Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
You've yet to successfully argue why that's not the case and why that right should expire unlike a house. Why should that owner have to lock it away?
You only have a right to control based on the requirement that it's a limited right, and that the expression of the idea will pass into the public domain at a future time. That's the situation as it stands. I don't have to prove anything.
On the other hand, YOU have yet to demonstrate why that part of the law should be changed.
-
Simon -
Just because I want to sample them is not a good enough argument but I've seen little else.
For the benefit of stupid 81st can you clarify this ?
-
plates and arses in any form were and are not part of my intended discourse
However, can I recommend Emma's latest discussion starter:
All the current leaders of New Zealand's political parties are on a plane. It crashes into the Andes with no hope of rescue for weeks. Whose delicious corspe do you save for last?
-
That's the situation as it stands. I don't have to prove anything.
you have to prove why it is the situation as it stands.
remember simon's slaves are property cos they are comment. this is the same thing. things aren't what they are cos they are, that's not enough, they have to be argued to be what they are for a reason.at the moment there is no reason or none that has been forwarded that is consistent with how we treat other property.
the property were talking about is not the idea of the song which you are free to do your own version of from day one, but the recorded work as paid for by someone who is not you.
I won't mention bone people, for a little while anyway.
-
ps mark if it makes you feel any better I was discussing in public why some people have this hatred of the feelers and op shop because they see them as being derivative and the guitarist from op shop who I don't really know was sitting right next to the person I was talking to.
still not in your league though. -
There seems to be a failure in Robin's logic to factor in the changes in the use of music in recent years (20-30) beyond pointing to a site where one can download free an album or two.
My point was to do with the particular track. I consider sampling a valid form of expression, building upon items in the (ahem) "collective consciousness" already. It would make me sad to see artists unable to tap into that huge resource.
-
at the moment there is no reason or none that has been forwarded that is consistent with how we treat other property.
I think I've already more than adequately raised one difference - that creative capital is contributed by both creator and audience, a feature which I think you'll agree is less in evidence when it comes to baked beans and whiteware. Intellectual property is a subset of intellectual capital.
-
building upon items in the (ahem) "collective consciousness" already. It would make me sad to see artists unable to tap into that huge resource.
you can tap into the collective consciousness in order to inspire your originality any time you like, nothings stopping you.
the collection of all recorded sound is not your private sound effects archive though, but any of the ideas in it are completely available for you to do your own versions of. the only thing thats holding you back is you and your wallet. -
Simon, it seems to me then that you are arguing for different forms of Copyright to apply to different endeavours.
One for recordings, one for written works (which did last "forever" when Copyright was envisaged BTW), one for digital media, one for performance and so on. Fine of you can sort all that out.
With regards to the house thing. No-one can legally take my house, just as no-one can legally take your physical recording. If they like the house design, however, they can copy it. 99% of English suburbs follow that path.
-
I think I've already more than adequately raised one difference - that creative capital is contributed by both creator and audience,
you've put forward an idea, a hypothesis , one that hasn't been agreed with, hence not adequately raising a valid difference at all.
the audience or lack of it has nothing to do with the right to control what happens to your creative work. just the extent or not of its value, which islander doesn't consider a key factor in the control of her characters or me in my recorded works.
so we're back to no difference between these kinds of property.
-
If they like the house design, however, they can copy it. 99% of English suburbs follow that path.
And bloody Dannemora..
-
So if you say something it's a fact, and if I do it's a hypothesis. Rob, you really need to get over yourself, and perhaps learn how to follow an argument before everyone here just stops engaging with you. It's hardly the first time.
-
So if you say something it's a fact, and if I do it's a hypothesis.
well I wasn't speaking to you in that instance sasha, but robin has trundled out as accepted fact a few things which aren't. I think this is one of them. sorry to offend you by disagreeing with you,
and my disagreement is valid. just because it isn't a high priced selling item doesn't mean a different set of laws should apply. yes it is more valuable if its popular, but because it is in a cupboard not getting air time doesn't mean its not property. its a diversion issue,
and sasha i'm managing to be polite to you, how bout you lose the agro attitude to me.
-
the audience or lack of it has nothing to do with the right to control what happens to your creative work. just the extent or not of its value, which islander doesn't consider a key factor in the control of her characters or me in my recorded works.
Only in circumstances where that to which you claim copyright is unique and truly original. That is to say it bears no reference, similariity or suffers no other point of origin than the creators mind. Which in musical terms would require an extraordinary standard of proof.
-
Rob, you quote my post directly, you call my point "invalid", and then you claim that you were talking about someone else's ideas. Then you ramble about another unrelated idea.
By all means disagree, but don't expect to be forgiven forever if you can't follow the conversation and you take your frustration out on others.
One of us is being erratic and disrespectful, and I'm confident everyone here will have no trouble at all seeing who that is.
Good bye.
