Hard News: "Rubbish" is putting it politely
181 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
I think everybody has missed the BIG question here.
But it's one that did not escape practically all of my high school students when they heard about the scholarship last week.
"How do they know that you are gay?"
Dude. Gaydar.
(But, actually, interesting point.)
-
Lighter stuff? Putin rears his head.
-
CCL?
*SCREAMS*
I have received just ONE payment from the CCL - that was from VUP
who gave almost NO details (like time span/copy numbers etc.) and - without *any* contractual warrant or right - took half of it...And that was for my first collection of short stories-
I receive - not large, but regular - amounts from ALAC (UK-based) for my first novel.
I've NEVER received anything for that novel from CCL - or any of my other books.
Ok, I'd scream again but I am getting very worn down by the utter shit ANZ writers have to deal with, and my arthritis, and - oh just go whimper off into the dark - unless there is a nice copyright lawyer/shark willing to do a deal???
-
Jamie Hernandez!!!! freakin'cool!
-
Lighter stuff? Putin rears his head.
Just saw the interview to which this parody applies; I wonder if Sarah gets the joke? There's a hilarious event in Australian politics which keeps coming to mind; the 28 second long political career of Mal Meninga. Don't you wish?
-
This is from a seminar they gave at least 3 years ago to government knowledge managers/librarians because CCL were trying to persuade them to rigorously pay up based on their photocopier stats.
I wonder if these could be the same buffoons who I received a letter from back in the 80s, when I ran a small animation studio, demanding a levy on behalf of those creatives who they alleged were being plundered by the studio's humble photocopier. Back in those pre-digital days the photocopier was the ultimate drudgery-alleviating device, used to transfer our own drawings to clear cel material to be hand painted.
I took the trouble to phone them and explain the situation, explaining that our humble photocopier was as much a creative item as printmaker's press. No way - you employ one of these tools of the devil, you join the ranks of the exploiters. Dark threats were made, but nothing more was heard from them.
I wonder if they still employ pettifogging bureaucrats to carry out these pointless fishing expeditions, paying them with the dosh they've collected ostensibly to pay the creatives in whose interests they claim to operate. -
Russell, does "it totally works" extend to condoning the totally ridiculous situation that the words you write today won't become public domain until your grand children are coming due for retirement, assuming current statistical lifespans for all involved? Because, for me, that's just a total fucking nonsense.
I accept the need for copyright. I'm one of those hippy, commie, OSS types (BSD, not GPL, but don't get me started), so I do understand that even stuff released for the world at large to do with as they see fit gets some benefit from things such as moral right of attribution. Hell, I even accept that creators should get paid for their endeavours if they so wish. What I can't accept is that somehow it benefits society to have those works locked up into a monopoly for one-and-rather-a-lot lifetimes (and that's just until Mickey is next due to enter into the public domain, at which point it'll probably become something like twice-the-lifetime-of-the-author-plus-some-arbitrary-high-percentage-of-100 years). The Sonny Bono Act was pretty much the confirmation that copyright as we know it is horribly, awfully broken. Fine, we're only life-plus-50, but you can be sure that it'll be forced up to life-plus-70 (or such other longer duration as exists in the US when the time comes) in the event that we become signatories to an FTA with the Yanks. Alternatively they'll buy WIPO again and make life-plus-whatever a requirement. That ain't something that's working in my book.
-
Life-long & adequate return would suit me - with the provisio that I pass on negotiating rights for the next stipulated generation.
Note the *adequate*.
I make way less than the average wage from royalties, and will still be working for another coupla years before I have anything publishable. Self-supported.
-
Islander, I'm curious why you think one work should pay you for life? For those of us who aren't in the creative sphere, if we want to keep earning we have to keep working, or we have to manage our money. What makes creative types so much more special than the rest of us?
If a doctor cures your terminal illness, do you pay them for the rest of their (or your, if it comes first) life? No. You pay them once, for doing that work, and call it even. Given that methods for treating human illness cannot be patented (yet! Long may it continue), if they used some never-before-seen technique to treat you they're still not getting a lifetime pay-cheque out of it.Not dissing you, just curious as to why creative people feel that society owes them a life-long income that is denied to all others unless they've got some financial nous.
-
creative people feel that society owes them a life-long income that is denied to all others
tee hee. leaving aside the benefit society gets from creativity- and the natural justice of giving rights over a creation to its creator- lets just say it's the artist's selfish desire not to starve to death.
-
Matthew Poole - I certainly wouldnt expect *one* work to pay me for my lifetime...but I've had 7 books published, and over 50 other pieces of writing published and many still in print. As I mentioned apropos CCL, I'm not getting a proper return while others - who *didnt* create the works- are getting more than I am.Your analogy is weird: I dont feel anybody owes me a lifelong income - except when it's my work, *my* copyright, during *my* lifetime - but those items are being/have been augmented during my working life. Copyright is the *only* source of income most creative people have. A doctor - and this is where your analogy is not only weird but totally non-correlative - who cures a 'terminal' (sorry, terminal is terminal) illness is paid for the cure, not the on-going life...a writer is paid for the continual copying and purveying of their original work.
