Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 70 71 72 73 74 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
Steve Barnes - no, actually, the practice hasnt been abused: Fowler found a large section of his reading public irritated by changes he made, and the second version didnt sell well (an author in this country has found the same thing.) I find the idea of rewriting something I've published tremendously resistable: whatever flaws a more mature writer recognises in earlier work, the work exists as the earlier writer made it (after a very great deal of rewriting incidentally.)
-
I appreciate Simon's first hand experience but he's pretty explicit about the limits of what he can apprehend also.
It's a tough call. If I was managing or recording a new artist I'd rather my acts music was downloaded free 10,000 times than bought legitimately 100 times, simply because I'd rather my act's music was in the hands of that many more people. I'm not sure if a p2p2ed track equates to a potential sale but it does equate to increased currency for the artist. And even Radiohead realised that with their one off. It didn't matter how many people didn't pay for it, or torrented it, because it Radioheaded it, boosted Yorke Corp hugely.
A similar thing could be pointed to in the 70s. The iconic images pasted on every school bag of Che and Hendrix breached copyright but both played a part in iconizing the subjects. In Jimi's case it played a huge part in Hendrix Inc being the money churning monster it is now.
As the manager of an established act I'd not necessarily be as keen on having my music taken off torrent or p2p sites (and yes, I agree, music is downloaded in the quantities you suggest Giovanni..can I prove it though..no, but I accept it as a given) unless it was a calculated marketing tool as per Radiohead, but if I'd done my job I'd argue that a large percentage of those who would've bought it in the good old days, before this nasty internet thing, would want the real thing, although often just the hit tracks rather than the whole album as before, and that copies lifted off off the net are often more musical tourism...look there it is, I'll grab a copy. What I'd really like to know is now many tracks pinched off the net are actually listened to, even once.
Kinda like the DVD shops here...you really gonna watch those 500 DVDs you are taking back to Perth?
The key thing to remember is that unit sales of music and revenue from non retail exploitation of music copyrights are both growth areas. We get both of these things heavily clouded by the misinformation that the music industry is dying and the collapse in album sales and dollar value, mostly from the big content providers. And that this is due to, forgive my term, 'theft'.
In NZ this is particularly interesting as album sales and dollar returns from retail sales of our acts have collapsed across the board but nobody yet, that I've seen can point to any substantial piracy of NZ acts.
-
What I'd really like to know is now many tracks pinched off the net are actually listened to, even once.
Now, that would be interesting. I'd accept that there are some who believe that he who dies with the most MP3s wins.
-
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.
Your paltry mis-reading of what I say is - somewhere between careless and ungenerous. The benefit to society isn't just getting stuff for free later. It's also innovation and new works being encouraged by the financial incentive of copyright. That's copyright 101, and YOU don't seem to get it.
You say there's no evidence of copying hurting sales, yet you also insist that people who base a business model on selling copies are 'hiding their heads in the sand".
You declare that you *support* copyright yet you are adamant that ISPs should play no role in enforcing it, and you're indignant when the existing legal provisions are pursued.
Yet no little ting ting of cognitive dissonance ringing in the distance? -
Now, that would be interesting. I'd accept that there are some who believe that he who dies with the most MP3s wins.
Now there could be the law change needed.He who has te most MP3's, dies.Jus' thinkin' :)
-
While we're at it, lets get back to the central questions here- questions, Mark, you seem curiously unwilling to answer.
What's your favoured model for content creation to be funded- if not by the sale of copies?
If we allow a 14-year copy protection- heck, lets say a two years!- how would you propose to enforce it, so it's not completely meaningless?
If you've got no answers to the most pressing questions, I suggest you're just blowing off steam. Fine, but let's not pretend you want to engage in a constructive dialogue- or that you have some semi-mystical 'insight' into what's going on. -
RIAA and IFPI figures analysed here.
key paragraph (and it relates to the US):
Consumers are switching from CDs, which offer the highest per-unit trade revenue, for digital albums and track downloads. The number of unique transactions is greater but the resulting revenue is lower.
It's worth noting too that:
According to the RIAA, a 36% increase in mobile downloads and an 18% rise in ringback tones was more than offset by a 17% decrease in ringtones.
but avoids the much discussed notion that ringtones were bound to collapse because the pricing was, uhhhh, akin to piracy. They were a happy scam that provided short term income but would never last.
All of which goes toward the argument that people (kids if you look at mobile downloads) don't really seem to have to lost the buying habit. It's just more that the habits have changed and changed forever.
It's a new world out there and too many parties are still fighting wars in the old one.
