Posts by jon_knox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
are you saying you have a right to indefinite control over he one in the vault?
Why should sharing make that right to control any less? you're getting penalised for contributing to society?Yeah...I think what I'm saying is you already have control over the one in the vault, or that's in progress in your shed, stuido.
For the works that are already out there, with some intangible expression of idea (whatever the legalese is), the Crown will if you ask them, (tick all the right forms, employ a lawyer to do so...actually I don't know what the process is for pursing a claim of copyright infringment) will seek to enforce your copyright, but it's on a per request basis.
Pondering the alternative for a bit, the Crown would be responsible for taking an interest in what the "expression of the idea" (or whatever it is that's valid) for each thing that has copyright and effectively checking to see that no other entity infringes the copyright. I don't think that anyone expects to negotiate an agreement for copyright with the crown, where the responsibility for "state mishandling" exists (ie the burden of responsibility for identification), as essentially they grant you the protection and it's upto you to identify and bring forward the claim of infringement via due process, which then is processed by the courts(?). (I think it would work the same way for Patents and Trademarks at a guess).
I've got to say that in the current process (and I'm a process guy), there is consistency (ie one rule for everyone, big or small), reasonableness (no need to create a ministry for the identification of copyright or for the identification of copyright infringement), but I can understand why people (artists) may feel that they are getting the short end of the stick.
I also think in the vast majority of cases it's kinda challenging for copyright infringement to be identified long after the person who created has passed on. Thus the current request model is one that is a winner...this is not to say the terms, or other details couldn't be altered a bit to make it more relevant/satisfactory for the modern age, reflecting interests of the artists and modern society. Accordingly my interest in Creative Commons and this discussion.
Will have a read of Mark's comments about Creative Common's soon. Ta!
-
I'm liking that on occasion people are beginning to get past the insults. Lets try keep the insults & flame wars to that other site….(cough) where possible.
"benefits derive", "incentive to create", you are talking about servitude or puppy dogs here aren't you? cos it doesn't sound like you're talking about your equal in society.
The jargon of economics and the legalese are hardly inspiring, but intention to try to discuss and progress the topic is.
I think I can recall Russell mentioning something in the past along the lines of "a future in which value is based on abundance rather than scarcity". (or maybe it was a telecom ad?...man this is kinda disturbing…I equate RB with the voice on the Telecom ads...and don’t have a TV or live in NZ and don't for the life of me recall any TCNZ ad's beginning with anyone saying "Good-day mediaphiles")
Getting distracted from the objective by semantics & other disagreement prevents the discussion get anywhere new. (mental note to self re-rambling stream of consciousness, or as is perhaps the case....steaming pile of consciousness)
Do we have anyone lurking that can enlighten anyone still reading about the process that brought about the Creative Commons idea/movement/license? I'm sure there was plenty of distraction that occurred in that process and it would be interesting to learn not only the origins of Creative Commons beyond what Wikipedia has to say and also how the managed to drive themselves to deliver something beyond mutual frustration.
-
sorry the combination of "preview" and a paste into a spell checking application and back has eaten the Chomsky link that was supposed to appear above.
-
Though I dislike golf, philosophically I can understand why is considered a sport.
Sport in many ways is like art....It's there to distract people from their otherwise meaningless lives...er-um...I mean to inspire people.
Sport to me, is a different form of art....though highbrow art snobs might disagree with me.
Thus if you philosophically if you want to consider golf, a sport (and yes thus a special form of art for it's (cough) inspirational powers/thingo, go right ahead. I will point out however that it's not a black or white type question. I will point out that it's kinda very grey and that somewhere out in the grey (oh so dull) continuum is the consideration of poker as a sport. And for sports funding purposes I would suggest that either a heart rate increase, or some element of physical movement requirement more than putting a small papery rectangle down on a table is required...and after thinking about it I am aware that under the guidelines I have just proposed striptease (and a bunch of other stuff) is probably now a sport. Sport at the end of the day, like Art is something we probably all understand at some level, but struggle to define satisfactorily.
Anyway to raise the tone....Does anyone care what Chomsky (whom I think see the world in terms of distraction/not a distraction) thinks of the current meltdown/crisis?
Alternatively you may (or may not) like to ponder this. Is Ballet a sport or an art?
-
really don't think, Don, that anyone here has been able to argue persuasively why one physical object with income earning rights differs from another. Why does the master tape differ from the house?
