in NZ quit their constant campaign to make Copyright law more and more strict. It really is time to call a halt to the 'Micky Mouse' approach to Copyright which benefits no-one other than some very rich mega corps who already have enough of a stranglehold on supply.
Sound reasonable?
-
Sounds nice and simple, Don, but it raises a host of moral, legal and practical questions that are, ahem, just as tricky as the current situation.
Eg: it seems morally questionable to tax everyone (including Mark) for copyright infringements they personally ain't indulging in. If we tax it, aren't we telling the people who don't do it- it's ok, you're paying for it- go ahead?
That raises the legal question: does it then become legal to download? Anything? The latest windows OS? MS won't love NZ... and linux won't necessaily benefit, unless MS just curls up in a ball and dies...
If it's legal, we're talking about a very different world (and NZ way out in front). What is then to stop people from copying and on-selling? Does that become a legit business model?
If it remains just as illegal, but we don't prosecute... won't the big corporates still have the RIGHT to prosecute? What will stop them?
Especially since... you're assuming a solution to a practical problem you and Mark have declared to be intractable: to fairly distribute said internet tax to those who've had material copied, we need a system that tracks downloads- that knows what people have copied. Otherwise it's just a guesstimate bunfight- and assuming "independents" will win that is naive.
So let's say we can get that data... what's to stop those who still wish to pursue their legal rights using that same data to sue? It'd be fairer, assuming such data, for those who download to be "micro-charged" specifically for what they DL. But then... we again incentivise people to encrypt their downloads and not pay....
Doesn't seem so simple to me. And that's before we've even started down the line of applying to a Govt Dept to be paid for one's music/programme/software/game/widget. -
Especially since... you're assuming a solution to a practical problem you and Mark have declared to be intractable: to fairly distribute said internet tax to those who've had material copied, we need a system that tracks downloads- that knows what people have copied. Otherwise it's just a guesstimate bunfight- and assuming "independents" will win that is naive.
Yup. To be fair, that's how some collection entities operate now (e.g. CCL) with regard to photocopying, as it's not feasible to collect data on every copy made by every machine (and let's not even discuss scanners). They will also collect on behalf of authors who have not consciously subscribed to their scheme. Their response, when I questioned this practice of collecting without authorization, was "nobody ever complained about getting a cheque".
BTW Don't assume that Don and I are joined at the hip on these matters. While we share some perspective on the technology involved and the likely impacts of current practices, we don't necessarily speak with one voice, you know ;-)
I'm still looking for facts and figures on whether anybody has been actually impacted by downloading/filesharing.
-
But we haz anecdata!
-
Yup, and law based on anecdata = bad law.
-
Anec-law?
-
Sorry, weather playing havoc with my arthritic funnybone. As you were.
-
Rob
Eg: it seems morally questionable to tax everyone (including Mark) for copyright infringements they personally ain't indulging in. If we tax it, aren't we telling the people who don't do it- it's ok, you're paying for it- go ahead?
Where were you when they collected taxes on blank cassettes, VHS tapes, photocopiers etc. and...the TV licence? Some people without children still pay taxes that go towards other folks childrens' school, so a precedent does exist.
I agree, though, it is reprehensible. I am looking for something less reprehensible than the current legislation.
-
Keep taking the tablets, Sacha
Post your response…
This topic is closed.