Posts by jon_knox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Perhaps adding some sort of podcast id would be helpful when trying to work out which is the most recent podcasts.
I doubt that the following code is going to be interpreted correctly.
<script type="text/javascript">/*<![CDATA[*/ insertYouTube("HoSIXnwEhhM"); /*]]>*/</script>
Failing that here's a link to the same content.
-
I watched "Good night & good luck" yesterday and am struck by the similarities between new technology today and new technology in history.
I'd suggest that the pervasiveness & stickiness of technology are key pieces of evidence indicating that our culture and economy is being changed rather than being killed. The fact that the changes are being so widely adopted suggests to me that the changes are in many ways beneficial.
Keen may indeed have some valid points, but I'd suggest hiding them is not the best way for those points to be examined.
-
told my three year old the other day that the Mr Whippy van only plays the music when he's run out of ice cream.
70's Small town NZ had no such Mr Whippy problem. My parents frequently tell the story about buying ice-cream cones for my big sister from the local dairy in paper bags. Big sis stayed in the car whilst one of our parents would procure the ice-cream, which stayed in it's disguise until they got home. Then sis could go devour the ice-cream, or rather smear it around a lot, without an ice-cream deprivation tantrum in the car on the way home. Big sis soon worked out where the ice-cream came from though and the next move in this game of parenting chess was tell my sister that there were elephants living in the bushes across the road from the dairy.
-
Your idle hands do the devil's work Haywood!
Polluting Russell's chapel with filth. SHAME!!!!
-
Yes. Nat's points were well made. If there was to be a new right created it would have to be tightly drawn.
I agree that the right would have to be tightly drawn, but in some cases we are seeing legislation being applied or interepreted in ways that are consistent with the original intent, but because of the impact of change, the interepretation now seems invalid or to cause more harm than good. eg Sedition or the Kiwishare obligation. I guess to some extent we need to have faith that the legislators of the day will have time to repeal or amend law that has become outdated, so we shouldn't get too hung up attempting to forsee what we cannot forsee....Though this is not a valid reason for a our legislators to avoid being reasonably thoughtful.
I was having a think about the legislative impacts of regulation last year and came across an excellent site & article doing exactly this for the Telco industry, which I'd recommend to people who are interested in DRM, intellectual property rights and the whole broadband infrastructure/Telco regulation topic.
To cut a long story short and using the broadest of brushes, regulation tends to distort market forces. Distortion of market forces tends to lead to inefficiency and inefficiency tends to create opportunity for exploitation, which seems to require more intervention.
Whilst I think the concept of an artist's royalty is worth supporting, there's part of me that shudders when considering how to enforce in an effective manner. To a large degree when attempting to consider other (potential) changes to intellectual property rights I find myself getting stuck on just this point.
-
I sold a work of art in Mt Eden 3 years ago for half a million. Now its worth $700k. I'm all in favour of a 5% going back to the original artist and I hope it's back dated (as long as I don't have to share it with the builder or architect)
I get the point. It's not very consistent to have artists as a special case with extra legislative rights that otherwise ordinary members of society do not have unless they're creating art.
Which brings the thread to the often considered question "What is art?"
Suspect these are slippery slopes for legislators and people making comments alike.
-
I think I can recall reading an article by or about Dick Frizzell who spoke out against the artist's royalty in the Listener a couple of years back, which surprised me.
Whilst I agree with Tom's sentiment that no-one is owed a living, I'd suggest that the artist's royalty conceptually is decent and a step in the right direction if thoughfully implemented.
I doubt few people are faced with the decision of the like, should I buy that Colin McCahon or should I put dinner on the table? Accordingly having a small percent go the artist that created the work is really no skin off my nose and unlikely to cause significant pain to anyone purchasing significant artworks.
However I'm struggling to reconcile my position on the artist's royalty with my stance on intellectual property rights, of which I think the likes of copyright & patents provide too much protection.
-
How do you feel now?
Was that hard?
Are you going to apologise?
Can you tell us what you think of it?I can recall as a kid in 1989 when Monica Cantwell was murdered on Mt Maunganui, her mother was interviewed on TV by Susan Wood, who inquired "Were you surprised?". It struck me then as it strikes me now that there is something seriously wrong with TVNZ if that's the best that they can come up with.
I was dismayed to learn over the weekend that Susan is apparently returning to TVNZ.
-
Good to see Science becoming more of a formal/regular topic of discussion at Public address. I'd also like to see the same occur for Technology, particularly where Tech is having big impact on society (DRM, internet, connectivity...).
I recognise Science & Tech is not everyone's cup of tea, but I think allowing some degree of specialisation would let people get what they want from PA and allow some deeper discussions in these domains without making other readers become glassy eyed.
-
Here's a something for the keen globe trotting Mac enthusiast. A new Macpak..