Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 43 44 45 46 47 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
-
I can't believe Arthur wrote that..seriously
its got his name at the bottom of it.
There's other stuff in the mail out but I can't give you the details of that cos its all take over the world secret society stuff.navigating the multiple negatives, I think what he's trying to say is "no guilt by accusation"???, "yes I agree with that statement, and who wouldn't, that seems so obvious".
are you having a problem with the grammar or the sentiment?
-
from apra letter
Songwriters deserve to be recompensed for their music and for the profits made by the big ISPs like Telecom, Telstra and Vodafone who play a role in illegal file-sharing.
cff response
They "play a role" in the same way the post office should take legal responsibility for judging copyright infringement of letters they post, or the phone company should for people who use their service to sing Happy Birthday to their friends.
really, that's your response?
it isn't copyright infringement to sing happy birthday to your friends, its copyright infringement to include it in a published work such as a movie.and the post office does check your mail for illegal content, mostly drugs an large consignments of pirated or illegal content.
so does customs and airport security.CFF got to up their game a bit if they want to be taken seriously.
-
mark harris you should write CFF's press, at least your stuff is consistent.
-
I think Matthew slightly misinterpreted what Arthur said:
Arthur:
The other event is the emergence in Britain of a group of high profile songwriters standing up for the rights of creators against ISPs and those who think music should be free. The Featured Artists Coalition includes artists like Radiohead, Annie Lennox, Robbie Williams, Billy Bragg, Soul II Soul etc.*
Matthew responds:
The Featured Artists Coalition are in fact demanding payment and their voices to be heard in the negotiations about profit sharing from their work. It's simplistic and misleading to say that they "think music should be free."
But Arthur's still wrong about the FCA. Their justifiable concern is getting paid, but their six key points are all about getting paid by the music industry , not the ISPs or whoever.
-
from linked response to apra letter,
Ant Healey ... this is an open letter to you......
Please, we can have a meeting to talk about this stuff. Artists have a legitimate grievance about copyright infringement but we need to solve that problem in a way that protects public rights or we will do harm to respect for artistic rights.
There is no need to continue with this approach. It's not working.
Call me on 021 02963595 to talk this over. I'll even buy you a coffee.Best Regards,
Matthew Hollowayor matthew could call Ant.
anthony healy 0800692772 ex 710
its free too and he's pretty easy to get in touch with.
just a thought. -
Not my place to do it, but I think it would be useful if local artists were to ally with the Featured Artists Coalition, or even form their own.
The group includes both artists and artist managers -- but not record companies from what I can see on their website.
Which way would Campbell swing? ;-)
-
are you having a problem with the grammar or the sentiment?
The illogicality of the sentiment, and the implication that those who argue against the proposition have some evil motive. To be honest I didn't read the piece...it was in Antenna right? It's something I didn't get around to reading. But I expect much more of Arthur.
It's getting increasingly hard to defend people who I actually respect when they are coming out with this sort of stuff.
-
But Arthur's still wrong about the FAC.
Authur quotes another statement by them which I can't find on their site.
A statement from the FAC released this week says: “Google is hoping to bring to heel the last remaining outpost of resistance to the idea that music on the internet should be free – the creators of that music, the artists themselves. . . we want all artists to have more control of their music.”
I agree it is misleading to use CAF as backing up S92A. It isn't clear from their website or the quoted text what their position on those sort of measures are. They don't address it directly. They just say more control of their music which could stop at issues with Labels or go further to all issues.
-
The illogicality of the sentiment, and the implication that those who argue against the proposition have some evil motive.
I don't read that into it at all. I think its a defensive position to comments made that apra and the artists represented by it are pro prosecution on accusation. he's saying "why would you think were were that evil" and is obviously offended by the inference that he would personally be for that? That seems a pretty fair reaction to being accused of something you don't believe in and wouldn't push for personally.
I think everyone I know is anti "guilt up on accusation" but that doesn't mean they're for the other things CFF are pushing or against measures been taken at ISP level to stem uncontrolled distribution of their material.
It looks like one side is trying to find a solution and the other vocal side is trying to smash every attempt made to move in that direction.It would be nice if there was a group in the middle somewhere.
-
Arthur's quote comes from this Guardian column by Billy Bragg and Dave Rowntree.
There's some interesting context on the YouTube-PRS wrangle here.
It seems like a mod version of the rights dispute that took music videos off NZ TV for a couple of years in the 80s.
