Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I suppose, technically, selling the rights to a book that can be read on a computer is not the same as selling rights to the same plus it can be read out (or for that matter something that can be printed). Odd that they wouldn't have thought of it - I mean, it's data - but there might be a point in there, even if I don't see how it's worth NYT editorial space.
I mention this because it hadn't occurred to me that way before. I suppose it would really make this an argument about format-shifting.
-
No amount of coding will produce that in a machine in my lifetime or the next hundred years.
I liked Gaiman's comment that, when a machine can do read aloud better than a human, we will have other things to worry about.
-
Surely the only moral difference between reading your book yourself and having a machine read it for you is the suffering inflicted on your audience by the latter.
So the reading's legitimacy depends on the situation either way. I can imagine a public performance or a recording of a copyright work with a kindle machine - possibly even one I might be interested in hearing - but it would be the operator's responsibility.
-
But I'm less convinced that it is under the circumstances required to trigger this proposed law (as described by Mr Edgeler)
That is indeed an argument that Mr Garret could have made, and as far as I know whether you accept it would just be a question of just how much moral weight you give to reoffending (although it does isolate the individual case from the wider system).
Most of my shock is to do with the argument Garret chose to make instead. I'm fairly sure it's possible to be a prominent advocate (as distinct from present company) of this kind of thing and still seem sane but I'm not sure I've seen it happen.
-
Can you be breaking a suppression order if you dont know you are?
I believe so, although you could only expect to be punished after you've been told to stop.
This kind of thing is a problem. It's worse because, for eg I recall, in the Dom Post case even the crown couldn't assemble all the suppression orders in any timely fashion.
And it's not as if you can have a public index of what information is supressed.
It occurs to me that the system - with the kind of meta-supressions they seem to use occasionally - is only functional where information is only disseminated by a small number of recognised media agencies and is therefore quaint. Hence the zeitgeist, no doubt.
-
To declare that it is somehow of the order of Melody Rules is kind of cheap and silly.
I vaguely knew an improvisor type who I believe was involved in the making of Melody Rules.
As I recall it I saw him making a rather glum cellphone call after a show - maybe he'd been MCing a high school show I was in? - talking to someone about how he'd felt obliged to play along with the widespread mockery of Melody Rule that had spontaneously arisen.
-
A-G's office complaining your favourite bill breaches the bill of rights?
Solution: Change the BORA!
After all, disproportionately severe punishment is kind of the whole point.
-
The Tizard thing is kind of an essay in the thinking that got us into this position.
I understood people were buying video games instead. Although I don't get what that has to do with people booking recording space.
-
Neil Gaiman on the kindle thing
When you buy a book, you're also buying the right to read it aloud, have it read to you by anyone, read it to your children on long car trips, record yourself reading it and send that to your girlfriend etc. This is the same kind of thing, only without the ability to do the voices properly, and no-one's going to confuse it with an audiobook. And that any authors' societies or publishers who are thinking of spending money on fighting a fundamentally pointless legal case would be much better off taking that money and advertising and promoting what audio books are and what's good about them with it.
-
Didn't Mr Garrett himself point out that there would have been less than 100 or so prisoners in jail due to this law, had it already been in place?
The critical question is how long it had hypothetically been in place for. You get not-many extra for the usual projection periods because hardly anyone has had time to serve three strikes. Then you go forward 20 years and it's exploded.
The law does a couple of other things as well:
One-and-a-bit strikes then.