Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by 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.

I am? Why do you get to decide that for me? Why do you get to decide anything for anyone other than yourself?

[xpandnz]

Originally Posted by 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.

He is just speaking his mind that I can see just as you are.

[A Corpse]

Someone ban those fuckers so we can get back to copyright discussion?

[?>Superman]

lol why you getting your dick in a twist over what Biff says, everyone knows anything he says amounts to dogshit.

p.s Fuck Up xpand

[Biff]

Originally Posted by A Corpse

Someone ban those fuckers so we can get back to copyright discussion?

I tried to exit this thread but Lightspeed continues to prove my point, that he is here to do a job, to be relentless and batter us into submission. He always must have the last word, should we give it to him? I guess so, I just don't have the power of the lord to keep myself going.

[The Edge]

Hannibal, isn't it time you started banging on about the 128k upstream limit again?

[Lightspeed]

lol, I'm just a great fuckin' troll when I want to be. I laughed when I posted this:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Yeah, cause I owned you, suckah.

I laughed harder when you took the bait.

TM always has to have the last word too, but he's not pushing any agenda as far as I can see. It's your own bigotry that compels you to see everything as some kind of religious attack.

[Thomas Meatball]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

TM always has to have the last word too

no


It's just that people give me an excuse to say something!

[Biff]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Hannibal, isn't it time you started banging on about the 128k upstream limit again?

I never intended to return to nzg, i even randomed out my pwords but then i found one of my browsers remembered it and got sucked back into the vortex. I am now leaving for good tho, wasting too much time and reddit is easier to troll. Lightspeed can sleep well tonight, one less heathen on nzg

[Thomas Meatball]

Do you have any other accounts other than Biff and Hannibal?

[?>Superman]

Oh good I was hoping someone would ragequit but I had my money on Bandalador tbh

[haliburton]

Wow

[Warrick]

^^ ? fuck off

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

Do you have any other accounts other than Biff and Hannibal?

Ross.

[xpandnz]

So, this Copyright Amendment Bill..................

[Thomas Meatball]

Hmm... the name rings a bell... same old shit as his other accounts?

So... Biff, Hannibal, Ross, Haliburton... am I missing anything?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

Do you have any other accounts other than Biff and Hannibal?

haliburton is my guess...

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

Hmm... the name rings a bell... same old shit as his other accounts?

Yep.

[Thomas Meatball]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

haliburton is my guess...

NO SHIT?

[Lightspeed]

I'LL KILL YOU!

[Thomas Meatball]

I'LL KILL YOU BACK!

[Warrick]

CAN SOMEONE KILL ME, PLEASE?!

[Lightspeed]

So lets get back to the topic at hand, namely copyright.

I typically buy games made by companies whose games I've enjoyed in the past or games that are cheap enough and convenient enough to purchase that I don't care if they're shit.

I "steal" games I suspect aren't worth the money or that I might eventually buy if it turns out to be of value.

I "steal" all traditional media because it's not supplied in a format that is worth paying for, except for the occasional album I'll buy that's DRM free.

I enjoy classical music for free because that's how classical music should be enjoyed. In my opinion of course.

And I think I'm justified in my behaviour. I've grown up with all these things intrinsic to being who I am, intrinsic to being a kiwi. Now I've grown to be an adult and I don't want this dished out to me as certain "industries" feel fit to serve.

Like fuck I'm giving money to jack-offs who are trying to get rich from something they haven't produced. Particularly for cultural treasures like art, music, media.

[Thomas Meatball]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I enjoy classical music for free because that's how classical music should be enjoyed. In my opinion of course.

Peculiar.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I enjoy classical music for free because that's how classical music should be enjoyed. In my opinion of course.

You don't think people should be remunerated for the time and skill involved in playing the piece?

[?>Superman]

I'm assuming he's talking about oldschool shit which was written by composers centuries ago.

[Thomas Meatball]

Orchestras still have to play the music and somebody has to record it, make the CDs and distribute them.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by crocos

You don't think people should be remunerated for the time and skill involved in playing the piece?

I'm certainly willing to offer remuneration for a live performance, yes. I know performers can take home a nice chunk of change for a few evenings work. But if that performance was recorded and broadcast via radio or the Internet, I don't think there's a need to charge for this.

But what about the rest of what I said? Is it all bullshit, or does it have some merit?

