Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill - Page 4

Thomas Meatball · 4th March 2010, 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpandnz

I do not make money and I still write music. Sure it would be nice to make some money off of it but I do not go into it thinking about the dollars.

So you'd be cool if I were to take your songs, alter them very slightly and then sell them and keep all the profits for myself? Sweet. Hook me up with your recordings.

Quote:

NIN and Radiohead gave away their albums for free as you know.

They only do that because they're are in a financial position to be able to do so. But what you're describing is an exception to the rule. Remember when I said "How often do you see artists giving away their work for free? Not often"? Yep, not often.

Lightspeed · 4th March 2010, 01:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

Making money from someone else's talent isn't exactly a benefit to society.

Exactly! Which is why the various media and recording empires have to go!

Lightspeed · 4th March 2010, 01:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

So you'd be cool if I were to take your songs, alter them very slightly and then sell them and keep all the profits for myself? Sweet. Hook me up with your recordings.

Who would pay for slightly altered recordings?

xpandnz · 4th March 2010, 01:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

So you'd be cool if I were to take your songs, alter them very slightly and then sell them and keep all the profits for myself? Sweet. Hook me up with your recordings.

Depends on your intentions I guess.

Don't get my wrong, I believe in copyright. What Lightspeed is describing sounds a lot like ol' G W Bush. "I think what God meant to say was....."

If I wrote an album which was 10 songs and they were all weird and wacky because I wanted the listener to try to work out what I was trying to say or convey through the medium of music, and then someone went out and re-recorded my songs how they interrupt them, essentially giving away the secret, if you will, I would be pretty pissed off. Hence why Copyright can be a good thing.

It is a pretty over the top analogy but you get the picture.

xpandnz · 4th March 2010, 01:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Who would pay for slightly altered recordings?

Remixes?

crocos · 4th March 2010, 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpandnz

NIN and Radiohead gave away their albums for koha and made record profits as you know.

Lightspeed · 4th March 2010, 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpandnz

Remixes?

That doesn't sound like "slightly altered" it sounds more like modified to suit a different audience.

These are just ideas I'm throwing around, not necessarily something I'm sure will work.

gentle · 4th March 2010, 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpandnz

If I wrote an album which was 10 songs and they were all weird and wacky because I wanted the listener to try to work out what I was trying to say or convey through the medium of music, and then someone went out and re-recorded my songs how they interrupt them, essentially giving away the secret, if you will, I would be pretty pissed off. Hence why Copyright can be a good thing.

I'd be pissed off at the artist who thinks they can create a turd and then prevent anyone from making it better. In science it's expected that your ideas will be used and tested any number of times for improvement, in music they think they've nailed it first time when all the evidence suggests they haven't.

My own analogy: copyright is to music as dogma is to religion.

xpandnz · 4th March 2010, 11:40

That is a fair comment. I would just assume there would be a lot of artists out there that would be pissed off with people trying to recreate what they did because they did not get it right.

But I could assume the same in science and other fields.

fidgit · 4th March 2010, 21:31

I don't think everything should be given away for free, but there is a quantifiable benefit to giving away some of it for free. A lot of the artists I like I started listening to because I could get some of their tracks for free. Artists that have given away some of their music have frequently noted afterwards an upswing in money made from sales corresponding with the same time frames they made stuff available. At the same time, Trent Reznor made info available to show that for the Saul Williams album he produced, which benefited from a much greater audience exposure than earlier Williams albums (due to the advertising the album got from the active NIN website), and which was avilable koha, made less money than previous albums released in purely traditional route. Additionally, the album In Rainbows was eventually released as a completely traditional route, and at the time their label noted that the give-it-away-for-free was a promotional event and never intended to replace the traditional release. (I can't argue that Trent Reznor has given away a lot of NIN stuff, but he did this mostly at the end of NIN, in the last couple of years, where it was apparent he was 'winding things down' and wanted to give back to the audience that had helped him be a financial success as a thank-you at a stage in his career where he didn't need to make anything off another album release (plus, he was about to launch what was undoubtedly an exceptionally successful world tour - and the news got out about free music which would have pulled back a lot of old fans back in and got their attention for the farewell tour).

Giving away music is great, and gives much more benefit to established artists, but can be a useful tool for beginning artists, and shouldn't be stopped. Completely abandoning copyright is not what's best for the industry though. Rather, limiting copyright to a more reasonable time frame would be allow appropriate monitisation of new ideas.

