Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
whatever. Your call
-
Actually, you get pretty pissy when people do bring up ideas not to your liking, which is kind of my point.
Actually, I get kind of pissy when people ascribe arguments and positions to me that are not borne out by the evidence. Keep that in mind and we'll be fine.
-
LOL
-
It is, and thus formulated it's not an unreasonable position, but surely half of the "copyright must change" argument has to do with new technologies that allow to copy copyrighted content in a way that circumvents the existing protections.
Copying is copying. It got easier. The problem is education and abuse of the process by, for example, the big 4 music labels and their joint entity the RIAA who have destroyed a generation's trust in process instead of embracing change and finding new ways to work with their customers. They've tried to enforce old media rules on new media and the new media has slipped away like a greasy soap. I'm not sure they can unpoison that well, to mix metaphors a little.
Other than saying it's not theft, because it ain't property like other kinds of property, what's your solution here? And couldn't we seize the moment to rethink copyright in a slightly broader way than your suggestion above? At the very least we ought to be able to discuss it without people getting pissy, I'd humbly suggest.
My response was measured, I felt.
[quote]I really don't know anybody who thinks that way. Do you?[/quote]
Well, Islander did say in the other thread that
one of my books has brought in many *thousands* ofpaying tourists who come here because of it (and I dont mean just to the Coast.) And -while the area gains benefit from their presence - I dont.
No one owes me a living? Right - but my *work* provides a *lot* of other people with - at least- enhancement for *their* living - and I get very little recompense for that.
which, to me, comes close to that way of thinking. And she and robbery have both argued the property line. But I was stating what I believed, not rebutting anyone in particular.
So: let the market chips fall where they may, and if you happen to be one of those artists whose work is easily copied, tough?
Pretty much. You know the rules going in - engage and add value so that people will want the legitimate product and want to pay you for it. The market place is not your father's market place and you have to adjust to that. "Big media" have been very slow to do that.
People who haven't been that slow include Cory Doctorow, Nine Inch Nails (cue Keir and robbery to start on about how they couldn't have done so if they hadn't been famous first, but their objection to judging by exception seems to vanish when looking at Booker Prize -winning novelists), Tor Books and others. More are popping up every day.
I posted a link the other day to a presentation by Michal Masnick about Trent Reznor and NIN. His thesis was CwF + RtB = $$$$ (Connect with Fans plus Reason to Buy equals Revenue). That, I think, is the new model. Bitching about illicit copies just isn't going to get you anywhere because the people you're bitching about don't care.
So long as we are discussing how to reform copyright, shouldn't we aspire to recognise the work of a Keri Hulme for the actual benefit it provides to the society in which she lives?
As long as we can recognize, in the same way, the district planner whose idea to construct a bridge over the river enabled those visitors to actually access the area.
What do we do if Keri writes a book that is so fundamentally disliked that it can be measured as a reason people stop coming to NZ? Do we then take money off her to compensate the businesses that no longer get the tourist revenue?
I don't want to diss Keri but the facts are that she wrote a book, it was successful, she won a prize, became world famous (not just in NZ either) and (I presume) made some money out of it. That, to my mind, is the whole of it.
On the matter of tourism, I'd sumbit that she does benefit, indirectly, from every tourist dollar that changes hands in the area in which she lives, as more businesses mean more revenue for local government, more taxes paid that fund more amenities and so on. Of course the downside is that the more people visit, the fewer whitebait there are to go round, so you have to balance these things.
Gio, I can't think of any mechanism for measuring the impact of, let alone compensating, any individual for benefiting society that isn't a form of welfare benefit apportioned on some incredibly arcane scale and requires a substantial number of bureaucrats to run.
I think we have an opportunity hear to rethink cultural value, the commons and how to incentivise and compensate artists. It ought to be a free discussion.
Not arguing, Gio. Go for it.
-
Re the gravatar: what browser are you using on what OS?
-
Bart
The area of life commonly and under protest referred to as the "disability community" is no more complex than any other community. Which is to say incredibly fucking complex.There are not protocols you can learn for dealing with those of us who are so defined that will cover every facet, just the same as there are no nationwide protocols for dealing with Māori that apply across all marae, iwi or hapū.
The key thing is to treat people with respect and ask where you are not sure.
A blind friend of my acquaintance refers to "blindies and crips" and she's not talking gangs. I'd never use that phrase, except with her, because others might see it as offensive, even though I'm damn near a 'crip' in some lights myself.
Some, in a black-humoured way, are okay with being labled as 'disabled' - it's just a label, after all and on the whole I'd rather be disabled than an accountant. But many don't share that joke.
There are some who don't want to be seen as different in anyway from anyone else, and will take offense if you treat them differently.
We are legion, and I'm afraid we're all individuals. Personally, I prefer you to say what you think in order to get the job done and I'll let you know if I'm offended ;-) (just like an "able" person would ;-)
-
I see your point, esp. in s62 although I think it could be argued that Select Committee submissions are part of Parliamentary proceedings.
I wonder if there's any case law on this. Rick, you still around?
-
then you're deluding yourself, your response to the whole saga speaks volumes. no apology,no " I didn't know who I was speaking to" or anything, shear bloodymindedness, that's quite deafening in its volume. I'm not saying its bad, I'm just noting it.
The point that I was making stands, regardless of who I was making it to. Writing is a legendarily low paying profession and the fact that I made it to Islander, an exception o the rule, does not invalidate the point. If I thought an apology was warranted, I would have given it.
that's better then, but we're still not going to let you forget it
Whatever.
- really? every single thing you've said, and you've said a lot. some of it even contradicts itself, perhaps you should have said maybe for that last one, keep a sense of mystery going.
Well, maybe I'm just more honest than you take me for. Sorry about that, but feel free to link to the places where I've contradicted myself, which is easy to claim in passing, and I'll attempt to clarify.
-
Actually, I/S, I believe that when you submit stuff to the Crown it a) becomes official information and subject to the OIA, unless confidentiality is warranted under the Privacy Act or relevant sections of the OIA, or other legislation (such as tax or health) and b) becomes subject to Crown Copyright. I may be wrong on this and will bow to informed opinion.
-
Nope, nope and nope