Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Web of trust - we "know" 3410, but no-one's heard of this bobwilson chappie
-
It is the same people - BB Internet
Sorry, Jan, Tom was right -
Do I smell or something?
Um, Rich? We need to talk...
-
Aussie to Kiwi "So why are you guys so interested in Anzac Day anyway?"
Kiwi response "Well ... um ... what do you think the N Z in Anzac stands for?"Oh, yeah. It's all about them, eh?
-
I'd start making inquiries of Bruce Wileman at BB Internet Group in Johnsonville, judging by theinformation here.
DNC.org.nz is always the first stop to make, yes.
My guess is that BB Internet is being opportunistic and has thrown uo a quick-and-dirty website to serve GoogleAd impressions.
I especially like the almost-invisible text on a green background at the bottom which says:
Third Parties may be placing and reading cookies on your users' browser [sic], or using web beacons to collect information as a result of ad serving on this website
"but it wouldn't be us that's doing that, no sir"
Actually, it's grey text in a transparent graphic overlaid on a green background image.
And he uses a Hotmail account and no company website. Bah
-
How that turned into a hysterical media scrum I'm not quite sure.
You used the word "media" in there - I think the question answers itself...
-
Your best friend's sister has a dog walker? Fancy.
So we're told...
-
Because you're not in the same league. You dabble in a lot of things, hoping one day to have a work of substance or several published and recognised, and that's great, all luck and power to you. But you haven't, yet, so your personal investment in copyright is the same as that of any other shmuck who also hasn't yet, and might not ever.
Which is most people, actually, but thank you for those kind words. It's not a matter of personal investment. Actually, we all have the same copyright rights and obligations.
Islander on the other hand is an established and internationally recognised author with a body of work who does that for a living, and whose stature as part of the cultural patrimony of the country is significant.
So some pigs are more equal than other pigs, eh?
I figured that this was what you were driving at, but I thought the act of writing it might make you see it for the bullshit that it is. Obviously not. That's a shame, but it doesn't affect my arguments.
Her views on copyright matter more than yours or mine not just because she's better at what she does than we are, but also because in light of the value that as a society we see in her work I think it's worth judging copyright provisions on the basis of whether or not they serve people like her.
Um no. Success in a field, or failure to succeed, has no bearing on copyright and someone who is successful at winning a prize for writing a book has no more credibility in discussing copyright than you or I. Magic realism, maybe, but not copyright. You may wish to write yourself off and defer to Islander, but don't include me in your intellectual abnegation.
And if she tells us that she lives very modestly off her works, and has to fight tooth and nail for the meagre income streams she currently enjoys, then perhaps limiting those terms further and making it harder for her to work is not a great idea.
Even though those are the rules she signed up to by publishing? We all know what the game is when we climb onto the park.
By her own admission elsewhere, her book has sold over a million copies in a number of languages. That's phenomenally successful, better than any other New Zealand writer that I'm aware of. But it doesn't mean she knows anything about copyright, or that copyright is providing the income. What's providing the income is that people want to buy the book. When they stop wanting to buy the book, well, that's it for the income. Time to write another best-seller. That's the way the business of publishing works, you know, the business you and so many others are trying to preserve?
I understood Islander's issues were actually more about control of the work, but she may have changed her mind.
Whereas in your case, well, you're not there yet, a fourteen years limit on the duration of copyright (to name but one example of an idea floated here) is not within your actual lived experience. You're not giving up anything that you currently possess.
I haven't suggested that low a limit, though it has been suggested here. To tie me to that comment is a long bow. And it doesn't matter whether or not under the law I've been successful - my work is still covered by the same copyright.
I'm a copyrights holder of sorts too, very humbly. I wrote a PhD that some people in the business liked enough to suggest I should publish it. I put it online for free because I figured that more people in my particular field would read it that way, and it's not as if I was ever likely to actually earn much money from traditional publication anyway. Also, I had already been paid to undertake that research and I have another income stream in the professional world. That decision and what I do are still very important to me, but my experience as a copyrights holder is of an entirely different quality than Islander's.
That's your decision to make, and you had your own reasons to make it. It doesn't mean that Islander knows more about copyright than you, or anyone else.
-
I know I risk being sucked into the death spiral by being in this thread, but here is where the changes to the Commisioning Rule are at.
Thanks for that ScottY. I wasn't sure if it fell into abeyance with the change of government.
-
Lucky you. I thought we were talking about digital works that could be copied. But feel free to change the subject.
We're talking about copyright. But feel free to limit your contribution.
You asked what my preferred method of funding was. I told you: I don't have one.
How very RIAA of you. I was hoping for a more general answer, but there we go.
Except that I would only bring a case where there was clear evidence of infringement causing harm to my reputation or revenue stream that could be laid directly at the feet of an infringing copy. Which the RIAA doesn't do. But feel free to make shit up, as you have been all day.
You're ok, so that's fine.
If that was the case, I wouldn't be here arguing with you. You asked me what I would do. I've told you what I would do.