I've read a report that has studied exactly this, which from memory suggested between 10 and 20 years as the prime amount of time a new idea can be copy-written, after which it should enter the public domain. This does not preclude someone still selling a work after 10 years has passed, but it does allow other people to have their takes on ideas within a reasonable time frame.

An exceptional example of the kinds of things that can happen is Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. People still buy Pride and Prejudice now (it's number 3 on the Whitcoulls Top 100, but being in the public domain allows for marvelous re-mixing. Exactly the same will hold true for music sales.

I'd also theorize there's a reasonable chance that if music is copywritten for 10 years, piracy would decrease, as people that can and want to buy music would continue to do so, while those that really don't or can't would have a lot of more recent music available for free. This would make draconian digital rights management and copy control laws much more acceptable, since it would be everyones best interests to allow the maximum money to be made in that 10 years.

(edit) jeez but I get a bit carried away on this topic don't I...

xpandnz · 4th March 2010, 22:14

http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/

Interesting site.

[Malks] Pixie · 5th March 2010, 10:45

Really great post fidgit - echo's thoughts I've had.

Pixie

Lightspeed · 6th March 2010, 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by fidgit

Completely abandoning copyright is not what's best for the industry though.

You make a lot of interesting points, I just want to think about this point for a moment.

What I wonder is, why do we care about what's best for "the industry"? It's not what is responsible for human creativity. Although I'm not knowledgeable about the history of the creative (e.g. music, film) industries, I suspect their major function was initially distribution of content.

The fact is these days a motivated person can create and distribute their art and still hold down a fulltime job if they wanted to. Another fact is some aspects of copyright are being abandoned whether we like it or not, thanks to technology.

It seems the only people who get in a huff about "copyright infringement" are those who fear losing their income. I always thought a tenet of capitalism was that if you couldn't make money doing what you do, you find something else to do.

fidgit · 6th March 2010, 03:46

Copyright isn't inherantly counter productive to creativity though. Everyone is still free to create whatever they want, they just have to be even more creative because someone else already invented micky mouse.

I see what your saying, that a society in which ideas don't belong to anyone must necessarily be more creative than one in which ideas are owned, but I don't think that's necessarily a desirible outcome any way. It's fantastic that everyone with a pc can create music, or movies or what ever else, but the people that make the best music and movies don't do it as a part Te hobby after work, they find someone that will pay for them to do it as a full time occupation. ("best" is obviously subjective but I'd suggest you would hVe a hard time finding a lot of examples of a part time artist that are better than a full time one).

I had another point to add to my earlier comments about how beneficial a shorter copyright periods. There are. Handful of creative ideas that have become far greater than their original expression through people being able to adapt and interpret them, such as fairy tales. By condeming new creative works to a never ending ownership (copyright keeps being extended each time we get close to Disney having to relenquish rights to the Mouse), we ensure that there will never be anything added to the likes of snow white or little red riding hood. Bow many versions of a Cbristmas Tale have there been? Anything written in the last 70 years will never join the ranks of these stories which are practically a part of our culture.

( edit) also: William shakespear.

(typing on an iPod, I imagine there will be mistakes, sorry about that)

Biff · 6th March 2010, 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball
Making money from someone else's talent isn't exactly a benefit to society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Exactly! Which is why the various media and recording empires have to go!

Have you thought about how much money the church and it's base makes off of Jesus? Do you think the religious 'empires' need to go as well? Jesus is a trillion dollar industry. The only royalties Jesus gets is looking on in horror as pedo priests rape children.

Lightspeed · 6th March 2010, 11:20

Biff clearly doesn't have anything intelligent to say.

fidigt, I think the idea of short term copyright is a great idea, in regards to who can make money of the work (such as via public performances in a movie theatre) and when others can make their own versions of the work for distribution.

Otherwise I think Ab's point has to be conceded. If a digital version of a work can be created, anyone can obtain a copy of the work in this format.

Biff · 6th March 2010, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Biff clearly doesn't have anything intelligent to say.

Oh c'mon it was a bit clever pointing out your own blatant hypocrisy. Swap "Artist" for Jesus and "Recording empire" for the church and it's all the same in most respects and a valid point. However since you are brainwashed into oblivion one of these methods of exploitation is perfectly 'ok'. If you want to evade that reality then so be it..

