Speaker: ACTA: Don't sell us down the river
526 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 22 Newer→ Last
-
And I'd put money on the fact that the wise heads who declared that vampires were the next thing weren't exercising some brilliant personal insight. They read it on the internet.
Oh noes - just when the zeitgeist was all but exorcised, along comes the internet.
That evil man Peter Jackson's been actively engaging with the organised fan base for years. While it's an approach that probably generates its own distortions, it's vastly more creative and genuine than invoking the dubious oracle of the market. -
And I'd put money on the fact that the wise heads who declared that vampires were the next thing weren't exercising some brilliant personal insight. They read it on the internet.
They saw Buffy. The probably read stuff on Internet as well. But it was they who created the market, not the consumers. The market makers talk to the Geeks, but it is they and not the Geeks who make the decisions.
Besides, taking your product to convention is marketing. Your target audience gathers in a single place, looking for new stuff. You bring them new stuff. They go away and tell their friends about it.
-
That evil man Peter Jackson's been actively engaging with the organised fan base for years. While it's an approach that probably generates its own distortions, it's vastly more creative and genuine than invoking the dubious oracle of the market.
I'd also venture that many legacy works are in better hands with their fans (who will buy the DVD when the owner finally twigs anyway) than with their corporate owners.
-
They saw Buffy. The probably read stuff on Internet as well. But it was they who created the market, not the consumers. The market makers talk to the Geeks, but it is they and not the Geeks who make the decisions.
But they don't make the market -- they see it and respond to it. The market exists whether they decide to serve it or not.
-
"...we're veering away from what's *really* wrong with ACTA..."
Not wrong, Russell. I had a similar objection to the Google Book Settlement: suddenly, ANZ copyright was rendered irrelevant in the US
because one dominant player saw a chance at virtually monopolistic control of a coming market.It is my strong feeling that ACTA - like sect. 92A - need to be rejected
*but that doesnt mean copyrights in traditional markets should go by the board.*I buy dvds/cds & books - I download articles from the net 'for personal use only.'( I am not interested in ebooks and itunes.)While there is a huge market already for downloaded music, the ebook market is still tiny (for many reasons which we're all pretty aware of) and isnt going to majorly increase anytime soon.
-
NZ On Air only approve tv productions if a broadcaster agrees to show it don't they? That makes the tv networks the gatekeeper as well, in practical terms. And they do like those cheap celebrity reality shows that rilly reflect our local culture.
-
I seem to be the only person calling him out for the bullshit rape analogy.
FFS, "raping the land" is a long-established phrase. Don't go being as stupid as Mr Holmes on us.
-
You pitch to the gatekeeper.... Gatekeepers are not the market, and I did try to make it clear that I don't consider them to be such.
Matthew, this entire comment reads as though market=gatekeeper. You say, market controlling culture is already happening, and then give a bunch of examples of producers and publishers - gatekeepers - making decisions.
-
Creators have a role in any model, as by definition without the creators there's nothing to distribute.
There is an obvious model which eliminates creators: where there is nothing to distribute. Markets fail to provide public goods all the time.
-
Matthew, this entire comment reads as though market=gatekeeper. You say, market controlling culture is already happening, and then give a bunch of examples of producers and publishers - gatekeepers - making decisions.
I suppose you could say that the gatekeepers' continued employment is (or should) contingent on their ability to spot markets. So they make a production or funding decision based on their assessment of markets -- they don't actually make the market.
This falls apart a bit in the case of TV commissioning, which is based not on "whether there's a market" but "whether there's a market that meets the needs of our advertisers".
-
FFS, "raping the land" is a long-established phrase. Don't go being as stupid as Mr Holmes on us.
Thank you, I kept meaning to point this out - that meaning of rape is in fact the original meaning of rape. ("Rape and pillage" doesn't mean pillage and rape the women.)
-
NZ On Air only approve tv productions if a broadcaster agrees to show it don't they? That makes the tv networks the gatekeeper as well, in practical terms. And they do like those cheap celebrity reality shows that rilly reflect our local culture.
I was quite intrigued by the promo for One Land I saw at the SPADA conference in Wellington last week.
It's a TV One back-in-time "reality" show with one Pakeha family and two Maori families (one which has stayed in touch with its culture and the other totally Kiwi-fied). They do a bunch of arbitrary pretend pioneer/tangata whenua stuff -- I think that was what was being satirised on Jacqui Brown on Friday night.
But even though it's the kind of contrived television I would have to be tortured to watch, I quite like the fact that it's a Treaty-savvy reality show and does actually seem to explore ideas of cultural belonging.