-
What's your favoured model for content creation to be funded- if not by the sale of copies?
I know you are putting questions towards Mark re: his copyright flow but I think once you step outside the realm of the devil's advocate, its a non point as quite clearly music is being funded, created and returning an income. To suggest anything else is really simply sidestepping the evidence.
-
What's your favoured model for content creation to be funded- if not by the sale of copies?
I know you didn't ask me but. As has been mentioned before on this very thread. Added value, weather it be Audio quality, heck, some even say records sound better than CDs. Packaging even, stuff that costs to copy.
Copyright is a social contract (ignoring the fact that is enshrined in law and if you break it you pay) that will only work if that contract is, dare I say it? fair and honest. There are some who think that if you can get it for free then any cost is not "Fair" but there are also those that think a large multinational corporation suing your dead Grandmother for downloading an mp3 is not "Fair" either.
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. Am I allowed to say that? -
There has been little discussion of the role of the creative in this area, we have touched on the perceived cost or loss to the Artist but not his reason for existence. There is always, or should be, something more than material gain as a reason for living.
Well, speaking as a painter, (or more accurately presently-ex-painter), I was after the sublime. There's a moment when everything comes together, your technique, mood, research and history of pursuing that particular painting/subject, accident, mystery ... and the paint hits the canvas in a rush of perfection. There's nothing else close to that bliss.
See, not every painting is good, let alone great, you have to pursue your quarry with tenacity, yet remain open and relaxed. Put up with dozens of failures till you hit the jackpot. It requires immense amounts of time, energy and meditative space.
It doesn't marry well with having a real job. Copyright is one of your few certainties and protections.
-
O well said Kerry! (By the way,every working creative person has periods of stasis- which are storing-up-honey times, either to make sublime mead or blow-yer-head-off spritzy crank.)
I think people who do not engage in this - life pursuit- put up a lot of Mark H's arguments - hey, it makes money, copyright should be severely limited -or extinguished-
(I think it should be limited to the term it is presently, and no rancidity about it Mark)
and there's an infinite supply of creative folk out there so what the fuck are we bothering about all this copyright shit?Well, actually, there *arnt* an infinite supply of creative folk out there-
-
Your paltry mis-reading of what I say is - somewhere between careless and ungenerous. The benefit to society isn't just getting stuff for free later. It's also innovation and new works being encouraged by the financial incentive of copyright. That's copyright 101, and YOU don't seem to get it.
I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is it has bugger-all to do with the nature of copyright. Copyright does not provide a financial incentive. That's provided by the market. That is not copyright 101, it's marketing 101.
You say there's no evidence of copying hurting sales, yet you also insist that people who base a business model on selling copies are 'hiding their heads in the sand".
I say that people who invest individual copies with value and count that value as "stolen" when it is downloaded have their heads in the sand. I say that people who hold out for a return of the old pardigm have their heads in the sand. I say that the game has changed irrevocably, whether you like it or not and, if you don't get that, then you have your head in the sand.
The old business models are grinding to a halt. New ones are required.
You declare that you *support* copyright yet you are adamant that ISPs should play no role in enforcing it, and you're indignant when the existing legal provisions are pursued.
I support copyright.
Copyright has nothing to do with ISPs, any more than Transit New Zealand is responsible when someone steals a car. Or the City Council is responsible when someone watches the cricket match from their balcony instead of going to the game.The "legal provisions" to which you refer were jammed through Parliament, in spite of being knocked back by the democratic process (i.e Select Committee), and I'm still trying to trace the details of that but MED are being unhelpful. I'm indignant when any bad law is put through, because it affects all of us. S92A was bad law, poorly thought out and poorly drafted. It's method of passage was a disgrace to the House, and to Tizard and Finlayson for cheerleading it.
Yet no little ting ting of cognitive dissonance ringing in the distance?
Huh. I'm not the one running on belief and feelings. I'm the one looking for the facts. I hear no cognitive dissonance at all.
-
I'm not the one running on belief and feelings. I'm the one looking for the facts. I hear no cognitive dissonance at all.
It's copyright, captain, but not as we know it.
-
Well, actually, there *arnt* an infinite supply of creative folk out there-
Obviously you haven't read any of my poetry.
Wait. Did you mean *talented* creative folk? Oh, shucks.
-
What's your favoured model for content creation to be funded- if not by the sale of copies?
I don't have one, beyond the fact that the material I create tends to uniqueness, whether in performance or sculpture. I've said before that the value-add model is the one that I think will work best, as proposed by Mike Masnick.