-
3410,
Robbery,
Appreciate your contributions, as always, but could you please check your links before posting? They very often do not work, and it makes it hard to follow the discussion if you later assume I've read something that I can not find. Cheers. :)Simon,
Baysting's comment boils down to "Everyone agrees that 'guilt upon accusation' is a bad thing." It's somewhat confusingly phrased, but I think you have his intentions in reverse. -
Hi folks,
it isn't copyright infringement to sing happy birthday to your friends, its copyright infringement to include it in a published work such as a movie.
The argument is about the carrier taking responsibility or being liable for what happens on their network. Singing to friends is probably legal but obviously a phone company can't know whether you are friends, how many people are listening, or whether it's a commercial song-a-gram which, as I understand it, could be deemed public performance and therefore copyright infringement.
and the post office does check your mail for illegal content, mostly drugs an large consignments of pirated or illegal content. so does customs and airport security.
None of those groups check for copyright infringing material (this wouldn't be feasible) and they're certainly not held responsible for enabling copyright infringement as potential secondary copyright infringers in the same way that S92A does.
I think Matthew slightly misinterpreted what Arthur said:
Yes you're completely right Russell -- my mistake. I have edited the response and I'm just about to post an apology for my previous statement.
I really shouldn't write hurried responses during my afternoon tea break.
or matthew could call Ant.
anthony healy 0800692772 ex 710
its free too and he's pretty easy to get in touch with.
just a thought.Thanks robbery, will do. I've tried to arrange meetings with APRA and RIANZ in the past (via email) but I never received a response. I haven't however tried calling. I am working a clients workplace right now and I don't have a landline but I'll try calling Ant tomorrow.
We have been contacted by a lot of kiwi artists about the Featured Artists Coalition. Although law changes are necessary for some of those 6 points an initial step could be to offer a service for people reviewing their record company contracts to see if they comply to those 6 points. We have some lawyers who have offered to do provide this service, so we may be doing something about this.
It's early days though -- no promises yet :)
-
It looks like one side is trying to find a solution and the other vocal side is trying to smash every attempt made to move in that direction.It would be nice if there was a group in the middle somewhere.
We've been promoting an independent adjudicator and practical enforcement for several months (although not initially at the launch, since late December)
1. Begin The Process To Establish An Independent Adjudicator
2. Reduce ISP Scope to those capable of enforcing tracking
3. Change to a Notice-And-Notice model, rather than Notice-And-TakedownThe (3) doesn't mean that the law has no teeth, but that the judgment is moved to the new Copyright Tribunal which could have a range of sanctions... primarily fines but also disconnection. This also works around the problem that the law doesn't distinguish between a copyright infringement of a thirteen year old's self-written Harry Potter story (which could be considered a derivative work) versus distributing thousands of movies illegally.
It would allow the discretion to make the punishment fit the crime.
-
but I think you have his intentions in reverse.
I think you're right and I typed in some haste (that happens when one is trying to teach oneself touch typing after 40 odd years of two fingers), so yes I owe Arthur an apology and for that I'll subject myself to ten repeated listenings to his Neville Purvis single as penance.
-
Hi matthew, welcome.
Singing to friends is probably legal
not probably, it is legal, no probably about it, the copyright notice says public performance, private gatherings are totally fine. there's no excuse for forwarding an argument that phone companies could be asked to monitor happy birthday calls if we follow the same lines as what s92a asks of ISPs. anyone who understands and knows a little about copyright knows its a rubbish argument but then most people do not know much about copyright,
but obviously a phone company can't know whether you are friends, how many people are listening, or whether it's a commercial song-a-gram which, as I understand it, could be deemed public performance and therefore copyright infringement.
just doesn't follow. you're bogging your argument down with silly side extremes. Why don't you stick to the solid bits.
like Campbell saying there's no need for fines for wrongful accusations cos there won't be any. you can easily argue" well if there won't be any wrongful accusations why would you oppose fines for them. you've nothing to worry about etc".I really shouldn't write hurried responses during my afternoon tea break.
you should look at how you present your case too. I dislike the RIANZ talk bollocks approach. you edited your post mis quoting the flipping burgers thing but you kept the intent of it without anything to back it up.
you've got good concerns to be going on with but smearing the opponent isn't one of them. why would they talk to you with that approach?(via email)
I mentioned earlier email was not as reliable as it should be. phone is easy.
Rianz number is Ph: (09) 360 5085postal still works too.