-
And yep, Rob, I love being alive. I dont want to go on a dole or a benefit but I'd *really* prefer to keep on living without relying on just bush tucker or going begging-
-
But it's one that did not escape practically all of my high school students when they heard about the scholarship last week.
"How do they know that you are gay?"
Dude. Gaydar.(But, actually, interesting point.)
How do they know? It's all there in the Application Document:
All applicants must write a 1000 word essay on the subject of 'Twinks'. All shortlisted applicants will then be required to read their essay in person before the judges, wearing short shorts and an oversized singlet so that they may receive further marks for public speaking and athleticism
Yes, of course I'm joking. But (seriously) has anyone on the rightwing blogs been 'brave' enough to state the obvious* (GABA can't be trusted with schoolboys because ...y'know...) or are they happy speaking in code?
*obvious, as in from their Christian/'family values' POV.
-
Islander, I'm curious why you think one work should pay you for life? For those of us who aren't in the creative sphere, if we want to keep earning we have to keep working, or we have to manage our money. What makes creative types so much more special than the rest of us?
And what makes your work so much more important than creative work that you should get paid and copyright creators shouldn't?
I suspect that many great novelists would happily settle for a very average weekly wage, but that's not how it works. Instead, they depend on royalties and rights fees, both of which are a function of their copyrights.
Creative people (songwriters especially) do look at their works as a retirement fund -- maybe they'll write one song that keeps getting used -- for the very good reason that most of them aren't in a position to save during their productive career.
-
*obvious, as in from their Christian/'family values' POV.
Minor gripe...I know what you mean but Christian and/or family values does not equal homophobic alarmist bigotry. It can and often does I'll grant, but there are people who are christian and also don't have a problem with people being gay.
-
you're right david. there are many churches who are open supportive and welcoming of their gay flock.
odd then that so many of the 'redneck' churches often ask WWJD? (what would jesus do?) but then ignore the obvious
-
Minor gripe...I know what you mean but Christian and/or family values does not equal homophobic alarmist bigotry. It can and often does I'll grant, but there are people who are christian and also don't have a problem with people being gay.
Otherwise known as the "Hate is not a family value" movement.
-
Just saw the interview to which this parody applies; I wonder if Sarah gets the joke?
No, Paul, I don't think she does -- but the problem is that the joke stops being funny when her interview with Katie Couric was like watching a turtle trying to outrun a combine harvester. I'm not talking about someone who is uncomfortable in front of a camera, or indugling in evasive waffle and dubious hyperbole. Palin is either dumb as a bag of nails, or she's got to memorise a hell of a lot more flash cards to get through an interview without recycling.
-
WWJD? (what would jesus do?)
Shit I thought that stood for What Would Jesus Drink?
Red wine, obviously!?
-
3410,
Palin is either dumb as a bag of nails, or she's got to memorise a hell of a lot more flash cards to get through an interview without recycling.
Moreover, where's the campaign's brains trust at?
Palin gave the same idiotic answer initially last week, and yet they sent her into the white-hot crucible of a Katie Couric interview without even fixing it. Bizarre.
Note for Aucklanders:
First Presidential debate: Triangle TV, 10:30pm Sunday -
3410,
BTW, I still think the main reason McCain even got the nomination is that enough Repubs subconsciously think they're voting for this guy.
-
Just to confirm, CCL are these folks ?
Who take in $4million a year in New Zealand - 99% of which comes directly from education, roughly half from Universities a quarter from schools and virtually none from business. Another $1million comes in from overseas.
And have just given out $70,000 in prizes to authors, spent over $300,000 on IT and are proud to announce the following:
After being in premises in Northcote for more than 10 years, it was wonderful to move into new premises in Como Street, Takapuna in November. We now have sunny, spacious offices with marvellous views of the city and surrounding area which are a pleasure to work in.
Doesn't that just make you want to get up in the morning Islander ?
-
Kim Hill has just played the 'Mississippi' free download. Nice.
-
Just to confirm, CCL are these folks ?
Quite right, mea culpa, should have checked before postings.
Indeed those are the very bastards I was talking about. :-)
-
Except that not all collecting societies necessarily benefit the creator. Case in point: CCL collect on behalf of all NZ writers whether they hold an authorisation or not, because there is legislation that says they can. Do they then hand out to a writer her due royalties, based on the number of tmes their work has been copied? Do they, fuck! They pick a "representative selection" of writers on their list and divvy what's left after their expenses have been taken out. They declined to make known what their criteria for selection were.
I don't know what CLL do with the information and money once they get it, but part of my job involves collecting this information in regular surveys. It's very comprehensive, and CLL know exactly what we copy, who published it, and who wrote it. We would copy a decent six figure sum of copyrighted pages every year.
If they're not doing a half decent job of returning that to authors/publishers, then I'll take half as much time next time we get surveyed :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.