Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@robbery
Thanks for the offer. I've just changed my notation to show I'm in Waikanae and I don't go into town much. Not a problem. -
Apropos of our usual discussions, Palin investigation can proceed, Alaska high court rules
-
Whadddya mean, scary?!??! We're NICE! GENTLE, even!! And NEVER OVER THE TOP!!!! ;-)
-
I was going to download the NIN thing, with all the data, just so i could play with it and then I found out how fracking huge it was and thought "that's half my cap on a band I don't even listen to" so i didn't ;-)
-
There's a young copyright historian at the University of Birmingham, Ronan Deazley, who's been arguing that the 'strong', author-centred version of copyright we believe has been around since 1710 (or 1774) is actually mostly a creation of the last 100-150 years.
I would actually say since the Berne Convention in 1871, which used the French model of author's moral rights. And we're seeing a lot more notices now in books that "so-and-so asserts their moral rights as the owner of this work".
Certainly, the wording has changed (although the Statute of Anne does refer to authors and their plight) but I would contend that the practice of copyright since Berne has been even less interested in authors' rights than before, in that the corporations have got bigger and, as they controlled the means of copying and distribution, they've squeezed the authors even more. What changed for authors was the nature of payment, from an upfront purchase to royalties over the life of the work.
Copyright, from its earliest beginnings, has been about the publishers - they wanted it to sort out their own business matters and maintain little monopolies on particular works. Authors (if they were lucky) got a one-off payment on purchase of the manuscript. No such thing as royalties. The thing that has changed the game is the potential to use digital, low-cost technologies to produce and distribute content, bypassing the publishers completely.
-
And spellcheckers, dammit!
Bigraphick = biographic
copfighters = copyfighters -
@keir
So 20 years in IT trumps 30 years in theatre, eh? An understanding of the Internet outwheighs minute bigraphick knowledge of Garrick (and I don't mean Jay) and his importance to western theatre development especially in the area of Shakespeare performance?I'm in agreement with Don - your view is sounding very elitist, and more than a touch technophobic. Could it be that your dislike of copfighters is spurred by your fear and loathing of computers in general?
-
@ Keir
BoingBoing added the "screaming" - I was told by some who were there that she indeed yelled at them. Maybe "being yelled at" has different cultural connotations in NZ... -
@simon
There's no comparison and I think it's pretty disappointing of you to try to manufacture one. I had thought you smarter than that. -
@Keir
youse don't actually know a huge amount about how culture & fine arts work, do you?
And "youse" don't know much about the people you're talking about. I've been involved in arts and creation for over 30 years, on stage, radio, film, television and paper and have made money at all of those (although not huge amounts, which accounts for my IT profession). I have a very fine appreciation of the arts, a good understanding of copyright law and history, and a deep insight into digital technologies thanks to 20 years as an IT professional, a personal affinity with technology and time in professional organisations like GOVIS and InternetNZ (as an elected official), and the NZOSS as a member.