-
Only in circumstances where that to which you claim copyright is unique and truly original. That is to say it bears no reference, similariity or suffers no other point of origin than the creators mind. Which in musical terms would require an extraordinary standard of proof.
yep that's true, I had a job that required the originality test reguarding someones input into a track. the track was sent away to graeme downes for analysis to determine to what degree the track had been changed. This is quite common in sound alike tracks used for adverts where the client wants a song that sounds like say pink floyd but doesn't want to pay or can't afford the high end rates. the commission an artist to record something similar to but significantly different from the track they had in mind. mostly its close enough to get the desired effect by emulating the style of the artists which doesn't seem to be a copyrightable feature, just words and notes.
sometimes they make it too close to the original and get themselves in trouble.
The people who decide how close are people like graeme, acknowledged musical experts, but its certainly no cut and dry science. a large patch of grey in the middle. -
and then you claim that you were talking about someone else's ideas.
no, I was addressing robin, directly, I quoted his text.
robin said**I** think I've already more than adequately
implying he thought it was his idea. The link goes to your post where you address something robin said. I'm not addressing ownership of that idea, I'm directly addressing robins use of it, and I did it politely with out calling anyone an idiot or swearing, what's the problem?
I'm not taking my frustrations out on anyone at the moment sasha,
one of us is being erratic and disrespectful,as to following this thread, or copyright in general, come on, its always been a difficult and twisted business, you blame anyone who gets lost in it?? even the lawyers have trouble with it.
I get your point, but I disagree, I don't hate you for having you're own opinion,
-
You only have a right to control based on the requirement that it's a limited right, and that the expression of the idea will pass into the public domain at a future time. That's the situation as it stands. I don't have to prove anything.
On the other hand, YOU have yet to demonstrate why that part of the law should be changed.
I don't have to prove it because it clearly is changing..which is the core point that I'm making. It is not the situation as it stands. Copyright is evolving and the fundamental change in the EU towards recordings is a fairly clear pointer. There is an evolution of the concept that recordings and the owners of such have some sort of tangible property rights.
I'd be wiling to bet that within 50 years unlimited rights to these sorts of end result type properties (as compared to the ideas that were used to create them) in the recording industry will be law. That's the very slow but steady direction, and it's inevitable. The earlier law was written at a time when recordings only had a limited earning lifespan...technology and other factors have changed that and there is a recognition of such.
The ideas will eventually go into the public domain, but the things created with those ideas will not.
With regards to the house thing. No-one can legally take my house, just as no-one can legally take your physical recording. If they like the house design, however, they can copy it. 99% of English suburbs follow that path.
Not if it's copyrighted..ask the estate of Frank Llloyd Wright, who make a small killing protecting and exploiting their designs.
However the owners of those buildings are perfectly entitled to charge rent for the building, even conduct tours, to exploit the physical property they own.
One for recordings, one for written works (which did last "forever" when Copyright was envisaged BTW), one for digital media, one for performance and so on. Fine of you can sort all that out.
It's already there, at least in the recording industry. There are differing rights and limitations, by statue, to the various copyrights in a recorded work. There is no requirement to or desire to unify those but they exist in harmony most of the time, and evolve separately.
-
I'd be wiling to bet that within 50 years unlimited rights to these sorts of end result type properties (as compared to the ideas that were used to create them) in the recording industry will be law.
Sadly, I suspect you'd win the bet. I think society will be poorer for it. It's not all about money.
The ideas will eventually go into the public domain, but the things created with those ideas will not.
On this I think you are wrong, as they've marched in lockstep till now, and will continue to do so. Those, too, will be locked away.
-
buh-bye
-
On this I think you are wrong, as they've marched in lockstep till now, and will continue to do so. Those, too, will be locked away.
The recording and publishing copyrights on recordings have been treated rather differently for decades...a little like patents and things created from those patents. Myself, I hope the idea / publishing / songwriting terms continue to expire, and I agree society will be the poorer if they do not. I think there is a fundamental difference between the two things and they should have different standards of protection and terms applied.
-
apologies sasha, I must need glasses.
I looked at that multiple times and still saw robins name as the author. his is the name of the post above.
you are correct, I was commenting on your post, and reading robin's name for the above post to it. my sincerest apologies for my mix up on that. apologies to robin for attributing your comment to him to if that has offended him.
so I was saying your idea was a hypothesis as yet un proven,
you may go back to being offended by that. -
Coming back to this thread (I am away from home and am using family computers) I am especially interested in robbery & Sacha's comments...I am a person of specificities, and there is labyrinthine entanglement going on between 'traditional' copyright and electronic access in the discussion...way upthread there was a comment about fair useage- this seems to be a core issue?
-
But Mark, the problem is precisely that you can't stop people making unlimited numbers of copies, as soon as one copy is publicly available. Lockin' it away is stable door, oops, the horse is already dogfood.
Yes. Anyone else discovered their Facebook photo's pilfered by others? I'm not a musician, so this (the pilfering) has put it (the copyright issue) into perspective for me. It just rankles when you see something you created taken wholesale like that. I post these pictures for people to enjoy, but then I see them on someone else's page, listed under "their" album, with no credit to me. And with Facebook it's Six Degrees of Separation in reverse. My photos are spinning off into deep space and I have zero chance of holding on to them.
-
Hi Islander. Welcome back.
It would be useful for me if Russell could give you a guest post discussing how to retain control over your works through different licensing and Copyright mechanisms. You touched on this topic several days ago on this thread and I'd like to hear more.
Thanks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.