Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 32 33 34 35 36 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
I think he was pretty clear. Do you think you see some subtext in what Simon said?
-
I think he was pretty clear. Do you think you see some subtext in what Simon said?
I asked specifically assuming legitimate ownership how do you feel about re appropriation.
simon did a paragraph on non legitimate ownership stuff and how he felt it should be returned and then said legitimate owned culture was another matter.
does that mean shouldn't be reclaimed, should be offered to govts first for purchase at market value, should go to the highest bidder, etc etc. -
should a nation re appropriate its perceived heritage or should they buy it?
What about Sir Edmund Hillary's house and the notion that the section might be worth more if torn down in a property developer's scheme? All of which probably means that Ed's family might suffer a larger windfall.
Who get's to make the call on where the line of cultural significance becomes sufficient and whether that valuation will hold true in the future? (Oh for a good soothsayer!)
Changing tack slightly, I wonder if Sir Edmund found it objectionable or disrespectful that people that he never meet are so accustomed to referring to him as “Sir Ed”, “Ed”, “old Ed”, or any variation thereupon.
It strikes me as a little back to front that we seemingly care & afford more protection to the products of a person’s imagination (in some particular forms), than how we deal or refer to a deceased person.
-
A person's imagination is fueled by the products of others and by the culture they grow into. Who "owns" that?
-
It's called Creative Commons for a reason.
-
Presentation from Cory Doctorow - Freedom and technology: who's the master? 86 mins available as audio & video.
Eplores technology as an agent of transparency.
Thanks for that, Jon. Really interesting stuff.
A key point to take out of it is that, while technology may change things, and make some older things less viable, the things don't disappear. Recordings didn't kill live music, neither did radio, television and movies didn't kill live theatre etc.
The issue, when it comes to copyright arguments, seems to be about the old models trying to block the new, but as Doctorow says, no one came down off a mountain saying "Thou shalt not disrupt our business model".
-
Recordings didn't kill live music, neither did radio, television and movies didn't kill live theatre etc.
but they did servery impact on them in a negative way, not dead but a shadow of their former self.
take big bands and orchestras for example. the electric guitar probably impacted directly on that making it easier to produce a big sound for a portion of the cost and people involved.
yet we still have orchestras, heavily subsidized to keep em going, but now pretty much financially un-viable without funding intervention.
apparently that is one piece of progress our governing bodies decided to artificially undo, indicating that perhaps it is ok to take moves to direct progress when the consequence of not doing so would be detrimental to something we see as important. But who's to decide that? -
National Radio's This Way Up on Flickr Commons. So another bunch of creatives and another industy impacted.
Again the "boon or bane" question seems relevant.
-
but they did servery impact on them in a negative way, not dead but a shadow of their former self.
That's called change. It happens. If you don't adapt, you die.
-
detrimental to something we see as important. But who's to decide that?
A combination of markets and public governance systems, both of them refecting overall power and hence likely to favour cultural forms liked by rich white folk. Orchestras and opera over pop gigs and music vids, oil paintings over weaving and film, books over magazines.
I was struck by the preponderance of expensively-dressed blue-rinsed matrons out for their fix of heavily-subsidised classics the first time I stepped inside the wandered into Aotea Centre. Of all the social groups who can afford to pay for their own entertainment, I thought..
-
-
If you don't adapt, you die.
There you go again. Mark Harris, the social darwinist of the technology-coypright debate.
-
It's a cruel world. :)
-
If you don't adapt, you die.
or in the orchestras case society loses something it sees as important and puts in place measures to preserve.
There is also the notion of directing change so that it best benefits. not all change is good change.
Take ww2 germany, where they were in the process of some really big changes and quite a few people didn't adapt and did die. Pretty hard to argue that change in that circumstance was a good thing.
Change is all well and good, but un-thought out change can be devastating in unpredictable ways.
-
Can we please treat that as a Godwinning and put the thread out of its misery. I'm not normally a fan of euthanasia, but in this case...
-
Nonsense. If you try to kill this thread, you're only going to piss it off and make it stronger.
-
If you try to kill this thread, you're only going to piss it off and make it stronger.
Just a flesh wound!
-
-
Giovanni:
There you go again. Mark Harris, the social darwinist of the technology-coypright debate.
Are you disagreeing, or just going for the cheap shot?
Robbery
or in the orchestras case society loses something it sees as important and puts in place measures to preserve.
If you want to go on a subsidised drip fee that can be pulled anytime the economy gets tight, be my guest.
There is also the notion of directing change so that it best benefits. not all change is good change.
Never said it was. And yet it happens.
[ignoring pointless paragraph. I suggest you do the same]
Change is all well and good, but un-thought out change can be devastating in unpredictable ways.
Even thought out change can be pretty devastating. And yet it happens. Deal with it instead of resisting it for its own sake.
-
You're a hard man, Mr Harris. Just right for a job managing standards, I'd imagine. :)
-
And Giovanni's comment seemed a pretty fair and concise summary to me. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Deal with it instead of resisting it for its own sake.
who's resisting it for its own sake, I think you're imagining my motivation without having the information to make that assumption.
I'm trying to look at the implications of it beyond the simplistic "free equals good". Having conducted a few experiments along these lines in these lines I can tell you its not that simple.
-
There you go again. Mark Harris, the social darwinist of the technology-coypright debate.
Are you disagreeing, or just going for the cheap shot?
Can't I do both? But yes, I disagree, obviously. I don't think technological advances need to be visited upon society without a debate and, where necessary, counter-measures or forms of social and cultural compensation. Laissez-faire is so 1990's, is it not?
-
Rejected !
-
OK so I obviously haven't been downloading advance Conchords episodes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.