[Thomas Meatball]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

But if that performance was recorded and broadcast via radio or the Internet, I don't think there's a need to charge for this.

Who pays the orchestra for their work?

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

But what about the rest of what I said? Is it all bullshit, or does it have some merit?

Mixed: If you think the game is going to suck, simply don't buy/obtain it.

If you feel media is in a format that is not suited for you, buy it and format-shift it (yeah, I know, legalities etc) but don't share it, either that or just don't use/watch/listen-to it.

Both radio and internet broadcast costs money, and internet is entirely privately-funded - how do you propose remunerating the people for that broadcast?

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Like fuck I'm giving money to jack-offs who are trying to get rich from something they haven't produced. Particularly for cultural treasures like art, music, media.

Understandable, but where does the line get drawn around what is and is not a cultural treasure? Plus it DOES cost money to produce & distribute CDs etc (even if not as much as they are ripping us off for), so are you suggesting removing these forms of media?

You've declared many badly-stated justifications for copyright infringement, which basically boil down to "I buy games from outfits I've had good games from previously and the rare album, but other than that I feel entitled to media I've put no effort into the production of, for free." and that does not a defence against copyright infringement make.

Disclaimer: I'm no better than you on this score

[Ab]

Originally Posted by ?>Superman

I'm assuming he's talking about oldschool shit which was written by composers centuries ago.

Such music has two great advantages.

1. The composer is dead and the music is in the public domain.
2. People know it, and like it, in that order, because of that order.

There's lots of great new classical music getting written, but you'll never hear it because it's new therefore people don't know it therefore people don't like it therefore it's not sellable.

Edit: knew I'd posted something like this before.

Originally Posted by Ab

Recorded orchestral music is expensive. The musicians want money, the conductor wants money, the copyists who wrote out the charts sitting in front of the musicians want money, the venue wants money, the musicians union wants money, the union representing the crew who set up the gear at the venue wants money, the owner of the recording gear wants money, the recording engineers want money, etc etc.

In other words, before you even consider recording something with a symphony orchestra you as a composer have to

a) be so rich that you don't mind pissing away MILLIONS of dollars in order to get your music out there (most composers do not fit into this group)

or

b) compose something that will MAKE millions of dollars in order to cover the millions of dollars that recording this piece of music will cost

In other words, most recorded orchestral music was conceived from the very first moment as a money-making exercise. How do you make money with music? Make music that people will like. What will they like? They'll like music that sounds like other music that they like. For this reason most recorded orchestral music sounds like most other recorded orchestral music. People don't want "new", they want "familiar".

In this sense, orchestral music is no different from record-company-produced pop music.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by crocos

Disclaimer: I'm no better than you on this score

Bah, edit-times

As I was saying... There are no good defences against copyright infringement - but then that's not the issue; The root motivation is that it's simply more convenient to "pirate" the media/games/etc and the more impediments they put in-place for prevention of that piracy actually encourages more people to pirate - the media companies need to move with the times.

Copyright legislation was supposed to encourage and nurture creativity, but as it gets more draconic in defence of Big Media it is starting to have the opposite effect because of how Big Media are choosing to enforce their rights: Yes your rights as the copyright owner are better protected, but because of how these things are being enforced there's a HUGE public backlash against traditional media sources, making it harder to be compensated for your efforts, so less actual creative endeavours are embarked upon and you get the "generic boy-band" effect where those that can provide backing are only investing in known-working formulas, which means the public become less interested so less people buy them, which makes Big Media apply more political pressure... a classic vicious cycle that benefits no-one (except those political animals that have their hands out).

EDIT: Oh so Mr big-shot forum admin type can edit his posts /grump <3 ya really Si

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

Who pays the orchestra for their work?

And here is the crux of the problem when society is presented with infinitly copyable media.

When you had to pay for physical CDs/Vinyl the publisher would pay for the work, and get the profit from CD sales.

However since copying music now is as easy as *click* *click* *drag* *click* this model breaks down.

So I would suggest in this new world of digital media where if it's digital, it should be free. It's not easy to know how the new model will fall out.

But to answer your question: I don't know who would pay.

I have a few ideas how the orchestra could get paid.