-
but could you please check your links before posting
Sorry bout that 3410. I have been having link problems to comments before in that they do work in preview but not on the actual page. no idea why unfortunately.
which ones were off?
just had a quick check of today's stuff and they all work for me
I haven't figured out the link to anchor thing yet to take you to a certain part of a page. -
3410,
Robbery,
"recent apra newsletter" link, posted here just goes to creativefreedom.org.nz/. Can't quickly find where you intended it to go. Thanks for following up. -
Paidcontent's stuff on YouTube v PRS (I linked to their page of links above) is really good. This story especially.
I have to say that both Arthur's and Billy Bragg's characterisations of YouTube as wanting it all for free seem miles wide of the mark:
YouTube is increasingly valuable to the music biz: YouTube plays accounted for 40 percent of all transactions PRS processed in between July and September (14 million out of 35 million), and the society made 40 percent more from such online services between January and July than the previous year.
This licensing revenue is an increasingly important source of income as music sales continue falling - YouTube specifically is so important to PRS that, in August, the society made a point of crediting part of the rise to the video site, whose population of “hairbrush divas”, lip synchers and mash-up makers boost PRS coffers. “We came to an agreement with them that we thought was mutually beneficial, and it has been,” Walker said.
It's a negotiation about how big the fixed PRS fee is -- YouTube claims PRS's proposed fee so large it would see the company take a loss on every video streamed. PRS says YouTube wants to pay less, YouTube says it's offering a lot more.
But when writers are getting paid for YouTube karaoke versions of their songs , it's just nonsense to say Google thinks music should be free. In light of the above, I actually can't understand how anyone could say it with a straight face.
-
Which raises an interesting question: does APRA have a licence deal with YouTube for Aus/NZ?
Anyone know?
-
"recent apra newsletter" link,
that was a link copied from the email from apra where he talks about CFF and gives a link to their site. I should have edited it properly though.
I should have stated that I was referring to a members email too. It may have been released for public consumption too somewhere.I think I mentioned it before buy I wasn't impressed with Arthur's grasp on thing technical or internet in recent Q&A from apra in chch.
he really munched some points and this stuff is very complicated and confusing for many and its important that representatives know their stuff backwards. he didn't appear to, ant healey does a better job of it.
its also important to remember than while it's tempting to smash these people down for miss steps and hate em for it it's partly cos this is such unknown territory an they're trying to find the best way forward as shown by public acknowledgement by all parties that prosecution on accusation is not on and Campbell's acknowledgment that a third part should be involved, quite possibly because of issues raised by CFF.I don't think any one should try and portray Ant Healey or Chris Hocquard or Campbell Smith as satan. They're trying to figure a fair way forward with their customer base in mind.
-
Hey, this is interesting ...
A good column on dunedinmusic.com, Where is the artists money from Myspace and Youtube?, points out that PRS even collects every time you play a preview at the iTunes Store.
APRA/AMCOS says:
APRA|AMCOS has developed policy around the licensing of such sites and all inquiries should be directed to Online & Mobile Licensing in the Broadcast & Online Department.
Third door on the left.
But there's no mention anywhere of there actually being a licensing agreement with YouTube.
At any rate, Arthur needs to stop slagging off actual or potential revenue partners. Really.
-
My usual incisive column on Mr Baysting's email is here.
-
not probably, it is legal, no probably about it,
Great to hear.
an argument that phone companies could be asked to monitor happy birthday calls if we follow the same lines as what s92a asks of ISPs.
The post office or phone companys lack of liability is, we believe, based around a common knowledge of what is practical. Unfortunately some people seem to think that it's practical for ISPs to corroborate accusations. There certainly hasn't been enough discussion around the practicality of corroborating evidence on consumer-grade network devices which most people have. The analogy is based around public belief that -- while checking letters for copyright infringement would be impractical -- any ISP can corroborate evidence. We have only started talking about this in the last few weeks.
As far as alternatives go, we are advocating a reduction in scope of an ISP to those capable of corroborating evidence (this could perhaps be initially based on the Australian definition of a CSP, a commercial service provider like Vodafone or TelstraClear). This then puts the onus on government to phase in sales restrictions on networks devices that can corroborate evidence and increase the scope as is practical.
So that's the reason for the comparison. I hope that seems reasonable to you.
-
My usual incisive column
look out ahead mark, there's a low overpass which might clip the top off your ego mate :)
I'm hoping there's an element of self depreciating irony in your sell hype, but with you Ive learned not to make such assumptions.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.