Either you don't share the rights by putting them in a vaut (or whatever) and never letting them see the light of day, or you implicitly form a contract with the Crown (call it what you will, under whatever type of state you live in. but as it's NZ...let's just call it "the Crown" for now) to protect your rights via copyright. A feature of that implied contract is that the term is limited and it's not something that get's renegotiated every time the (implied) contract of copyright contract is struck. This is differing in term because they are not tangible like property and because for a contract some consideration must be given by each party. (If you don't like the deal that copright offers, the artist has every right to the vault type route, though even that doesn't have a guarantee that some other bright spark won't come up with the same, or a substantially similar idea).
I get that essentially Rob is saying, but why can't the term be forever, instead of life plus whatever it is? If the term was forever, what has the artist (creator...whatever) given up by sharing? In that case nothing, so the implied contract of copyright therefore is not valid.
Fundamentally either you share the work (master tape), or you don't.
If you choose to share the work, what else could you give up in all cases as consideration that is not going to have some nasty/tricky administrative overhead? Fortunately there is not some "option b" that allows an artist to decide which form of consideration is to be provided in order to strike the contract to protect his/her right to be identified as the author....
Anyway in order for this thread to progress, perhaps we should just agree to put this point aside, so we can see what is a little bit further up the path? I think if this were a business meeting, we would be "derailing" (though perhaps for good reason) and need to get back on-track to consider the original objective....which I think is interesting & worthwhile.
Sorry it's a bit of a cop-out. It would have been nice to have everyone on the same page, if only momentarily.
So where to from here?
-
oh yeah an explanation of consideration in the legal sense may assist... Consideration is what you give up in order to be bound by a contract....It's one of the legal requirments for a contract. If there is no consideration, then there aint no contract. Copyright is like a contract between the artist and the entity that enforces copyright...being "the Crown". The Crown gives up the right not to not enforce (if asked). The artist gives up the right to forever and replaces it with the term of the copyright. Hey presto copyright is a contract!...then again I could be completely wrong and just have dreamt that I attended all those lectures...but I hope my imagination is better than this/that :o)
-
OK, so here's my take on it then.
An artist could create a piece of art and keep it under lock and key which would effectively mean that it remains property of the artist, or part of the artist's legacy forever (assuming that it's locked away and never sold, never looked at by others....as they might steal it's intangible form and...put it on the internet for example).
But it seems that the value is often (perhaps) in sharing the piece. As to some degree there are not tangible/physical property rights associated with an image (including the image of a sound) or idea (story...call it what you will), an artificial right is created to protect the right of the artist (author...perhaps owner also needs to be covered). The consideration (in the legal sense) that is provided, is that as this is an artificial right (i.e. not one that occurs naturally as would with physical property), the period for which the right exists is limited.
Thus...
If the piece of art (in whatever form) was locked away in a vault forever, then yeah the rights would be forever....as nobody would ever see what it was and thus the idea/image would be (in theory) safe.
But if on the other hand, the idea/image is to be shared in some way, the notion of copyright exists to allow the right(s) of the artist to be protected.
The term is there as a pragmatic step. What else can the artist give up in all cases as a form of consideration for the protection of copyright?
(anyway, there I've tried....to not to try would have simply been to fail...I'm sure I've been fair from elegant and for that I apologize).
-
- potentially internet providers have access to everything you do on the net, as in everything you do goes through their pipes. whether they can decode and understand everything is just a matter of available technology to them. nothing is invisible. Its just a matter of how far they're prepared to go or how far they're required to go in order to 'police' their roads. Tech heads will have a better understanding of what is currently possible.
It's been a while since I did any data comms stuff, but the way the protocol(s) for data comms work, is that the application by which your sending data is identifiable to the network provider/ISP, though the data itself probably remains a lot more difficult to determine...things may have changed in the last 5 years. Someone with Cisco certification should be able to clear that up quite quickly. Encryption is the perhaps the other/next spanner.
An Internet Architect friend who was working for the big ISP, was telling me few years back about some of the tricks that they employed to throttle bandwidth at the application level.
-
So did rob(bery) get an acceptable explanation of why copyright has a term, whereas physical propety is forever?
-
Alas as I don't have a TV, I saw none of it. I don't even know if the netball was on the telly in this country (England).
No mention of the huge turnout to see the semi-final in Canterbury. The figure I heard was that approx 4000 brave souls turned up to watch the game.
After reading about the support for the Cheeseheads, I am left wondering if NZRFU needs to start threatening to fine unions who don't get enough bums on seats, or better still ponder what are the real reasons that people aren't attending games.