Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
Relevant to the discussion: Stifled By Copyright, McCain Asks YouTube to Consider Fair Use
(translation: McCain never sought permission from copyright holders to use their stuff, getting pissed that it keeps getting taken down off youtube)
-
A new xkcd to cheer you all up
btw JohnAmiria, that's why I took all my picture off Facebook. That and the fact that they (claim they) own the copyright to anything you upload (they own millions of lame status updates)!. -
and continuing on my apology to misreading sasha yesterday, your point does have merit in assessing worth in cultural value, but as far as any individual item is concerned its future worth as an acknowledged item of cultural worth or just some throw away novelty pop song should be irrelevant to assigning control to it.
or to look at it in reverse,, that a country uses some art, literature or music to define its cultural identity shouldn't be used as an excuse to undermine the control and ownership of an individuals work.
its nice that people see the "bone people" or "counting the beat", or a "bill hammond" as a way of identifying themselves with pride, i'm not seeing that as a good excuse to strip the creators of their control. how big the item gets in terms of importance varies greatly and isn't part of any bargain any artist makes. I can't speak for other artists but I'm not thinking this song will make me more money if I can get to be a culturally significant item, although now you mention it, that's not a bad idea, slip a few more references to jandals and nz landmarks in, there could be a career in that.
it worked for don McGlashan
-
Kyle, well, I'm with McCain (and John Key for that matter) on the stifling of freedom of speech thing.
-
Relevant to the discussion: Stifled By Copyright, McCain Asks YouTube to Consider Fair Use
(translation: McCain never sought permission from copyright holders to use their stuff, getting pissed that it keeps getting taken down off youtube)
Doesn't this tell the story of the two candidates? Obama spends time discussing ways forward for copyright with Lawrence Lessig, and earns Lessig's ringing endorsement for his policies.
McCain keeps getting his clips yanked and starts bleating about fair use.
-
Kyle, well, I'm with McCain (and John Key for that matter) on the stifling of freedom of speech thing.
Yeah, I'm with Russell. This isn't fair use, or incidental use of stuff in the background, or sampling to create something new. He's using people's songs wholesale as the backing music for his adverts and not even having the decency to contact the artists.
There's nothing preventing McCain putting adverts up on youtube, it's not 'freedom of speech', it's these adverts that are the problem.
-
There's nothing preventing McCain putting adverts up on youtube, it's not 'freedom of speech', it's these adverts that are the problem.
Also, due to the way the US law works, youtube is not allowed to consider fair use, they can't even say something like "hey, this is a blank video with no soundtrack!". If asked to take something down, they must take it down. The author can then petition that it be put back up (if they believe it to be non-infringing) and youtube must put it back, at which point youtube is pretty much out of the picture, and it's up to the two protagonists to fight it out in court or whatever.
-
-
Anyone else discovered their Facebook photo's pilfered by others?
I can tell you when I started blogging it was intriguing the places I found bits of my posts ripped and re-use by some robot somewhere.
That kind of thing might contribute to an attitude that a background noise of copying, if amoral and frustrating, is unstoppable and normal.
I believe type designers have had this for as long as the job has existed.
It suggests to me that if you want to usefully enforce any copyright, you should choose your battles.
-
There's nothing preventing McCain putting adverts up on youtube,
there's nothing preventing McCain from approaching the copyright holders or artists and asking if he can use them, going through the right channels or paying the standard fees for usage.
that he didn't do that looks pretty bad for someone looking to represent 'the people'. -
that he didn't do that looks pretty bad for someone looking to represent 'the people'.
Definitely. Discussions on how copyright should or shouldn't work aside, the first thing he should be doing is obeying the law.
Hell freezes over as I agree with something robbery says ;)
-
Hell freezes over as I agree with something robbery says ;)
if we all agreed on everything it'd be a pretty boring discussion.
though now that you mention it the temperature outside did just drop a couple of degrees....... -
if we all agreed on everything it'd be a pretty boring discussion.
It helps that you're still, as Russell said a while back, such a game contrarian.
Whenever I see a thread with the potential for copyright discussion, I count down until you come bounding in, at which point the discussion takes off like some kind of ungodly turbocharging system has engaged. Everything else is just prelude.
-
Heh. Did I kill the unkillable?
