Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 69 70 71 72 73 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
I never have.
So it was some other Giovanni Tiso who wrote:
One of the responses to this changed environment has been to claim that copyright is too restrictive anyhow, and not serving society nor the creators, so let's do away with it, take the guilt out of the downloading and embrace the new.
(emphasis added)
I don't have proof either way, it's simply impossible to disambiguate the evidence.
So you were just putting forward "even if it were true that new technologies don't hurt creators in the pocket," for the sake of argument? Because the way you worded it makes it sound like you don't think it's true, which, without evidence, starts to smack of religious belief.
-
So it was some other Giovanni Tiso who wrote:
One of the responses to this changed environment has been to claim that copyright is too restrictive anyhow, and not serving society nor the creators, so let's do away with it, take the guilt out of the downloading and embrace the new.Now come on Mark, he did say "One of the responses" Which I, at least, read as "what has been claimed by others" so Giovanni was not stating his own position but his observation of the position of others.
Please correct me if I'm wrong Gio. -
Mark, what do you mean by 'accepting reality' and 'embracing the culture of abundance' if not doing away with copyright? Please clarify. 'Cos it sounds a lot like walking away from the concept of control over copying to me. ;-)
And as for 'define fair'- look in a dictionary ;-)
Or better, whatever you meant when you wrote that you personally didn't download copyright material out of a sense of fairness. -
Steve: That's a cop-out, whether it comes from you or Giovanni
-
so let's do away with it
In the same paragraph I specified that what you advocated for limiting copyright terms, not abolishing them.
Because the way you worded it makes it sound like you don't think it's true, which, without evidence, starts to smack of religious belief.
Really? Because to me it just means it might be true, or it might not - perhaps I didn't listen closely enough when teacher explained the subjunctive mood.
Throughout this thread I think I've maintained a fairly consistent position that the current repercussions are hard enough to gauge, but that in any case we can hardly extrapolate them as a predictor of what will happen in the future. Simon points to billions of paid for downloaded tracks, but one could point to billion more unpaid ones. I certainly don't think you can equate each download in the second category as a net loss of one sale, but how the patterns of consumer behaviour - which are in their infancy - will develop, is really anybody's guess. It seems to me that the arguments that hold that copyright is far too restrictive and that nobody's owed a living and that artists will create anyhow are all (free) music to the hear of those who'd like to engage solely in p2p minus the guilt, and that they are a peculiarly tone-deaf response to the fact that a kid in Denmark can burn a CD of my music.
Books are next on the bloc, and soon, I'm convinced of that. And there too there will be great social advantages - I personally crave access to out of print titles, and not having to pay for shipping when I buy from overseas - but we ought to be prepared for some serious shaking up in an industry that is crucial to the public good. If we respond to that too by saying, oh well, people are copying millions of books now, but it's the way forward and copyright provisions were not in society's best interest anyhow, it will be a limited and limiting kind of argument.
-
I was suggesting that my (yeah, I admit it- not based on 'empirical data'- but how much of this discussion has been?!) fear for the future of content creation is based on the idea that everyone benefits from the financial incentive for creation an enforced copyright brings.
You can laugh it away, but I'm pretty sure you've said yourself that's the rationale behind copyright.You'll have to point me at where that might have been said, you know, for context, because I find it hard to believe that I would have said it. It's not a position I hold.
Society and creators benefit from having copyright, if it's enforced - let's use your word - "fairly". Creators benefit because no-one can use their work for profit (or anything) without their permission, and society benefits because the work gets eventually released into the public domain. Your reading of that as being only of financial benefit to all concerned bears out my point that you don't understand what copyright is.
You admit that you have no evidence for your position. Come back when you have some.
-
but one could point to billion more unpaid ones.
Go on, then. Where are they?
I certainly don't think you can equate each download in the second category as a net loss of one sale
But you just said there were billions! How do you arrive at these "billions"?
but how the patterns of consumer behaviour - which are in their infancy - will develop, is really anybody's guess.
