Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
Slow down and think before you write.
that's rich coming from you my friend. You could get a wider field of experience in the areas you're addressing before you type.
Your argument is based on the ability to focus on the exceptions and ignore everything else, if we're broadly generalising, but lets not do that, although it would pass the time while we're waiting for this brave new world or recycled media to come, and wait, and wait. -
What Rob and his fellow travellers fail to realise, Sacha, is that it really doesn't matter what they or we think about increased copyright enforcement.
Oh, I have no doubt that the industry view will prevail momentarily and we'll all need to be very careful about how we use content, but in the long term it's irrelevant - it's the death throes of the dinosaur which hasn't realised that the tarpit has been spreading around it.
If the multitude of accusations brought by the industry watchdogs (but only 1 or 2 actual cases BTW) haven't put people off copying and sharing, why do they think that more of the same will have any effect?
Carrying on as we are is not an option.
jeez, you make it sound like it's one of the greatest problems facing human kind, right up there with the iraq war, world hunger and various mafias.
Is paying for media really that much of an insult to everyone?Actually, it's the content industry that's making it sound like it's the most important problem facing the world, as anyone who says that they are familiar with the industry would know, because they would have read the industry material.
One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes.
http://www.riaa.org/physicalpiracy.php
Downloading movies without the authorization of copyright holders is a growing international phenomenon, and it has serious consequences.
http://www.mpaa.org/piracy.asp
But the game has changed and infringers will keep infringing. The nature of the internet is to create copies - that's how it works.
The problem for all sectors of the content industry is that they fail to understand how they need to change to match this evolution. Old measures were for old technologies, where the scarcity of the product was a given because of the barriers to entry that copying entailed. That's changed, and it's not going to change back. That's what Lessig is saying with "carrying on as we are is not an option."
These "infringers" are your potential customers, Rob. You can't force them to buy what you're selling, and criminalising them is not going to change that. The reason you and those like you face going out of business is not because of piracy, but because you are failing to adapt to a changing market.
The hank's in your hands.
-
The problem for all sectors of the content industry is that they fail to understand how they need to change to match this evolution. Old measures were for old technologies, where the scarcity of the product was a given because of the barriers to entry that copying entailed. That's changed, and it's not going to change back. That's what Lessig is saying with "carrying on as we are is not an option."
No wrong at almost every level Mark. As I tried to point out to you in that other thread whilst you tried to put words in my mouth, there are plenty of us with some history in the content industry who have advocated just that, and repeatedly said that not changing is not an option..going back at least half a decade before others wandered in and started repeating what had been said as if it was some revelation.
You may get the industry bodies sticking their heads in the sand and waffling but to assume they speak for the content industry as a whole simply shows a failure to understand the industry at the root or the things that drive it.
Many many content providers have long embraced and championed the ethos and direction of the web and indeed the benefits of file sharing as far back as Napster (the professor you quoted in that other thread was a few years late with his theories and much quoted examples), and indeed the division in the industry this has caused has been the subject of fairly heated discussion for years in industry forums. I've seen Lessig's quote, from others, countless times over the years but mostly it's long since accepted.
These are not stupid people and many are more than one step ahead of this discussion.
-
You may get the industry bodies sticking their heads in the sand and waffling but to assume they speak for the content industry as a whole simply shows a failure to understand the industry at the root or the things that drive it.
In which case, why do we get legislation that's driven by the industry bodies? You can't pretend that s92 is in some way reflective of a desire to embrace the internet.
As with most things, it's the vocal players that get the attention. They also get the laws drafted how they want them, and the rest of you be damned.If you want us to consider the industries as having any more-enlightened players than the industry bodies, rein the fuckers in. Because right now, y'all are getting tarred with the same brush, as unfair as that may be.
-
If you want us to consider the industries as having any more-enlightened players than the industry bodies, rein the fuckers in
What Matthew said. I want creators to be successful and to be fairly rewarded. I want viable industries - and socially motivated forms of cultural exchange for those less motivated my money.
But I'm not personally in a position to make that happen right now. So for those who are, get on with it, and tell us how to play our part. Just don't be all Canute about it, and don't come whining here when your colleagues are behaving like protectionist shits. Go sort them out.