Rince · 6th March 2010, 13:08

thanks Biff for turning yet another thread into a God-o debate....

Lightspeed · 6th March 2010, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Oh c'mon it was a bit clever pointing out your own blatant hypocrisy. Swap "Artist" for Jesus and "Recording empire" for the church and it's all the same in most respects and a valid point. However since you are brainwashed into oblivion one of these methods of exploitation is perfectly 'ok'. If you want to evade that reality then so be it..

I don't belong to a church and there is no great "church" that is centrally organised unless you count Catholics and I'm not a Catholic either.

You could say I belong to "the church" however, this is a concept, not an organisation.

And by and large I have no comment on the workings of organisations people voluntarily belong to, particularly when there are a vast number of alternative organisations providing a similar service.

For example I suspect Brian Tamaki is a bit of a dick, but I don't believe I have the right to say people shouldn't belong to his church.

I think you're more of a hypocrite than I, only thinking in black & white terms just like the imaginary organisation you rail against.

Biff · 6th March 2010, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rince

thanks Biff for turning yet another thread into a God-o debate....

sorry! bailing now...

Lightspeed · 6th March 2010, 19:05

Yeah, cause I owned you, suckah.

Biff · 6th March 2010, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Yeah, cause I owned you, suckah.

But you gave your life to a magical skydaddy -so technically you are the one who is owned..

Lightspeed · 6th March 2010, 21:15

Really? I'm the unlucky one because I have a magical skydaddy? That sounds fuckin' awesome.

I think you're just pissed that I get to go through life believing that the ride just continues after death while you're stuck believing that it doesn't matter what you believe because it all comes to nothing.

Thomas Meatball · 6th March 2010, 21:26

That's a good thing?

xpandnz · 6th March 2010, 23:46

Biff · 7th March 2010, 01:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

That's a good thing?

There's nothing better if you need a crutch to cope with the inevitable. Oblivion.

Lightspeed · 7th March 2010, 01:34

Your crutch is the denial that your perspective is simply a belief.

cyc · 7th March 2010, 02:55

Fuck up, Lightspeed.

Biff · 7th March 2010, 12:08

Quote:

"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff." --Mariah Carey

"Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life," --Brooke Shields, during an interview to become Spokesperson for federal anti-smoking campaign.

"Your crutch is the denial that your perspective is simply a belief."--Lightspeed, during a delusional religious tirade on nzgames.com

"I've never had major knee surgery on any other part of my body," --Winston Bennett, University of Kentucky basketball forward.

"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country," --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC.

"Half this game is ninety percent mental." --Philadelphia Phillies manager, Danny Ozark

"The word 'genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

Lightspeed · 7th March 2010, 15:11

^^ The post of someone who can't think of anything to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyc

Fuck up, Lightspeed.

You're right. Unlike some, I think you're quite welcome to your crutch of denial and thus I won't mess with it.

Biff · 7th March 2010, 15:47

Someone believes in a magical skydaddy is telling me that I'm in denial since I won't join with them. You seriously want me to have a discussion regarding that? I also don't believe in purple unicorns gasp! I am a walking denial factory!

Lightspeed · 7th March 2010, 15:55

I didn't say anything about joining me. In fact, I can't recall the last time I turned a thread into a "God-o debate". It's always someone like you who starts things up by pointing the finger at me. It's always someone like you who's complaining bitterly that I don't believe in your imaginary scenario of oblivion after death.

Biff · 7th March 2010, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I didn't say anything about joining me. In fact, I can't recall the last time I turned a thread into a "God-o debate". It's always someone like you who starts things up by pointing the finger at me. It's always someone like you who's complaining bitterly that I don't believe in your imaginary scenario of oblivion after death.

So oblivion is an imaginary construct now? Where do you think you were for billions of years before you were born? Disneyland?

xpandnz · 7th March 2010, 19:43

Lightspeed · 7th March 2010, 19:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

So oblivion is an imaginary construct now? Where do you think you were for billions of years before you were born? Disneyland?

That's a philosophical question without a quantifiable answer... unless I'm mistaken?

Perhaps you're trying to avoid the fact that it is you trying to get me to believe something, rather than me trying convince you of sometime, contrary to your assertions?

xpandnz · 7th March 2010, 19:52

It's probably best if you both agree to disagree.

