Posts by Bruce Grey
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cassette tapes never lasted, so the home taping thing was not as much of a threat to musicians as digital copying - in my opinion.
Sorry, I was vague and unclear.
I meant that the cassettes themselves were unreliable - although I still have and play some that were bought in the early 80s.
Maybe it was the player that damaged them, but I have vivid memories of pulling metres of tape out the cassette player and carefully splicing the good parts back together.
Not fond memories.
-
Cassette tapes never lasted, so the home taping thing was not as much of a threat to musicians as digital copying - in my opinion.
But it certainly introduced me to a lot of music which I subsequently bought on CD..and the CD with extra live version or the outtake... and the boxed set so I could get the DVD of rare footage.
I don't think there are conclusive official studies
I suspect getting honest answers for such a study would be difficult and who would fund the research?
-
Copyright is not a straight forward issue.
-
A significant chunk of the human race is breaching that copyright if this is true.
I don't think you understand the conditions of copyright.
If you use it and make money from it, you must pay. All those restaurants etc that sing it for the kids at birthday parties are breaching copyright.
-
Thanks Mark.
This is interesting:
there is one theory that because the "Happy Birthday to You" variation was not authored by the Hills, and it was published without notice of copyright under the 1909 U. S. copyright act, that the 1935 registration is invalid.
Many question the validity of the current copyright, as the melody of the song was most likely borrowed from other popular songs of the time, and the lyrics were improvised by a group of five and six-year-old children who never received any compensation."
The entry is worth reading:
Thousands of spectators sang happy birthday to Pope Benedict XVI at the White House on April 16, 2008, his 81st birthday. [14]
On June 27, 2008, hundreds of people in London's Hyde Park sang the song to Nelson Mandela on the occasion of his 90th birthday.[15]
Following his 200 m gold medal performance at the 2008 Summer Olympics, the crowd at Beijing National Stadium sereneded Usain Bolt with "Happy Birthday", as his birthday began at midnight that night.
-
Who wrote Happy Birthday? Who owns the copyright?
A significant chunk of the human race is breaching that copyright if this is true.
Has Campbell Smith ever sung Happy Birthday at a party? ;-)
Seriously - I only want an answer to the first two questions.
On the subject of Youtube, if I was a musician I would put all my video clips on it. I can think of 10 -15 artists I have checked out on Youtube and subsequently bought albums. I bet that happens worldwide.
The music industry should embrace it... both arms, stretched out wide.
-
wasnt part of the thing people hated about the RIAA approach the criminalisation of people and the sheer out of proportion measure a $100000 fine was for downloading music?
Yes. The behaviour of the RIAA and it's associates has pissed people off to be frank. If they had acted reasonably - eg in the case of the youtube clip with the baby dancing to Prince - the public would be more accepting.
Lots of artists are okay with stuff like Youtube clips of people playing their songs and lots of artists encourage the sharing of recordings made at their concerts.
Sharing the commercially available stuff sucks. I am all in favour a crackdown on that. But it has to be in accordance with the principles of law.
Regarding the evidence thing, the fines are not required. They should just use the courts like everyone else does.
-
Q: Do you believe the infringement notice generation mechanisms are reliable enough to be accepted by a court? What methodology will be used by RIANZ to determine who exactly is a copyright infringer? Are you confident that it is foolproof? What verification process is used?
A: Yes, we are confident that this is reliable enough to be accepted by a court. The evidence gathered consists of publicly available information about the IP addresses used at a certain time on a certain date to upload copyright infringing material. The evidence supplied by us is synched to a trusted atomic time source and based on ICANN (APNIC) information regarding the allocation of Internet protocol address spaces.
Anyone can log onto file-sharing networks and note the IP addresses used for uploading content, since the uploader makes this information publicly available. This type of evidence has been accepted in countries around the world as the basis of criminal and civil legal actions.
We are confident that the standard of our evidence gathering process is robust enough to be accepted by any court in New Zealand, as it has been internationally. To date the evidence provided by IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, has always been sufficient for a court. RIANZ, as an IFPI member, would use the same standard of evidence techniques and technologies. We have been through the evidence gathering process with ISPs here in NZ and we have had no concerns raised about the robustness of our evidence.
This is an excerpt from the Geekzone Q & A. From the answer there is no need to have s92 at all. If the evidence is so robust, prosecute.
Any lawyers in the house?
-
Sorry, I should have checked other news stories - he is talking about the section.
-
Meanwhile.. back at the S92 debate... this news
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/03/15/1245a418a513
Mr Hide is taking up the case at last. He has nailed the problem in his statement "it's a stupid law, which is fundamentally flawed".
I wonder if he means "section" when he says "law", but he is quoted as saying law.
By the way, this discussion is now on page 53, wasn't there a bet on that?