-
In which case, why do we get legislation that's driven by the industry bodies? You can't pretend that s92 is in some way reflective of a desire to embrace the internet.
As with most things, it's the vocal players that get the attention. They also get the laws drafted how they want them, and the rest of you be damned.If you want us to consider the industries as having any more-enlightened players than the industry bodies, rein the fuckers in. Because right now, y'all are getting tarred with the same brush, as unfair as that may be.
Because as you say, these are the most vocal bodies and whilst they may get the attention but quite clearly do not represent all the underflow. It's naive to think an industry such as the recording industry which ranges from the likes of little vinyl based 500 unit labels, to digital only dance labels to multi-billion dollar public corporations, and every colour in-between, all speak with the same voice and work within the same parameters. Especially when one of the core rules of this industry at the lower levels is that there are no rules. Embracing digital has given many small players quite an edge.
You want the little guys to have the same voice...you fund them to reign in giants like UMG and WMG because I don't think they see it as their job or responsibility and are, quite noisily, as derisive of the demands made by these guys as anyone..at least where I'm sitting and from what I'm reading daily. The majors are, once you leave NZ, rarely cut much slack by the indies when it comes to digital.
Or maybe tell the lawmakers, who are listening to the major label bodies, and after all, are paid employees that they are not considering all the options. The onus to take into account all options lies with those drafting the law, not the lobby groups or anyone else.
Reign in the fuckers drafting this stuff. You won't get a lot of argument from a lot of the recording industry.
-
Just don't be all Canute about it, and don't come whining here when your colleagues are behaving like protectionist shits. Go sort them out.
Why? Can you point me in the direction of a ruling that says that a record label is either his brother's keeper or anyone elses? It's not my or anyone elses job to defend anyone against a naivete that makes blanket assumptions that it's all one happy family gagging for punitive legislation to beat up people in New Zealand.
-
Actually, it's the content industry that's making it sound like it's the most important problem facing the world,
actually I thought they'd been pretty slow in their response after they got spooked with the while lars metallica backlash. it took em ages to recover from that and formulate a plan. the whole lobbying to get isp's into the mix has only just happened and that would have been a bleeding obvious first port of call you would have though.
They're not saying its a serious issue for society, they're saying its serious for the continuation of what they do, ie they'll lose their job so you can see why they're upset.
The question is why is it soooooooo important to mr mash up and unauthorised remix. -
These "infringers" are your potential customers, Rob.
well firstly not my customers, my customers are all music nerds intent on supporting the music they love, I talk to them directly and they insist on paying even when I tell them I'll burn them a copy,
and secondly, I suppose 'infingers' are potential music customers in the same way shoplifters are potential shoppers. When you put it like that it does make it seem a whole lot better.
-
@Simon Grigg
If you don't want to be tarred with the industry brush, sort out your industry. It is your job, if you don't want the blame that goes with them.@robbery
You obviously do not know what they're saying. Try looking at the arguments they make for for ACTA. One of the reasons ACTA has been proposed is that the US is getting no traction in the WTO, because the developing countries are saying "it's not the most important thing on our agenda".As for your "customer" comment, pretty much tells me why you're worried about going out of business.
Pretty much going back to ignoring you now. Buh-bye
-
@Simon Grigg
If you don't want to be tarred with the industry brush, sort out your industry. It is your job, if you don't want the blame that goes with them.Don't sort such naive twaddle Mark. Do I approach a few software developers I know and say sort out EA's 'Securom'. No of course not. How exactly is it 'my job'?..because you stomp your feet and say so? You don't like the law that various lobby groups have persuaded quite a few governments around the world to enact, you sort it out...I'm not your keeper.
Do I really care about the 'blame' that a few folks on PA who don't quite get the dynamic of the recording industry may throw in a blanket direction..no, sorry.
Pretty much going back to ignoring you now. Buh-bye
That, I guess, is an 'I don't know' statement.
-
That, I guess, is an 'I don't know' statement.
And you would guess incorrectly. But when did you become robbery's keeper?
-
And you would guess incorrectly. But when did you become robbery's keeper?
