Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've seen the observation that digitisation drastically reduced costs of creating come up again and again. The people who make those comments should ask the people who have been supplying services to creators just how true that is.
You may have inferred that, but what I've seen people talking about is the cost of physical production and distribution. Every entry has a permalink so feel free to cite the ones that match your assertion.
Does digitisation allow Islander to write a book any quicker cos one of the main costs for her is covering her living expenses while said book gets written. the only way to reduce the cost of writing the book is to reduce the cost of living expenses.
Strawman - those expenses would be there whether she wrote a book or not. You can't include them in a cost analysis. But actually, that's the real purpose of copyright, to enable a writer to come up with the next book.
Digital technology may enable her to write faster with less physical paper involved - I have no idea of her writing process and I know some who insist on writing longhand and then editing as they transcribe. I can't read my own writing a day after I wrote, so I use a word processor and stay digital until I finish a first draft.
Same with recording. get a comparative budget from a similar level act producing a similar level of expertise album. In this case equipment costs have come down this is true, but expertise costs haven't changed much. A producer is still going to charge the same, a skilled engineer (as opposed to you know it all brother) likewise.
Again, some people prefer to do it all themselves and forego those costs. Whether they're right or not, they have the option. This is the reason studios no longer have 24 hour solid bookings, because people (especially techno and hip hop, it seems) are doing it for themselves in the comfort of their own garrett on a computer. You may have doubts about the quality of such, that's your choice.
Again a strawman, as it's about creation, not distribution. Besides, "reduced cost" doesn't necessarily mean "no cost" to the creator.
maybe its our expectation of what a recorded work is that has changed. we accept a much rougher level of production, see it as a virtue even. That said there are some appallingly recorded works dumped up on us, all in the name of do it yourself.
And there are some appalling pieces of crap dumped on us by labels with engineers forcing loudness to the detriment of the music. Further, a lot of it will be played in MP3 format on tiny bud earphones or on music systems in cars with the bass pumped up so high all you can here is the beat.
Equally a strawman argument, though, as no-one was talking about the quality of the work, only the opportunity costs.
-
Gives more power to whom, exactly? Until you start exploring who the "individual" you're talking about just might be, this pretense of yours not to be ideological leaves something to be desired.
Well, you and I, for a start. We're empowered to have this debate, along with robbery in Christchurch, jon in London and Ben and anybody else who cares to join in and has an Internet connection. We can publish, defy governments, start protests, force a delay to legislation - all kinds of juicy stuff. We can even publish our own writing on blogs, as novels, as plays, as articles and also our music. That's pretty powerful to me, and pretty bloody impossible prior to the internet, with out the intervention of others every step of the way and then to a much smaller potential audience.
Did you get out of the Grumpy Bed this morning?
-
Yes: people. They still weren't slime creatures from the outer reaches of the galaxy.
Whatever you're smoking, Giovanni, you should really stop.
And telcos got in pretty early in the piece, really - how long have we been paying them for the privilege of accessing the damn thing?
You should learn some internet history. For a long time, probably half the life of the net, telcos were not at all interested in and at times actively opposed to the internet ( because they saw its potential to disrupt their revenue streams and monopolies). Most ISPs are not telcos, round the world, and the involvement of telcos as ISPs only came when they realised the growth of the net meant there was a large chunk of money they weren't getting. Otherwise, their involvement has been limited to owning the pipes and selling wholesale bandwidth to ISPs. Xtra, for example, didn't launch until the mid-to-late 90's, while I and others were connected through (for example) Actrix, New Zealand Online (which became Xtra) and the universities since around 1989 (earlier, at the universities, but not much). Funny story about Xtra - NZ Online wanted to expand their business and so went to their shareholders, one of which was Telecom, to discuss their plans. However, the shareholding had been initiated by Lawrence Zwimpfer and he had since left the telco, and they couldn't find a) anyone who knew that Telecom owned a chunk of an ISP or b) anyone who actually understood what they were talking about. True story.
Seehttp://www.internetnz.net.nz/aboutnet/history and the global history goes back to the 1960s
Governments too, with their investment in broadband, their privacy laws, their copyright laws, are hardly sitting this one out. And neither they should.
I agree that they're not sitting this out, but they've been wearing workboots instead of tapshoes, and most of them have got several left feet. What they're generally trying to do, at the behest of vested interests, is restrict the growth to something they can feel comfortable with. Guess what - it's hasn't worked and it continues to not work.
This rhetoric that we are powerless serves power, as it always has and always will.
Where did I ever say we are poweless? The net gives more power to the individual than ever before. What I said was:
Even thought out change can be pretty devastating. And yet it happens. Deal with it instead of resisting it for its own sake.
which has nothing to do with being powerless. You should try lifting yourself out of academia for a bit and look at the issues without ideology-tinted glasses.
-
Thanks for that link Jon. So the Statute of Anne got it right first time, eh? ;-)
-
That's just bollocks, quite frankly. The Internet wasn't set up by alien invaders, it was done by people and governments and telecommunications companies and such like. It can be regulated, opened up, shut down, depending on political will. This idea that it is a force beyond our control is a very convenient way not to have to face (and, effectively, devolve to others) the difficult decisions, including how to rethink copyright.
That's just delusional, quite frankly. The nature of disruptive technology is to disrupt. The Internet was certainly built by people, but governments per se got in quite late. Sure ARPA started the game, and various governments have waved their wands and tried to manage it, but the major enabler technologies were developed by non-governmental people (often students and scientists). And there are always holes and ways to route around those "impediments". Where governments have exerted control, however temporary, it has been to the detriment of the people who use the net, and I'm thinking about China specifically, and even that isn't complete control.
The more government and corporations try to clamp down on the Internet, the more people, especially the young, will rebel and do exactly what it is that the governments don't want them to do. And the impetus to develop stronger back-channels and "route around" the "interference".
But, when I talked about change, I wasn't just referring to the net.
-
Can't I do both?
Of course.
But yes, I disagree, obviously. I don't think technological advances need to be visited upon society without a debate and, where necessary, counter-measures or forms of social and cultural compensation. Laissez-faire is so 1990's, is it not?
It's happening, whether you want it or not. You can talk all you want but it's not going away. And you can't stop it. Either those affected to deal with it, or they disappear. I don't necessarily approve, but I don't deny facts when I stare them in the eye.
-
You're a hard man, Mr Harris. Just right for a job managing standards, I'd imagine. :)
Well, been there, done that
-
Giovanni:
There you go again. Mark Harris, the social darwinist of the technology-coypright debate.
Are you disagreeing, or just going for the cheap shot?
Robbery
or in the orchestras case society loses something it sees as important and puts in place measures to preserve.
If you want to go on a subsidised drip fee that can be pulled anytime the economy gets tight, be my guest.
There is also the notion of directing change so that it best benefits. not all change is good change.
Never said it was. And yet it happens.
[ignoring pointless paragraph. I suggest you do the same]
Change is all well and good, but un-thought out change can be devastating in unpredictable ways.
Even thought out change can be pretty devastating. And yet it happens. Deal with it instead of resisting it for its own sake.
-
-
and on that they are wrong Mark.
Not disputing the numbers, Simon, I was merely elucidating why people thought CD's cost "too much".