If we allow a 14-year copy protection- heck, lets say a two years!- how would you propose to enforce it, so it's not completely meaningless?
If I felt the need for copyright enforcement, I would use the courts, the way that we have always done. And I'd do a cost/benefit analysis as to whether it was really worth it.
If you've got no answers to the most pressing questions, I suggest you're just blowing off steam. Fine, but let's not pretend you want to engage in a constructive dialogue- or that you have some semi-mystical 'insight' into what's going on.
I don't see those two as the most pressing questions. I've got answers and I've got insight, of the non-mystic variety. It comes from research and analysis, and not accepting an industry's "poor me" PR. However, you've already decided you don't want to hear them, so it's hardly worth my while, is it?
-
Geez giovanni - a lot of your blog is poetry! Talented is a given when someone is an expert in their field-
-
Copyright is one of your few certainties and protections.
All right, Kerry. Certainty of what? And protection from what? And how are these of benefit?
-
Kerry. At last, someone who is speaking from the creative side of the discussion (sorry Islander but you have tended to dwell on the materialist side) but;
. Copyright is one of your few certainties and protections.
That can only be true if copyright is available to all Artists and not just the elite few that can afford big law (and that includes the lobbyists that get the laws enacted) and that the public respects that right.
There's a moment when everything comes together, your technique, mood, research and history of pursuing that particular painting/subject, accident, mystery ... and the paint hits the canvas in a rush of perfection. There's nothing else close to that bliss.
Bliss indeed.
-
I think people who do not engage in this - life pursuit- put up a lot of Mark H's arguments - hey, it makes money, copyright should be severely limited -or extinguished-
For the umpteenth time, Islander, I AM in this life pursuit, as you put it. I may not have won a Booker, but that doesn't invalidate my life experience or choices.
I have never said copyright should be extinguished. I do believe it should be restricted in term.
(I think it should be limited to the term it is presently, and no rancidity about it Mark)
I believe the term should be a max of 50 years from date of publication.
and there's an infinite supply of creative folk out there so what the fuck are we bothering about all this copyright shit?
Well, actually, there *arnt* an infinite supply of creative folk out there-
Actually, there are as many creative folk out there as there are people. What there aren't are an infinite number of people who choose this life pursuit, although there are probably more of those than you give credit.
One request, Islander: try commenting on something that I actually said, rather than just making strawman arguments and then dismissing them.
-
Steve Barnes - what on *earth* makes you think a writer is disasociated from the *material* side of things, mate?
I am an animal: I need food, water, etc. I am also an animal that dreams & creates stuff. Materialist = material as far as I am concerned, and that 'bliss' that Kerry mentioned CANNOT happen without the materialist backup - so, like, we dont die? -
Actually Mark H, fuck off. I'm very tired of this discussion which is not providing anything truly new and has gone far too long. Kati. Heoi.
-
It doesn't marry well with having a real job.
Yes it can. If you wish to place your preference with your Artistic talent over what you consider your "real job", can I suggest (via personal experience) get a job that allows creativity or get a job that might allow the brain to wonder, but not perhaps the body.Only writing with personal issues at hand, but if I want to paint, I'll find time and jobby work in between gives me time to hone my idea.I think there is that bliss (in many fields) when you are dancing to your own tune because I don't see any work as failure, just not worth finishing,If your doing it right your dancing, and you know if your dancing..
One of my special moments with a piece of work came when the person that commissioned it, cried.I wasn't sure of the reaction until she informed me of her personal catharsis.That was all I had done it for.That was all. -
Ah, Keri, if only you meant that.
-
sorry Islander but you have tended to dwell on the materialist side
C'mon Islander. You're not a true creator if you're interested in base things such as eating and clothing yourself.
(Oh, and we'll pretend you didn't say the other thing, because it would go horribly to my head and we don't need that.)
For the umpteenth time, Islander, I AM in this life pursuit, as you put it. I may not have won a Booker, but that doesn't invalidate my life experience or choices.
Is it your profession? Does anybody want to see or buy or exchange whatever it is that you do? Just out of curiosity.
-
Is it your profession? Does anybody want to see or buy or exchange whatever it is that you do? Just out of curiosity.
As I said, somewhere in the morass of copyright threads, I am an actor, director, writer, photographer, sound designer, as well as an IT consultant. I have been paid in all those capacities, but IT has paid best.
I am also an artist (mainly 3D and computer-based) but have yet to earn in this capacity. I'm hoping to exhibit later this year, if all goes well and the creeks don't rise.
You can see some of my photography at Flickr though most of the paid work was on commission, so they own that and decide on whether to show it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.