I didn't and correct me if I'm wrong but in the last copyright thread you walked away, similarly tossing a few false assumptions out there as facts in doing so, so I guessed it was habitual.
-
And I'm putting words in your mouth, eh? As a matter of interest, I continued watching the thread; I merely stopped responding to you or robbery as neither of you were prepared to accept that alternative viewpoints may be valid. You at least engaged, but robbery merely changed the subject when confronted with things he couldn't or wouldn't answer, plus his ignorant abuse of other participants in the thread. Now, what would be the point of staying around for more of the same?
Simon, if you're not part of the industry, then it's not your job, I accept that. But if you consider that you are part of the industry, then managing the industry body, influencing its policies and activities, is very much your partial responsibility. I can't imagine you'll turn down any benefits they might make for industry members.
But if you quote their cant, for which they and you have provided NO proof (i.e. that file-sharing has had a deleterious effect on the music industry), then expect to be seen as a part of the industry and so part of the problem.
Instead of responding to the matters I raised, in that thread you refer to above, you dismissed any evidence that runs against your statements as out of date or irrelevant, but you provide nothing that substantiates the view that file-sharing has damaged the music industry.
So here's the challenge, Simon: Show some evidence that this has occurred, and I mean solid evidence that the industry has directly suffered from file-sharing, that labels have gone out of business because of file-sharing, that bands have gone out of business - let's see some names, dates and figures, not anecdotes that your daughter doesn't think it's wrong. I have no doubt that she thinks that way, but you seem to be working from the base idea that she is wrong. What if she is right and you are wrong? Is that a possibility you can entertain?
Oh, and please provide evidence of the "false assumptions" in my previous post, or I shall have to consider it as unwarrented abuse, which I've come to expect from robbery, but not you.
-
As for your "customer" comment, pretty much tells me why you're worried about going out of business.
hahaha, you so know nothing about what I do, or I venture what motivates most artists. why should we take anything you say seriously when you appear to have no knowledge of a large part of the argument and the people involved. how can you suggest any solution if you don't understand both sides of the argument.
nice try though, I like your argument style,
-
Simon, fair call about the diversty of your industry. Sorry.
-
I merely stopped responding to you or robbery as neither of you were prepared to accept that alternative viewpoints may be valid.
I love this shit you write man, it's high entertainment shit, you should put a © on it cos I'm definitely deriving amusement levels off it and should be paying for the pleasure.
you stopped responding to me cos I kept reminding you of you classic (and I mean of the decade type classic) foot in your mouth comment re islander, and you stopped responding to simon cos he kept handing you your ass on a plate through superior knowledge which he could back up with fact. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion but its a joy to behold smug pushiness cut down with calm clear reasoning, knowledge and experience.
its interesting that you've tried to call out a booker prize winner, an acknowledged expert on music industry with some 30 years of experience in the field who just happens to have a near encyclopedic obsessive interest in the exact field you're questioning him on, and an obnoxious loud mouth indie bleeder who you seem to think represents the old school industry but who has made it a point to work as far out side of the industry as he can for a good 25 years.
how far are you going to have to look for someone who fits your views? you're telling us how it is without any real experience in how it is, I love it!!!
back up your arguments with your personal experience. tell us who you are and why we should rate your opinions, same goes for sacha.I'm enjoying your attempts but your words ring hollow without anything to back them up.
-
So here's the challenge, Simon: Show some evidence that this has occurred, and I mean solid evidence that the industry has directly suffered from file-sharing, that labels have gone out of business because of file-sharing, that bands have gone out of business - let's see some names, dates and figures, not anecdotes that your daughter doesn't think it's wrong.
dude, I accept that its highly likely you don't get out much but you only have to read comments publically made on this site to back up what simon noted in his daughter and her peers behavior and attitude to media.
lots of people have explained their feelings on their right to download for free. why are you even wasting time questioning it, surely your time would be better spent on questioning the moon landing since you personally have no proof it happened.I have no doubt that she thinks that way, but you seem to be working from the base idea that she is wrong. What if she is right and you are wrong? Is that a possibility you can entertain?