-
I kept meaning to point this out
Thank you for elaborating. Long day, time for a drink.
-
I quite like the fact that it's a Treaty-savvy reality show and does actually seem to explore ideas of cultural belonging.
Do they co-operate to survive, rather than go for the assholes-in-paradise Survivor model? Cos if they do, it sounds just a bit subversive. While the market may dictate the success or failure of the likes of Survivor, it's hard to escape the impression that such shows are hyped because they reflect someone's cynically ideological contempt for their intended audience.
-
satirised on Jacquie Brown
Exsactly
-
But they don't make the market -- they see it and respond to it. The market exists whether they decide to serve it or not.
To the extent that 14 year-old girls existed before Twilight, yes. But, so far as I know, those girls were not scouring bookshops looking for novels which represented their feelings in the Vampire genre. The book's success was only possible because it was marketed by gatekeepers: bookshops, the New York Times bestseller list, etc. The book only came to be because it was picked up by an agent (after being rejected by fourteen others) who pitched it to the publishers, eight of which bid for the rights. It is gatekeepers all the way down, and they create markets.
-
The book only came to be because it was picked up by an agent (after being rejected by fourteen others) who pitched it to the publishers, eight of which bid for the rights. It is gatekeepers all the way down, and they create markets.
To continue at cross-purposes: sometimes producers create markets. The Transformers TV (and now film) franchise created a market in related toys via its genre cartoons. The market for Transformers did not exist before Transformers. But merely to recognise that there are customers for a genre is not to create those customers.
A prominent species of gatekeeper is the record comany A&R man. His continued employment is predicated on correctly deducing what the punters will like. In the old days, he would go to a lot of gigs. These days, he'll spend a lot of time on Hype Machine too.
-
What about trend-cycles?
The trope-osphere we live in keeps on churning,
and turning, these things over and and out...
Mass marketing is all well and good, but 'The Long Tail' still keeps things warm...
all things come around again - there was a mid '60s Vampire bloom, which has been rekindled (if not staked out and reclaimed) - old stories new voices...
Game on...
... but does the Game Keeper listen
to Lady Loverly's Chatter?*and they ain't Gate keepers - they're Ticket sellers
they are the meter they need coins, and traffic...
we don't need to validate their views - there is still room to skew the field - people power cannot be underestimated...don't wait for the future
create it!
*a Mad magazine spoof title from memory... -
But merely to recognise that there are customers for a genre is not to create those customers.
No, but neither is a market merely a section of the population. The A&R man knows the demographic for the type of music he is marketing. They can be relied upon to buy a certain amount of product, from the A&R man's company and its competitors. But the A&R man can increase sales by getting people interested in something they might not have thought of buying. World Music is an example: twenty-five years ago music fans would not have thought of buying music sung in languages other than English, but the likes of Charlie Gillett created a market.
Another example is Public Address books. PA readers obviously are literate; they probably buy books. But they probably never thought about buying a spoof Reserve Bank annual, until today.
-
The flyin-ointment is a site like Scribed-
-
Spoof - word o year contender?
-
but neither is a market merely a section of the population
Ae. You'd be needing some way to develop agreement about exchange of value, rules, structure, that sort o thing. Regulation is surprisingly popular all round, despite the nanny/ninny rhetoric.
-
But even though it's the kind of contrived television I would have to be tortured to watch, I quite like the fact that it's a Treaty-savvy reality show and does actually seem to explore ideas of cultural belonging.
Im probably alone in this, what the hey.
Cultural belonging Im not really sure what you mean by this, and I'm not being a wisearse.
But this is the kind of idea that I would like to see explored in a more high brow type of programme. By trying to popularise, what are really important considerations and worthy of in depth treatment, a delaying effect comes into play.
Issues arent dealt with, cultural sore points can fester.And, on a personal viewing note, all those pregnant silences filled with cheesy suspense music and a million close ups, are the basest form of television. It's time we lifted our sights.
Listening gatekeepers........Oh why bother!
-
via the EFF -
http://www.copyright-watch.org/home
apologies if it's been posted already.
I like how Afghanistan has no known copyright law, but "in October 2007, the US Department of Commerce and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry agreed to establish a forum whose work would include establishing intellectual property rights protection and enforcement in the country."
god bless democracy.
-
Because you care.
Because I care.
Because - despite our desparate view points - we *all* care.
Even when we hate each others' stances-
arguing is good.
Closed minds? nah, not at all good-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.