Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 36 37 38 39 40 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
Whilst I was quoting you, rob, I was actually talking to everyone.
I get your point, it seems also to be Gio's point, that account must be taken of losers as well as winners. This comment goes for everything we do in life.
BUT
Then you have to actually act. You have to decide what to do, and sometimes things do boil down to a "how many winners vs how many losers". The default position is not to fail to act. That is a fairly active choice in itself. There is no onus either way. To fail to move in a direction that benefits a majority (or is likely to in the long run) and hurts a minority is not clearly a good thing to do.
-
I get the impression he speaks for a big group of people.
I've never claimed that. My views are shared by a lot of people online and off, ass I've been informed by their writings and discussions, but I'm not their representative.
He'd make a good politician with those public speaking skills.
That's the most insulting thing you've ever said to me ;-)
-
They always could, I did it, all it takes is paying for it yourself but you're still in a similar place as you are with the empowered net in that you've got your wares but you still have to draw attention to it to 'sell it'. In reality that is as difficult as it ever was.
You're ragging on Mark for making generalisations, but you keep doing it yourself.
There are all kinds of opportunities to draw attention to yourself via the internet -- and, just as importantly, to run your business across distance. Just the tool of email has been an absolute boon.
Some artists and labels might not be as adept at using those those tools, or may not wish to, but to say it's "as difficult as it ever was" in a general sense is just not true.
I think the biggest problem is that there is that there is now so much more music available to customers than ever before -- that does make it harder to get noticed, but the fact that so many people are doing it suggests it's ... do-able.
-
I've never claimed that.
no, its just an impression.
or is it
My views are shared by a lot of people online and off,
or is it not
but I'm not their representative.
the politician comment gains strength. :p
-
Rob, your last comment is pointless trolling. Please try and make a contribution.
-
You're ragging on Mark for making generalisations,
oh, we're back to you and me again?, sorry, what's the issue now?
but to say it's "as difficult as it ever was" in a general sense is just not true.
well actually it is.
sure we've got another communication tool but getting lost in the mass of media released up on the world is actually worse now than it was under the rule of labels for wider recognition as duly noted by kerry who summed it nicely thus...To suggest that artists can simply cut out the middle man and market their own work online is simplistic.
its worse for the consumer cos they have to wade through miles (kms) of material that earnest artists think is the bee knees (and you'd be surprised at how many people think their brand of dull is the next chart topper), and worse for the artist who's material really is the bees knees and has the even more difficult task of drawing attention to their truly great works in a sea of noise clogged by mass self belief.
There are more best kept secrets now than there ever were purely because of the noise floor of 'listen to me listen to me" pleas flooding the channels. Its actually easier to 'release' a great recording and get it overlook purely cos the job of marketing has been billed as something the individual can do after they've recorded and released their own product.
Email and the internet just made it easier to make a noise people can ignore. If you've got a myspace page or 30 you'll be inundated with artists friending you with the comment "check out my new songs". after looking at the first few the response is "who the fuck are you and why should I" and we're back to square one.
definitely the net offers the possibility of advance, but its early days yet and we could well fuck it all up.
email is a perfect example. spam and faulty spam filters are clogging in boxes and deleting legitimate mail. not perfection yet.
-
This evening I attended Professor James Boyle 's lecture regarding his new book -"The Public Domain: enclosing the commons of the mind".
Prof Boyle was anything-but-radically calling for the reform of intellectual property, with examples of the need being based on the contents of the various libraries, containing huge amounts of orphaned works. It was suggested that really the contents ought to digitized & made freely available, but because of the lack of approval from an identifiable rights holder, these works are rotting.
Comment was made regarding whether it was wise to allow those with the most to lose have the biggest influence on the rule making process.
Most radical solution proposed was legislation to efficiently deal with orphaned-works, by putting these into the public domain until such time as the rights holder is identified.
Other than the orphaned works idea there was not much emphasis on solutions, nor much of an attempt to cover incentives & balance, though perhaps the book covers more than an hour's lecture can cover.
Bumped into Ben Goldacre and some of the Open Rights Group in the bar afterwards, who were similarly a bit underwhelmed with the lack of original content & bland nature of the presentation, which paled by comparison with the venue.
I also had a chat with Prof Boyle, who's opinion is that just about any change has got to be an improvement on the current situation, even if far less than perfect.
Interesting hypothesis raised by a European Parliament insider present. Sweden, during it's upcoming presidency of the EU is apparently keen to see legislation strengthening copyright implemented because it will increase the importance of their much cherished pirate-bay. The example being Hollywood's establishment as the film industry sought to avoid enforcement of Edison's patents.
