Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 38 39 40 41 42 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
just posted on that other casino/kindle/pseudo-copyright thread a link to Radio NZ tech interview mentioning Kindle, Copyright & licensing....oh and everybody's favourite Andrew Dubber...who strangers were coincidentally mentioning to me in the bar after James Boyle's lecture...who needs a Bacon-number, when it seems a Dubber-number is so much more in vogue?
-
Campbell didn't specifically say Bic Runga was reduced to flipping burgers.
so why did anyone say he said she was and make such a big issue of it except for tabloid effect.
I've read the referring material and bics blog and it doesn't say he said that anywhere. Bic goes off on a tangent about flipping burgers,
And she has done minimum wage work afte the age of 15, just not the kind that gets grease in your hair. she worked in a record store for years. Other popular artist second jobs (or first jobs really) are in the postal service, hair dressing and burglary. (I know of one guy who defrauded a band of $150000 and did time for it).
Campbell was making a point which stands, he didn't lie as far as I can see from the information presented. Allegeding he told the parliamentary select committee something is not worth the pixels it takes to illuminate those letters. If he did say it to a committee there will be minutes to the meeting and that is the information that you should be quoting, not some link off a "he said she said" page.It wasn't a smart thing to do, and she wasn't very happy about it.
read her blog again. She's not criticising Campbell, she's criticising the people who believed that she was had taken a job flipping burgers. you chose to read it in a way that supported your point which was campbell is a liar and so there for RIANZ is bad.
I'm not even trying to defend the guy cos I don't know him or care but points like this and the 'let them rot' comment do absolutely nothing to alleviate my doubt in some of the things you say.
The same post also refers to the more outrageous parts of the RIANZ submission that robbery was doubting me on:
oh come on russell, this is the sort of thing that disappoints me from you. You know full well and the comment record shows the one point I picked you up on was the let them rot comment.
You painted it in black and white and I filled in the grey.I want to see the submission from RIANZ that uses those words or similar.
This bit though is strange
, "it is submitted that libraries and archives should not be permitted to make sound recordings or films available both in terminals on-site or terminals off-site and that such rights are not necessary for their proper functioning and operation."
See at my library I already am able to view movies on screens there, and listen to cds, its always been that way. are they breaking a law?
-
correction
defrauded a bank of $150000 and did time for itwhat band would have 150000 to be defrauded of
-
This was my favourite part.
anyone bothered to call the person who made that statement and get some elaboration on the thinking of it?
quoted like that it doesn't make logical sense. is there a context for it?also do you read campbells replies to issues raised re copyright, 92a and a bunch of misinformed stuff that some people believed.
Campbell Smith Questions and Answers on copyright 92a etc etc
for a dirty liar I think he came across in well informed and thought
out way. -
Anyone familiar with the story of the Zaxs?
-
<shameless self-promotion>
I've just put up a new blog post about TelstraClear, including the text of their letter to the TCF -
Anyone familiar with the story of the Zaxs?
I did find [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTnM5Z4wbDU | this]]. It could come in handy whilst negotiating contracts or something else to do whilst sitting at your desk waiting for that phone call from Big Records.
-
Anyone familiar with the story of the Zaxs?
Heh. Haven't seen that for years
-
Woops
Anyone familiar with the story of the Zaxs?
I did find this. It could come in handy whilst negotiating contracts or something else to do whilst sitting at your desk waiting for that phone call from Big Records. -
I'm ignoring any burger flipping that may or may not have happened. At the risk of this being post-sized, here's my response when I first read Campbell Smith's Q and A.
I did respect that he had made himself available, but the content left me unimpressed. At one stage Smith says "I do not work for RIAA and I do not get told what to do by RIAA" - but the tactics seem awfully familiar, don't they.
Mr Smith conflates artists with rights owners throughout. I guess it is easier to persuade the public to support stuff done in the name of struggling local "artists" than foreign record company fatcats. That deliberate conflation is what prompted the Creative Freedom Foundation to act in the first place.
My main gripe is that Smith smoothly and consistently uses the word "infringer" to mean anyone he asserts has infringed.
Smith says he is "confident that the standard of our evidence gathering process is robust enough to be accepted by any court in New Zealand, as it has been internationally". Let's not dwell on the bollocks of those last five words for now, or on the spoofing and other proven practical problems with his rosy view.
The core position is very similar to the leaked letter to TCF and other material we have discussed here. For Mr Smith, court action is an unreasonable imposition and it is an option that only comes afterwards : "I am committed to a policy of education and warning infringers, letting them know about copyright, its value and importance to creators, than taking them to court. Of course we would have to take court action against persistent and flagrant infringers if there is no other option."