Actually, no, there's research, it's been pointed to upthread.
but we ought to be prepared for some serious shaking up in an industry that is crucial to the public good.
Correct, and if the book industry approaches it in the same way as the music industry, they'll screw up just as badly.
-
I saw an article on TV3 last night about This. Whole new can of worms eh? but look on the bright side. How many times, I wonder, have publishers ordered a new print run only to sell a few dozen copies instead of the thousands they estimated? This could be a boon for both sides.
-
what do you mean by 'accepting reality' and 'embracing the culture of abundance' if not doing away with copyright? Please clarify. 'Cos it sounds a lot like walking away from the concept of control over copying to me.
Philiosphically, I think copyright needs to be rethought, from the ground up (not because I want to get rid of it, but because it doesn't work in its current incarnation).
Pragmatically, I can't see that happening, so let's patch it as best we can to make it live-able with. Frantically trying to restrict it because of some unproven fear of "piracy" is not the way to do that, yet that's the way the industry (by which I mean movies and music, as the major players, but books are waddling along behind) are pushing the legislators and have been since the mid-sixties.
I've been working to prevent that, to educate legislators and the public that there are alternatives and that change shouldn't be feared, just because it's change.
And as for 'define fair'- look in a dictionary ;-)
I know what the dictionary says. That's why I asked what you meant, because they don't appear to coincide.
Or better, whatever you meant when you wrote that you personally didn't download copyright material out of a sense of fairness.
My personal sense of ethics has nothing to do with copyright, in the English Common Law approach that serves as the basis for NZ legislation, and everything to do with casting bread upon the waters. I pay for the stuff I use because I might want people to pay me for my stuff one day. I also like to reward achievement, whether it's the guy on Lambton Quay playing his samisen (he's not that good, actually) or Nine Inch Nails publishing their latest album (another dodgy example as, while I applaud their business model, I really don't like their music) or purchasing the Leonard Cohen DVD the other day from a retail store (because it really is that good).
Copyright is about permission/restriction (2 sides of the same coin) - it's not even about revenue-gathering, but preventing others from revenue-gathering where only you have the right to make copies.
-
Go on, then. Where are they?
Beg your pardon? Have you turned on emule or kazaa or napster in the last ten years? See where it says numbers of users, and numbers of files shared at any one time? Bittorrent doesn't do that because they don't like to boast, but you can look on any of the search sites for seeders and leechers on any number of popular and not so popular tracks. That ought to give you a general idea.
but how the patterns of consumer behaviour - which are in their infancy - will develop, is really anybody's guess.
Actually, no, there's research, it's been pointed to upthread.
Is there research on how people will behave ten, twenty years from now? Some of whom haven't been born yet? Oh, I'm very impressed.
-
I saw an article on TV3 last night about This. Whole new can of worms eh? but look on the bright side. How many times, I wonder, have publishers ordered a new print run only to sell a few dozen copies instead of the thousands they estimated? This could be a boon for both sides.
Print on demand has been around for a while, as a concept. People like to have physical books. I know of one publisher in NZ looking at it and they reckon they will only need to print 4 dozen books to break even. Perfect bound, of course.
I think it's one of the sales channels. I think it could be a very useful one, for publishers, retailers and writers. We'll see.
-
I'm excited that according to the Guardian article it can be used to print out of print books. That would be a fabulous innovation.
-
On the subject of print on demand: here's a university press whose catalogue is available for free online and for sale in print.
-
Beg your pardon? Have you turned on emule or kazaa or napster in the last ten years? See where it says numbers of users, and numbers of files shared at any one time? Bittorrent doesn't do that because they don't like to boast, but you can look on any of the search sites for seeders and leechers on any number of popular and not so popular tracks. That ought to give you a general idea.
I've already said I don't download, so no.
You seem to assume that these downloads will never lead to paid downloads, which is counter to the Norwegian research Sacha pointed to and Simon's information.