what are you talking about, he's not arguing with his daughter and her peers, he's observing actions and attitude. he's not saying its right or wrong, he's merely relating what he's seeing.
the fact of the matter is that under current law she is wrong, but it is un enforced and its not the point in raising the observation, simon was merely stating the bleeding obvious and backing it up with personal example, media isn't being purchased by the next generation cos they don't have to. if they're not buying it, who is and who will? Think that one through and get back with your research. -
So here's the challenge, Simon: Show some evidence that this has occurred, and I mean solid evidence that the industry has directly suffered from file-sharing,
Oh come on Mark, the false assumption you made was my position on all this. I explained that in some detail which you would have seen if you had continued through the thread. Or read my reasonably forthright views on PA or on my blog over the years.
And I've provided personal, admittedly unscientific and anecdotal evidence that file sharing is hurting sales, and I suspect most parents could do exactly the same. You've yet to tell me why that doesn't translate. Here's the real challenge..you provide evidence as to why that assumption is wrong.
Your evidence to counter that is a bit of dated data, a site which seems to have more to do with copyright infringement on handbags and watches, a blog or two, and a worthy professor trying to tell us what we all knew years ago.
And you still don't get the industry, the depth and breadth of it and why RIAA and the European bodies (which is what we are really talking about) is NOT my industry body. You are making a non-argument.
Seriously, I think I made my case and yours was found wanting.
@Sacha
Thanks...no offense meant!
-
I'm only taking your position from the things you've said on this thread. You've run the same industry line that file-sharing is hurting sales. You've provided no evidence, as the industry provides no evidence. How is it then a false assumption to assume that you support the industry groups on this?
Anecdotes != evidence. You've provided no evidence of the scale of the alleged problem, the amount of money that has been lost, the causal link between file-sharing and industry downturn (after record high years), or any bands that have actually lost money.
Without verifiable facts, all you are offering is personal opinion. Which is fine, if you don't try to say it's a fact.
The data I provided happens to coincide with the period in which the industry groups started to blame file-sharing for killing the music industry - it is relevant, but it doesn't coincide with your 'facts' (admittedly unscientific - thank you for that, at least) so you call it out-dated and ignore it.
Given that the industry groups are equating file-sharing, piracy and counterfeiting in general, it's quite appropriate to look at material that calls bullshit on the estimates and methodolgy that these groups use to justify their stance on "intellectual property". I didn't make the connection, they do, every time they use the figures.
If it's not your industry, as I said above, then sure, it's not down to you to sort it out. But, if you're making the claims independently of the industry bodies, it's down to you to back them up with facts, not your understanding that your daughter's generation doesn't believe it's stealing to download tracks. I've got some news for you - plenty of other people don't believe it either, from all generations. Whether they're right or wrong, it doesn't demonstrate a causal relationship between file-sharing and the music industry downturn.
You've not made a case at all, merely stated your beliefs.
-
I'm only taking your position from the things you've said on this thread
And on the other thread, I meant to say. Sorry
-
So here's the challenge, Simon: Show some evidence that this has occurred, and I mean solid evidence that the industry has directly suffered from file-sharing,
Oh come on Mark, the false assumption you made was my position on all this. I explained that in some detail which you would have seen if you had continued through the thread. Or read my reasonably forthright views on PA or on my blog over the years.
And I've provided personal, admittedly unscientific and anecdotal evidence that file sharing is hurting sales, and I suspect most parents could do exactly the same. You've yet to tell me why that doesn't translate. Here's the real challenge..you provide evidence as to why that assumption is wrong.
Your evidence to counter that is a bit of dated data, a site which seems to have more to do with copyright infringement on handbags and watches, a blog or two, and a worthy professor trying to tell us what we all knew years ago.
And you still don't get the industry, the depth and breadth of it and why RIAA and the European bodies (which is what we are really talking about) is NOT my industry body. You are making a non-argument.
Seriously, I think I made my case and yours was found wanting.
@Sacha
Thanks...no offense meant!
-
how that post twice?
-
I blame the new gummint, meself
-
Just had a lovely file in about Google & their/it's settlement re trying to steal OOP but copyrighted print material from the NZSA - will get back to people apopo - go, robbery!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.