-
Thanks sam, I think..... although a contrarian would just say the opposite for the sake of it, where as I've made some valid points although it takes a fuckin' sledge hammer to make them sometimes,
sensitive bunch of know it alls on here :)........ (sprint)......
-
Thanks sam, I think..... although a contrarian would just say the opposite for the sake of it
I did mean to be positive - perhaps I didn't quite get the actual meaning of contrarian-ness. You have made some valid points, as have others, and your tenacity in argument makes for interesting threads.
-
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.
reading your point again 81st I take it you were making a 'nothing's truly original' point.
The law doesn't require it to be quite so black and white. ie you can't say its a guitar pop song so you're ripping off the beatles,its more its a collection of notes in this order and words in this order thing.
There's a lot more plagiarism going on than actually comes to court though cos you've got to have a good enough reason or motive for suing someone for ripping off your ideas and then be able to prove it.
I had a personal case where an ex band member took an one of my compositions modified it slightly, slapped new words on it and released it as his own song.
There was a pre existing recording of my composition so I could have taken it to court and proved it but the ex band member sold f all cds and I wouldn't have covered the costs of pushing the matter so I didn't bother, plus my musical peers had pointed out the transgression to me so I didn't have to prove a point cos it was already proven.
copyright infringement has an element of 'worth-it-ness' to it. if its a hit single by a band, writer, artist making lots of money out of your idea then you pursue it like an ambulance chaser, otherwise, its how upset do you feel about it and how much are you willing to pay to push the matter.
that whole louis louis vrse wild thing. did that ever come to court? same riff, different words. maybe they didn't think it was worth it.
and for those who say there's only a limited pool of ideas and we're running out so the concept of plagiarism is unrealistic.
its surprising how the new slants on things keep coming so we're apparently we're not running out just yet. -
no prob sam f, I got your positive vibe
-
and for those who say there's only a limited pool of ideas and we're running out so the concept of plagiarism is unrealistic.
Isn't there something else going on here? Like, none of the big media companies wants to take a punt on something/someone completely unknown and original, because there's too much money at stake? the artist either needs to have an already existing public profile, or successful work - or - you rejig an existing work that already has some cachet. LOTR is the perfect example. The transfer from page to film gives the film makers plenty of creative satisfaction in making a visualisation that is "their" work, but if LOTR had been a little known book by an obscure writer, the films would never have happened.
So, the notion of 'plagiarism doesn't exist because there's no original ideas' plays right into the hands of those who have the power to make something of 'unknown' works, by lifting and tweaking what they want, to appeal to their market as they see it, and claiming it as their own.
Jane Campion's move The Piano is speculated to have drawn heavily on Jane Mander's book The Story of a New Zealand River - was copyright infringed or not? I don't know - seems another case of where to draw the line.[{http://www.otago.ac.nz/communicationstudies/campion/participants/fox.html}]
-
So, the notion of 'plagiarism doesn't exist because there's no original ideas' plays right into the hands of those who have the power to make something of 'unknown' works,
very true, but the fact that major corps mostly choose to back the tried and true doesn't mean there aren't a good many new ideas being made, just that they remain unheard of till ground swell brings them to our attention, or major corps attention.
I've been surprised by a number of good films lately based on recent books I hadn't heard of.
also there's been some good tv like dexter, the wire, battlestar, even bits of lost, reasonably adventurous.so someone somewhere with money and power is paying attention. sadly at the top end of money and power they're a lot more cautious, and I can perhaps understand that but as a consumer of media hate the lack of risk taking.
-
-
that mcCain story brings up an interesting guilt until proven innocent angle.
though McCains team could easily put up clips on their own site and not have to worry bout that pesky youtube law shy thing.
then copyright holders could sue them directly. -
some of the comments in the riaa article are charmingly naive.
Man, why is everyone always trying to be keeping a group of old, rich, litigious men down? They're just trying to make a few more hundred million dollars by screwing over the entire country, give them a break! I bet when YOU manage to get a monopoly stealing artist's rights, YOU'RE going to want to prosecute every teen who doesn't pay you a 200% markup!
by their logic all artists produce only gold and every single song ever released has benefited no one but old rich men.
a tiny bit of a generalisation don't you think.
maybe a little bit of over simplification of the issues? -
Yes, some of us are over simplification - even if it's charmingly naive. Pot meet kettle.
-
:)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.