Giovanni will be happy to learn that on this occasion the bias of technology was rendered neutral not only by the speaker, but also by the MC & the Chairperson. Hopefully they get the likes of Cory Doctorow along at some stage to cover the topic a bit more energetically, though I did note that Clay Shirky had presented to the RSA previously and accordingly I wonder if Prof Boyle might have been an attempt to tone things down...significantly.
-
Rob, your last comment is pointless trolling.
right,... I did have point. ambiguity was that point. it was light hearted, take it as that and not mention it is another option, as you do to similar comments by others all the time.
Please try and make a contribution.
geez, its like a sweat shop in here. I'm working as hard as I can but I gotta earn a living in the real world too you know.
it can't all be gold but you seem to doubt me sincerity in attempting to be earnest and honest. you're wrong.Why don't we have our own secret and separate thread for this. You make it and I'll show up.
-
it can't all be gold but you seem to doubt me sincerity in attempting to be earnest and honest. you're wrong.
I know it seems like I snap at you, but I am responsible for the site, and I could just see that one ending up in yet another irrelevant scrap. Questioning Mark's word when what he said was clear and evident was unhelpful and pointless. And unfair to Mark.
-
__You're ragging on Mark for making generalisations,__
oh, we're back to you and me again?, sorry, what's the issue now?
I was just taking issue with your argument. You were criticising Mark for making generalisations, and making generalisations yourself.
definitely the net offers the possibility of advance, but its early days yet and we could well fuck it all up.
But that's the point. Lots of people are right now making fine use of the internet. to do things they wouldn't have been able to do in the old days. Ask Fat Freddy's or Bulletproof. or Savage or Chris Knox (who certainly wasn't inclined to scream copyright infringement after 'It's Love' got the YouTube karaoke treatment).
email is a perfect example. spam and faulty spam filters are clogging in boxes and deleting legitimate mail. not perfection yet.
But is it so broke that it's not a wonderfully useful tool? No ...
-
But is it so broke that it's not a wonderfully useful tool? No ...
it certainly needs fixing.
I've noticed a trend away from being tied to the email in box for some. if you want something from these people you have to phone them.
then there's the mobile phone people who do have them but never answer them or switch them off regularly.
These are recent trends.But that's the point.
Well its not the whole point is it. just one facet of it. I'm not denying that some people do make innovative use of the tool, but hopefully you can concede that for those it works for there are many many others it hurts.
also it might help to compare the bright present with the bright past.Fat Freedy's rep wasn't built on the internet. it was build on their relentless touring. neither was chris knox's come to think of it, and Chris's reaction to anything isn't necessarily the norm. He is a wonderfully oblique and sometimes self destructive (I'm thinking of the self lacerations of the enemy) individual. Holding him up as an example of the normal response to copyright infringement is almost meaningless.
You were criticising Mark for making generalisations,
I wasn't trying to make a personal attack on mark, I like him and his discussion,
but I was also responding to others comments along the same lines, comments you chose not to engage them on, just me,
-
many many others it hurts.
I am referring to the internet in its present half tamed wild west state.
its moved along way from no control (note: filtering of illegal newsgroups and removal of criminal content), but it is still untamed in many aspects that are against the law and infringe on peoples legal rights.
I'm not passing comment on that, merely noting it. -
And unfair to Mark.
I bet mark's enjoying this, but of all the people in this discussion mark is probably the one who can defend himself perfectly adequately and is thick skinned enough to acknowledge the comment, take it on board and/or disregard it...... or let it burn like a hot coal in the back of his mind eternally,
I'm guessing the first one.
-
Well, winter's coming on and I need to keep warm...
I'm not troubled by the comments themselves, but it is a bit rich taking me to task for something you do yourself, robbery.
-
Prof Boyle was anything-but-radically calling for the reform of intellectual property, with examples of the need being based on the contents of the various libraries, containing huge amounts of orphaned works. It was suggested that really the contents ought to digitized & made freely available, but because of the lack of approval from an identifiable rights holder, these works are rotting.
This is undoubtedly one of the biggest problems with the current copyright system -- it keeps heritage works away from the public solely because it's too difficult to determine and clear rights. It's a big problem with TV material -- easily the most draining part of running NZ On Screen.
BTW, RIANZ's paranoia about archived works is a continuing puzzle to me. The bid in its Copyright Amendment Act submission seeking to prevent libraries and archives from making digital copies of work for archiving purposes was just weirdly hostile to the public good. They also give the impression they'd rather see original masters rot than have Archives NZ store them. Sigh ...
-
but it is a bit rich taking me to task for something you do yourself, robbery.
and you take me to task for it where you can. I'm learning from the expert,
-
They also give the impression they'd rather see original masters rot than have Archives NZ store them. Sigh ...
Seems vaguely analogous to people who object during inorganic collection season, to people sifting through the stuff and taking things, which seems to me to be the ultimate form of recycling.