1) Some rich fucker pays the orchestra, and then gives out the music for free digitally, cos they are rich.
2) A loose co-op forms in order to commission a piece. Each members stumps up money, which then is spent on hiring everyone to make and record the piece. The co-op then gives away the music.
3) Someone sets up a live performance in order to record it. Punters pay ticket prices to hear the music. Recording is given way for free (cos the audience would be recording on their cellphones anyway).
4) Someone stumps up money to record the piece, gives it away via a website where you have to listen to some ad before you can download the music. Assume only 10-20% of people will actually see/hear the ad and the other 80% will copy it sans advertisements.

[Lightspeed]

I think the important thing you highlight is that there are other ways.

Originally Posted by Ab

There's lots of great new classical music getting written, but you'll never hear it because it's new therefore people don't know it therefore people don't like it therefore it's not sellable.

RNZ Concert plays new music all the time and people who are enthusiasts of a certain classical genre will seek out new works. Of course, there's no denying that composers of classical music have to compete against potentially hundreds of years worth of such music.

But who cares if they can't sell it. If a person truly wants to make such music, they will make it.

[fidgit]

Sure a composer will still write such music, but there's little point when they can't get the 50 odd people together under one roof to perform a full orchestral piece.

Lightspeed, it's cool that you think the human spirit has an indomitable desire to create, but there is a financial reality that you continue to pretend does not exist, that causes many people to simply not be able to abandon their daily grind to go and write the next Great Kiwi Novel or breakthrough Composition. Sure, a single writer could go and live in a hippy commune - what about anyone with dependents? Or debts? Or those that like to live in a world where they can go and get a Big Mac whenever the fancy takes them? Someone needs to fund the great majority of creativity. Pretending that everything that is created now will still be created if the creators live off lentils in a hippy commune is just deluding yourself about the reality of the situation. Full time creativity is a job.

[Deadmeat]

A new study published by the University of Rennes shows that the critics are indeed right. The researchers looked into the habits of downloaders before and after the law was implemented. They found that instead of reducing piracy levels, the piracy rate actually went up by 3%.

This increase in piracy shows that the French are not changing their downloading habits much, despite the tougher legislation. There is, however, an interesting shift in the sources people use to download copyrighted movies and music. At an increasing rate the French are using streaming services along with file-hosting ‘cyberlockers’ such as Rapidshare and Megaupload.

These services are not covered by the Hadopi law and therefore ’safe’ to use. Conversely, usage of P2P services such as BitTorrent dropped from 17.1 percent to 14.6 percent between September and December last year. Overall the research seems to suggest that the looming disconnection threat has changed how and where people get pirated content, while the piracy rate itself increased.

[?>Superman]

^big surprise.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by fidgit

Sure a composer will still write such music, but there's little point when they can't get the 50 odd people together under one roof to perform a full orchestral piece.

Lightspeed, it's cool that you think the human spirit has an indomitable desire to create, but there is a financial reality that you continue to pretend does not exist, that causes many people to simply not be able to abandon their daily grind to go and write the next Great Kiwi Novel or breakthrough Composition. Sure, a single writer could go and live in a hippy commune - what about anyone with dependents? Or debts? Or those that like to live in a world where they can go and get a Big Mac whenever the fancy takes them? Someone needs to fund the great majority of creativity. Pretending that everything that is created now will still be created if the creators live off lentils in a hippy commune is just deluding yourself about the reality of the situation. Full time creativity is a job.

Many compositions only get played once, or not for decades after their composition. Yet people still keep writing.

Do you not have mates who both have bands and full time jobs? I have several. Employment in Western society is typically only 40 hours per week. That leaves a lot of time for people to follow their passion. And personally I am much more interested in art that is created out of passion rather than necessity.

[xpandnz]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Employment in Western society is typically only 40 hours per week. That leaves a lot of time for people to follow their passion.

Save for those on Salaries. I know too many people who work way too much for no extra cash.

The underlying question is whether or not people would still 'create' in the broader sense of the word, be it art/music or new technologies to help progress mankind further, if they knew there would not be any money involved.

I answer yes since I still write music to this day without a dollar sign in my head.

If Copyright is abolished or redesigned I would guarantee that real artists who have a true passion in an art form would still provide the world with their creations.

[fidgit]

lightspeed, how many of those mates sell copies of their albums? Sure, music isn't all about making money - but a reasonable measure of the success of an artist is how many people want to listen to them.

Xpandz, have you tried selling your music? Did many people want to listen to it?

My point isn't to attack you or your friends musical abilities, but to highlight the massive divide between a hobbiest, and professional musician.

I can't actually the point of this? Something about copyright is bad? : >