What is the impact on the creators? Are they losing billions of monetary units because of these billions of downloads? Or are they gaining sales of individual tracks because people have had a chance to hear them.
Is there research on how people will behave ten, twenty years from now? Some of whom haven't been born yet? Oh, I'm very impressed.
Ah, so no research on what may happen in the future is valid now. Jeebus.
-
I'm excited that according to the Guardian article it can be used to print out of print books. That would be a fabulous innovation.
IF the contents of the catalogue have been digitised and IF the publisher decides to make it available. Neither are certain, which is why the Google Books settlement is such a big deal.
-
I think it could be a very useful one, for publishers, retailers and writers. We'll see.
You forgot readers.
-
True. Them too ;-)
-
You seem to assume that these downloads will never lead to paid downloads, which is counter to the Norwegian research Sacha pointed to and Simon's information.
I'm highly sceptical of the former. I used to rent CDs and copy them in Milan when I was a teenager. It led to some paid purchases, but much more often than not it didn't, and that goes for all my friends who engaged in same. Call it anecdotal, but we're talking about a mass phenomenon that nobody really has a handle on. I appreciate Simon's first hand experience but he's pretty explicit about the limits of what he can apprehend also.
Ah, so no research on what may happen in the future is valid now. Jeebus.
Not in this particular case, no. I think it's pretty obvious why, people don't talk about a paradigm shift for nothing. It will never stop somebody from commissioning a study, and somebody else from pocketing the money and providing results, but let's not fool ourselves that they amount to credible predictions. They don't.
-
What is the impact on the creators? Are they losing billions of monetary units because of these billions of downloads?
Surely there is a point that without people downloading, the less people know of the existence of the work. So, a billion illegal downloads may produce a million legal downloads that would not exist otherwise, who can tell? There was a practice "back in the day" of record companies putting out "loss leaders" Cheap albums of mixed offerings from their catalogue, This, they hoped, would lead to increased sales of complete albums from artists. This model is now defunked by the availability of single track downloads ands, as such, is a good example of the state of the technology affecting the business model.
-
Surely there is a point that without people downloading, the less people know of the existence of the work.
That's what radios used to be for. But I agree, and I still use p2p as a sort of sampler - call it radio on demand if you will. I'm sure it goes for a lot of people but it would be as naive to say that it goes for all and has no negative impact on sales as the opposite argument by the recording labels that each download equals one lost sale is daft.
-
Steve Barnes, you hold copyright in your work from the time it is created (let alone published.) You own copyright in both versions of your work (John Fowles is a significant example of a writer who edited & republished) and you will indeed get royalties for each version (provided the contract between your publisher & yourself allows for this.) And the person who nicks any part of either work is eminently sueable-
-
I thought the wireless was for Payola </cynicism>
I'm sure it goes for a lot of people but it would be as naive to say that it goes for all and has no negative impact on sales as the opposite argument by the recording labels that each download equals one lost sale is daft.
Don't quite understand what you mean there. Could you rephrase?
-
Don't quite understand what you mean there. Could you rephrase?
Am I allowed to use the conditional pluterperfect?
What I was clumsily trying to say was that I find the argument that downloads don't have a negative present or future negative impact on sales as difficult to believe as the opposite argument that every track downloaded is the net loss of one sale. The truth is likely to sit somewhere betwixt. I'd put my money on it being closer to the former than to the latter extreme, at present, but whether I'm right and what the future holds is anybody's guess (except Mark's - he knows!).
-
Thanx Islander. I would be cynical enough to assume that this practice has been abused by a few over the years.
I still have misgivings of people owning what could be considered as an "arrangement" of words or notes, images ect. when the real achievement is the conveyance of meaning. How you prove ownership of a meaning is beyond me. So I guess holding the copyright is as close to this proof you can have.
-
Am I allowed to use the conditional pluterperfect?
As long as you rinse it afterwards.
;-)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.