-
Then you have to actually act. You have to decide what to do, and sometimes things do boil down to a "how many winners vs how many losers". The default position is not to fail to act. That is a fairly active choice in itself. There is no onus either way. To fail to move in a direction that benefits a majority (or is likely to in the long run) and hurts a minority is not clearly a good thing to do.
Excellently put. Except you can also actively work to spread the benefits to offline communities, or involve people who otherwise don't have much of a presence or a voice in cyberspace - in ways that don't amount to assimilation. I'm thinking for instance of projects sjuch as Kete Horowhenua.
Giovanni will be happy to learn that on this occasion the bias of technology was rendered neutral not only by the speaker, but also by the MC & the Chairperson.
Doesn't sound like I would have... I'm not a professional wet blanket, you know. And I really do believe one can go beyond the rhetoric of "with the Internet or against it", and think slightly more nuanced thoughts.
-
They also give the impression they'd rather see original masters rot than have Archives NZ store them. Sigh ...
care to back up that vague assertion with the comments that led you to believe it?
-
Gio, I'm thinking you must love the idea of the printer - a device to take electronic info back to forms appreciated by the unconnected.
Personally, I'm still a big fan of the pen. The more idealistically inclined of my friends frequently deride me for writing things down and handing them over on a piece of paper, insisting that I send a text, etc. I resist.
-
care to back up that vague assertion with the comments that led you to believe it?
I have spoken to people in the public sector who were working on the concept. I gathered that the major labels were unwilling to see the tapes being held in a publicly-funded archive -- which has much to recommend it on a technical basis, given that some of those masters are deteriorating.
I'd be obliged if you just took my word for that.
-
I'm thinking for instance of projects sjuch as Kete Horowhenua.
Nice to see a mention of this great local resource. Surprised there aren't more. Important to me because I grew up in those parts. Just curious, Giovanni, how did it come to your attention?
-
Just curious, Giovanni, how did it come to your attention?
I'm keenly following the coming about of the National Digital Heritage Archive, and the National Library has been terrific in making its research and thinking publicly available. I think I originally heard of it there (that is to say, here), but most recently at an open lecture that Penny Carnaby gave last week.
There are other ketes around based on that model - for instance the Cuba Street Memories Project.
-
Seems vaguely analogous to people who object during inorganic collection season, to people sifting through the stuff and taking things, which seems to me to be the ultimate form of recycling.
The more I read about e-waste the more I'm inclined to agree with you. In particular, old CRT screens out for the inorganic are fragile environmental time-bombs (up to 4 kilograms of lead in the big ones, f'rinstance) and since there's no realistic market for them secondhand anymore, it's not so bad if some junk-trekker finds a good one and rehabilitates it, after leaving it to dry out and having it safety-checked of course.
Of course, there's eDay if you want to dump stuff like this for free AND responsibly, but that being in November and people being impatient, I predict a ton of old screens will still be on Auckland's kerbs again this year.
</threaddrift>
-
I'd be obliged if you just took my word for that.
Why would I want to do that when I have perfectly good personal experience to go on?
its an incredibly vague generalisation which makes it look like you're talking about the entirety of recorded music all being represented by this RIANZ organisation and they're objecting to the good hearted NZ archivists who only want to preserve our art for the public good.Be specific. is it the flying nun catalogue we're talking about. the propellor catalogue? its certainly not everything because I've been easily archiving material from many places, more than I can handle with very little in the way of rianz issues.
perhaps you could take me at my word when I tell you that RIANZ do not speak for a huge swag of important historical recordings in NZ. Much great stuff was done off individuals own backs and this is the stuff that is most at risk, cos its sitting on peoples basements getting damaged, not in some swank storage rooms at major label hq's.
How do I know this? cos I've been dealing with many of them over the last 10 years.its painted so black and white in your comment but each one of those tapes will have a different story to it. You can't just say "bring all culture here cos we're looking after it now".
Where were archives when the EMI pressing plant were biffing masters into the cook strait?
how bout Archives offer a home for masters that are no longer being looked after by others. Maybe the RIANZ members who had masters were quite happy to look after their property all on their own in a sufficiently safe storage environment? leave an open invitation to them that when they're bored with housing their own tapes Archives will front. That''d be a fair solution rather than spreading notions that "RIANZ is evil and don't care bout culture"I personally think NZ Archives present approach is poorly thought out. They've stomped into the playing field with less disposable budget than they had when Alexander Turnball library were buying 2 of everything. Now the national library demand under threat of fine ($5000) if you don't comply that you give them 2 of everything at your expense. Charming.
If our country really was serious about preserving our recorded history (both aural and visual) then perhaps they should be purchasing these things for the nation as art galleries do paintings and sculptures rather than the "I'm skint, can ya spare an artwork brotha" approach.
Maybe they could try working a little more with the community to educate inform and serve it rather than command it.
just a thought.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.