Similarly, later: "RIANZ believes that the approach set out in S92A, and what should be in the code that ISPs adopt to comply with S92A, is the preferred course of action for dealing with this piracy issue in most cases. It allows people to be warned and educated, gives them the option to stop breaking the law, and even for the small number of people who actually refuse to do so, it involves only the closure of an internet account, rather than costly court proceedings and the payment of damages."
Note the phrase "stop breaking the law" - despite RIANZ having no intention of submitting to standard legal processes for providing and assessing evidence in a court or other tribunal - and having colluded in an undemocratic process of creating this flawed legislation.
Smith continues the same blithe line in his latest Herald blurt (which drew tart responses from CFF's Matthew Holloway and senior journalist Chris Barton).
Back to the Q&A, here's another gem:
"Q: Would you be opposed to fines for wrongful accusations under this new law?
A: Yes, since this will not be necessary."It would be hilarious if the impications weren't so serious. Basically it all translates as they're law-breaking pirates if I say they are, and the ISPs should do what they're told - given my obvious and godlike infallibility.
Now I do not know the man and I don't understand his motivation. I expect lawyers to be arrogant, but it is hard to see how Mr Smith can be so blatantly ignorant or unconcerned about basic principles of common law and democratic practice. Is he being cynical or is he simply a tosser?
-
Anyone familiar with the story of the Zaxs?
but who's north and who's south.
isn't russell from rangiora? That's more north west.
I hardly think asking a journalist to present the evidence they built their case on is a zaxs situation though.
I'm happy to hear or see the original source material where Campbell said the stuff that lead some to cite it as fact and then proceed to build resentment against him based on that unsubstantiated material.
Show me the actual place he said it and I will gladly accept it, but asking for proof is hardly cause for calling zax on this. We do and should demand proof in all areas, including accusation of copyright infringement, why is it offensive to ask for it here? -
Heh. Haven't seen that for years
Excellent! I've only ever read the book. Well, actually, had it read to me dozens of times, by my parents. But that movie actually builds on it quite nicely.
It could come in handy whilst negotiating contracts or something else to do whilst sitting at your desk waiting for that phone call from Big Records.
Classic! I remember a kid from high school who had a similar talent. An asian foreign student. He could spin books on his finger. The funniest part was that he never stopped . He'd be walking down the corridor doing it. You'd see him eating his lunch doing it. I even recall seeing him sitting an exam doing it, writing furiously with the other hand, whilst negligently spinning this book on his finger. I wondered if he did it in his sleep. It was quite a fascinating habit. I couldn't do it.
-
and to poop the party just a little more here are some links to articles and a Q&A with Campbell on 92a.
Actually, I blogged on that last week. (do keep up, boy!) ;-)
-
Rob, could you show me the place where I 'called zax on this '? I definitely referred to the Zax, but what about that makes you the subject? C'mon, some hard evidence please. I'm really looking forward to a good long hard argument about this subject. Perhaps another 20 pages? Let's really get down and parse each other to the nth degree.
There's nothing offensive about the Zax. They're just funny. So funny they get their own bypass.
-
then proceed to build resentment against him based on that unsubstantiated material
Oh, no! My resentment is based on his consistent message that RIANZ is obviously above the law, as sacha has pointed out above. For cites, see any piece he has contributed to in the media.
Oh, and lovemusic is not part of the media - it's a RIANZ house organ.
-
C'mon, some hard evidence please.
nicely played :)
why did you post it in this thread then? what's its relevance.
surely you must fear the the terror of being accused of being a Troll -
We do and should demand proof in all areas, including accusation of copyright infringement, why is it offensive to ask for it here?
Dead right. I read the article and bic's post with increasing disbelief. Not only did Smith never say Bic had been forced to take a job flipping burgers, he didn't say she'd been forced to take another job at all, or that anyone had been forced to take a job flipping burgers.
He DID say 8 out of 11 of the artists he represented had had to take on some other employment. I'd bet a fair sum on that being the truth. It seems totally unremarkable. He also attributed this to piracy- and not some of them being- well, perhaps past peak popularity. That's debatable, but I doubt any of us can be certain one way or the other.
In the post where SHE mentions having once "flipped burgers", Bic also doesn't come across as being especially unhappy. Talk about "just making it up"!
If there are other sources, well, I'd want to know it wasn't just some smart-arse quip- and that Bic really was "unhappy"- before condeming the man.
I thought Smith's responses were pretty well thought-out. He states he's confident RIANZ allegations would be based on fairly solid evidence-rightholders would approach ISPs with the details and evidence of infringements (to a specific standard required under the code), including the title and the file name(s) of the infringed copyright work(s) in question, the exact timestamp and the time zone of the infringement, the protocol used, as well as the IP address that was used to distribute music onto the internet for millions of people to download. The ISP would then send a warning and education letter to their user. The user, of course, has a chance to respond if they believe there has been a mistake.