My reasoning is I have tried arguing with religious and atheists and it is totally pointless because both have faith in either or: life after death or lifeness after death. It does not really matter. No one will ever know themselves until they die.

What matters is now.

Thomas Meatball · 7th March 2010, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpandnz

It's probably best if you both agree to disagree.

Mind your own fucking business.

Lightspeed · 7th March 2010, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpandnz

It's probably best if you both agree to disagree.

My reasoning is I have tried arguing with religious and atheists and it is totally pointless because both have faith in either or: life after death or lifeness after death. It does not really matter. No one will ever know themselves until they die.

What matters is now.

Well that's certainly a rational perspective.

It disappoints me that it must always be an argument rather than a dialogue. I'm quite comfortable with my beliefs and others having different beliefs than myself. I'm fascinated in others' non-Christian spiritual beliefs, particularly the spiritual beliefs of atheists.

It's sad we can't share of ourselves without the fear that we might end up in a combative situation.

xpandnz · 7th March 2010, 20:04

Totally dude. I agree.

QFT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's sad we can't share of ourselves without the fear that we might end up in a combative situation.

At the end of the day, people want to come out on top in religion, regardless on how you feel and non-Christians always want to disprove Jesus or the existence of a God.

Each to their own.

Biff · 7th March 2010, 20:05

Lightspeed is on NZG to do "the lord's work", he couldn't make it anymore obvious. It's what xtians do, it's what is commanded of them in their daily lives, it's their agenda, they are relentless. This could go on for 100's pages, he's going to do like the pope urged all xtians and use 'the new media' to do the lord's work and spread the word. Probably sports a epic jesus face and listens to lifeFM while he does it.

4th March 2010, 21:31	#130
fidgit Always itchy	I don't think everything should be given away for free, but there is a quantifiable benefit to giving away some of it for free. A lot of the artists I like I started listening to because I could get some of their tracks for free. Artists that have given away some of their music have frequently noted afterwards an upswing in money made from sales corresponding with the same time frames they made stuff available. At the same time, Trent Reznor made info available to show that for the Saul Williams album he produced, which benefited from a much greater audience exposure than earlier Williams albums (due to the advertising the album got from the active NIN website), and which was avilable koha, made less money than previous albums released in purely traditional route. Additionally, the album In Rainbows was eventually released as a completely traditional route, and at the time their label noted that the give-it-away-for-free was a promotional event and never intended to replace the traditional release. (I can't argue that Trent Reznor has given away a lot of NIN stuff, but he did this mostly at the end of NIN, in the last couple of years, where it was apparent he was 'winding things down' and wanted to give back to the audience that had helped him be a financial success as a thank-you at a stage in his career where he didn't need to make anything off another album release (plus, he was about to launch what was undoubtedly an exceptionally successful world tour - and the news got out about free music which would have pulled back a lot of old fans back in and got their attention for the farewell tour). Giving away music is great, and gives much more benefit to established artists, but can be a useful tool for beginning artists, and shouldn't be stopped. Completely abandoning copyright is not what's best for the industry though. Rather, limiting copyright to a more reasonable time frame would be allow appropriate monitisation of new ideas. I've read a report that has studied exactly this, which from memory suggested between 10 and 20 years as the prime amount of time a new idea can be copy-written, after which it should enter the public domain. This does not preclude someone still selling a work after 10 years has passed, but it does allow other people to have their takes on ideas within a reasonable time frame. An exceptional example of the kinds of things that can happen is Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. People still buy Pride and Prejudice now (it's number 3 on the Whitcoulls Top 100, but being in the public domain allows for marvelous re-mixing. Exactly the same will hold true for music sales. I'd also theorize there's a reasonable chance that if music is copywritten for 10 years, piracy would decrease, as people that can and want to buy music would continue to do so, while those that really don't or can't would have a lot of more recent music available for free. This would make draconian digital rights management and copy control laws much more acceptable, since it would be everyones best interests to allow the maximum money to be made in that 10 years. (edit) jeez but I get a bit carried away on this topic don't I... __________________ 4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° Last edited by fidgit : 4th March 2010 at 21:32.