It may be flawed, but I'd be willing to trial such a system, and see how it went, before condemning it out of hand in a fit of hysterical panic. It IS importantly different from the RIAA- as Smith repeatedly states, starting with a couple of warnings, and moving on to a disconnect, involves a fair bit of mass (re)-education: quite different from random "show-trial" lawsuits "pour encourager les autres". Findlayson? You are reading this?!
And Sasha- he's not talking about going outside or around the law at all. Smith indicated they WOULD have to use court proceedings against some persistant "infringers"- and from what he's said (that the initial evidence would be good enough to stand up in court) it could be expected THE SAME evidence would be used there, too. Sounds robust enough to me- and not "the end of the internet as we know it" ahem.
If he'd said "alleged infringers" or "prima facie infringers"- would that make it ok? The truth is, these "infringers" are not such rare beasts- bet I could find twenty without leaving the building I'm now in! And that is precisely the problem. -
Oh, and lovemusic is not part of the media - it's a RIANZ house organ.
The Q and A came from questions from geekzone readers apparently. it says it at the top of the article. I'm not offended by RIANZ directly addressing questions and issues. Much better than hyping and conjecture. Then you can directly pick apart actual statements made by them. He's pretty clear about the structure of it and debunks a number of myths.
He also makes a misstep. he should have said he didn't object to fines for wrongful accusation cos this would not happen. He'll have to burn in hell for that comment.
and PA is a house organ for Russell. do you discount his comments purely on that basis? Surely that should be done strictly on what is said.
-
anyone bothered to call the person who made that statement and get some elaboration on the thinking of it?
quoted like that it doesn't make logical sense. is there a context for it?For the third or fourth time, it's a direct quote from the RIANZ submission to the Commerce select committee. Why don't you look it up for yourself?
oh come on russell, this is the sort of thing that disappoints me from you. You know full well and the comment record shows the one point I picked you up on was the let them rot comment.
You painted it in black and white and I filled in the grey.This is as maddening as ever. I think I've explained what I said to the extent that I can.
I've tried to talk about the issues in good faith. Someone else can bang their head against the wall now if they like. I have more important things to do.
-
He also attributed this to piracy- and not some of them being- well, perhaps past peak popularity. That's debatable, but I doubt any of us can be certain one way or the other.
Except for Campbell, who was very certain. But as Bic said, NZ-musician-has-a-day-job" is hardly breaing news.
My personal view is that he was unwise to say what he did.
-
Has anyone ever wondered why we don't see a Colin McCahon painting used to advertise cheese or on a wine label, perhaps?
I guess it's because of this - McCahon Trust
I guess we could debate why the Trust should profit from Colin's work after his death, but my point is that the value and status of his work is preserved and I mean value & status as art. Using it for advertising or pastiche in other artworks subverts it - empties it of its meaning and intention. Mark might not regard this as theft, but it runs perilously close, i feel.
-
Why don't you look it up for yourself?
you used it as a reference, you should link to it.
I can't find it, only your reference to it.
I haven't seen a direct quote, only hearsay, paraphrasing etc.
The article that does quote him on the subject clearly states 8 of 11 are in day jobs, no burger flipping and bic doing it mentioned.
if he did say that then there is also the possibility of the context of burger flipping to mean minimum wage work. So far I've seen no official documents to back the assertion therefore I must question it until the time you do provide said documents. you're the one building the case against him. back it with proof as you would ask RIANZ to do in a case against a copyright infringer. Sound fair?Why is this relevant? because it deflates the case against the ill informed and lying RIANZ you are using to attack their position on 92a and copyright in general.
I personally don't like being put in the position of arguing for the recording industry big wigs cos they're not my kind of people but if you would build your case based on confirmable facts then I could stand back and enjoy the show, like sam f ( you ok up there in the stalls mate?) -
he's not talking about going outside or around the law at all
Mr Stowell, the whole point of RIANZ's determined lobbying to overturn the select committee's own expert advice that s92A should not be introduced is to do an end-run around normal court processes.
To give but one example, Mark Harris posted recently about that manoevring and about some of the international context to s92A.
Calling them "alleged" infringers would be more honest but would not make any difference unless the process followed normal legal standards for establishing proof of guilt rather than accepting RIANZ's say-so.
It's not "hysterical" to pay attention to what has happened under similar laws overseas, particularly when they are providing the templates that RIANZ push here to flesh out the deliberately inadequate wording of our new law. Smith really is little more than RIAA's local lapdog.
-
Good, thanks. I ran out of rotten fruit to throw earlier, but I've pilfered some substandard cheese from another thread and am now quite cosy.
Proceed.
-
My personal view is that he was unwise to say what he did.
you called him out on it without presenting the actual document or context which lead to others using it as a basis to discredit his word.
That's a little more than you think he's unwise.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.