6th March 2010, 03:46	#134
fidgit Always itchy	Copyright isn't inherantly counter productive to creativity though. Everyone is still free to create whatever they want, they just have to be even more creative because someone else already invented micky mouse. I see what your saying, that a society in which ideas don't belong to anyone must necessarily be more creative than one in which ideas are owned, but I don't think that's necessarily a desirible outcome any way. It's fantastic that everyone with a pc can create music, or movies or what ever else, but the people that make the best music and movies don't do it as a part Te hobby after work, they find someone that will pay for them to do it as a full time occupation. ("best" is obviously subjective but I'd suggest you would hVe a hard time finding a lot of examples of a part time artist that are better than a full time one). I had another point to add to my earlier comments about how beneficial a shorter copyright periods. There are. Handful of creative ideas that have become far greater than their original expression through people being able to adapt and interpret them, such as fairy tales. By condeming new creative works to a never ending ownership (copyright keeps being extended each time we get close to Disney having to relenquish rights to the Mouse), we ensure that there will never be anything added to the likes of snow white or little red riding hood. Bow many versions of a Cbristmas Tale have there been? Anything written in the last 70 years will never join the ranks of these stories which are practically a part of our culture. ( edit) also: William shakespear. (typing on an iPod, I imagine there will be mistakes, sorry about that) __________________ 4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° Last edited by fidgit : 6th March 2010 at 03:51.

6th March 2010, 13:08	#138
Rince SLUTS!!!!!!!	thanks Biff for turning yet another thread into a God-o debate.... __________________ Slow internet is worse than no internet. It's like putting your penis in once and then being required to make out for 2 hours --Matt "The Oatmeal" Inman

4th March 2010, 11:40	#129
xpandnz	That is a fair comment. I would just assume there would be a lot of artists out there that would be pissed off with people trying to recreate what they did because they did not get it right. But I could assume the same in science and other fields. __________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas

4th March 2010, 22:14	#131
xpandnz	http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/ Interesting site. __________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas

5th March 2010, 10:45	#132
[Malks] Pixie	Really great post fidgit - echo's thoughts I've had. Pixie __________________ Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us.

6th March 2010, 11:20	#136
Lightspeed	Biff clearly doesn't have anything intelligent to say. fidigt, I think the idea of short term copyright is a great idea, in regards to who can make money of the work (such as via public performances in a movie theatre) and when others can make their own versions of the work for distribution. Otherwise I think Ab's point has to be conceded. If a digital version of a work can be created, anyone can obtain a copy of the work in this format. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

6th March 2010, 19:05	#141
Lightspeed	Yeah, cause I owned you, suckah. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

6th March 2010, 21:15	#143
Lightspeed	Really? I'm the unlucky one because I have a magical skydaddy? That sounds fuckin' awesome. I think you're just pissed that I get to go through life believing that the ride just continues after death while you're stuck believing that it doesn't matter what you believe because it all comes to nothing. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

6th March 2010, 21:26	#144
Thomas Meatball	That's a good thing?

6th March 2010, 23:46	#145
xpandnz	__________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas

7th March 2010, 01:34	#147
Lightspeed	Your crutch is the denial that your perspective is simply a belief. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

7th March 2010, 02:55	#148
cyc Objection!	Fuck up, Lightspeed.

7th March 2010, 15:47	#151
Biff	Someone believes in a magical skydaddy is telling me that I'm in denial since I won't join with them. You seriously want me to have a discussion regarding that? I also don't believe in purple unicorns gasp! I am a walking denial factory!

7th March 2010, 15:55	#152
Lightspeed	I didn't say anything about joining me. In fact, I can't recall the last time I turned a thread into a "God-o debate". It's always someone like you who starts things up by pointing the finger at me. It's always someone like you who's complaining bitterly that I don't believe in your imaginary scenario of oblivion after death. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

7th March 2010, 19:43	#154
xpandnz	__________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas

7th March 2010, 19:52	#156
xpandnz	It's probably best if you both agree to disagree. My reasoning is I have tried arguing with religious and atheists and it is totally pointless because both have faith in either or: life after death or lifeness after death. It does not really matter. No one will ever know themselves until they die. What matters is now. __________________ asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas

7th March 2010, 20:05	#160
Biff	Lightspeed is on NZG to do "the lord's work", he couldn't make it anymore obvious. It's what xtians do, it's what is commanded of them in their daily lives, it's their agenda, they are relentless. This could go on for 100's pages, he's going to do like the pope urged all xtians and use 'the new media' to do the lord's work and spread the word. Probably sports a epic jesus face and listens to lifeFM while he does it.