Re: The new Copyright Law and free speech

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Apteryx, Feb 23, 2009.

  1. Apteryx

    Apteryx Guest

    vitw wrote:
    > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:51:05 +1300, ChristianKnight wrote:
    >
    >> Internet Servers being made to wipe away accounts that breach any
    >> copyright without notice or explanation.

    >
    > Correction!!!
    >
    > Internet Service Providers being made to wipe away accounts offering
    > content that anyone finds disagreeable to the point of being willing to
    > make a copyright infringement allegation, true or otherwise.
    >
    >> How will that presumably affect us on New Zealand General?
    >> and NZ.politics?

    >
    > Here's how.
    >
    > Imagine you post a comment on nz.general, nz.politics etc that someone
    > doesn't like.
    >
    > That person then only needs to:
    >
    > 1) Set up a temporary website on an offshore server.
    >
    > 2) Tempt you to click on a link to this site (very easily done - eg post
    > a seemingly supportive reply under a temporary nym, with a link.
    >
    > 2) When you click, the web-page linked to can contain <img> tags to
    > include pictures, or even some javascript to stream an audio file. By the
    > time the page loads, your web client will have sent requests for
    > copyrighted material, and if your ISP is logging your outbound HTTP
    > requests, these requests will be present in the log.
    >
    > 3) Person then files a copyright infringement complaint with your ISP,
    > via an offshore email address. Person by now has changed the web page so
    > it doesn't request copyrighted materials.
    >
    > 4) Bye-bye internet connection.
    >
    >> Shall the Government stamp on Free Speach to avoid
    >> international embarassments?

    >
    > The legislation is bizarre in that it completely circumvents any notion
    > of due process. If it stays intact, it will be a testament to the apathy
    > and stupidity of the New Zealand people for allowing it to remain in
    > place.
    >
    > (crossposted also to nz.comp due to the technical content in the argument
    > made above)



    He wouldn't need to go to all that trouble. Every newsgroup post is a
    literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the copyright of
    which is held by the author. Net etiquette demands that people replying
    to a post should quote it (ie, copy it).

    At the moment that doesn't create any real copyright issues. Any poster
    objecting to his post being copied would have to go to Court, and I am
    sure no Court would find a breach of copyright. Most likely on the basis
    that every poster knows his post will be copied by people replying to
    it, and hence can be taken to give implied consent to that copying.
    Possibly also on the basis that it is fair dealing for the purposes of
    comment or review.

    But from the 28th of Feb, that protection will become irrelevant,
    because the issue won't go to Court. The accusation of the copyright
    owner will be enough.

    From the 28th, it might be prudent for NZers replying to posts to
    abandon net etiquette, and not quote the text of posts they are replying
    to (for complete safety, change the subject header too).


    Apteryx
    Apteryx, Feb 23, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Apteryx

    Geopelia Guest

    "Apteryx" <> wrote in message
    news:gnsrhr$3j4$...
    > vitw wrote:
    >> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:51:05 +1300, ChristianKnight wrote:
    >>
    >>> Internet Servers being made to wipe away accounts that breach any
    >>> copyright without notice or explanation.

    >>
    >> Correction!!!
    >>
    >> Internet Service Providers being made to wipe away accounts offering
    >> content that anyone finds disagreeable to the point of being willing to
    >> make a copyright infringement allegation, true or otherwise.
    >>
    >>> How will that presumably affect us on New Zealand General?
    >>> and NZ.politics?

    >>
    >> Here's how.
    >>
    >> Imagine you post a comment on nz.general, nz.politics etc that someone
    >> doesn't like.
    >>
    >> That person then only needs to:
    >>
    >> 1) Set up a temporary website on an offshore server.
    >>
    >> 2) Tempt you to click on a link to this site (very easily done - eg post
    >> a seemingly supportive reply under a temporary nym, with a link.
    >>
    >> 2) When you click, the web-page linked to can contain <img> tags to
    >> include pictures, or even some javascript to stream an audio file. By the
    >> time the page loads, your web client will have sent requests for
    >> copyrighted material, and if your ISP is logging your outbound HTTP
    >> requests, these requests will be present in the log.
    >>
    >> 3) Person then files a copyright infringement complaint with your ISP,
    >> via an offshore email address. Person by now has changed the web page so
    >> it doesn't request copyrighted materials.
    >>
    >> 4) Bye-bye internet connection.
    >>
    >>> Shall the Government stamp on Free Speach to avoid
    >>> international embarassments?

    >>
    >> The legislation is bizarre in that it completely circumvents any notion
    >> of due process. If it stays intact, it will be a testament to the apathy
    >> and stupidity of the New Zealand people for allowing it to remain in
    >> place.
    >>
    >> (crossposted also to nz.comp due to the technical content in the argument
    >> made above)

    >
    >
    > He wouldn't need to go to all that trouble. Every newsgroup post is a
    > literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the copyright of
    > which is held by the author. Net etiquette demands that people replying to
    > a post should quote it (ie, copy it).
    >
    > At the moment that doesn't create any real copyright issues. Any poster
    > objecting to his post being copied would have to go to Court, and I am
    > sure no Court would find a breach of copyright. Most likely on the basis
    > that every poster knows his post will be copied by people replying to it,
    > and hence can be taken to give implied consent to that copying. Possibly
    > also on the basis that it is fair dealing for the purposes of comment or
    > review.
    >
    > But from the 28th of Feb, that protection will become irrelevant, because
    > the issue won't go to Court. The accusation of the copyright owner will be
    > enough.
    >
    > From the 28th, it might be prudent for NZers replying to posts to abandon
    > net etiquette, and not quote the text of posts they are replying to (for
    > complete safety, change the subject header too).
    >
    >
    > Apteryx


    Isn't the whole thing crazy! Let's hope the government sorts it all out.
    Geopelia, Feb 23, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <gnt79e$feq$>, "Geopelia" <> wrote:
    (snip)
    >Isn't the whole thing crazy! Let's hope the government sorts it all out.


    hmmm ... when you say it like that, it just doesn't look likely, does it ?
    :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Feb 23, 2009
    #3
  4. Apteryx

    PeeCee Guest

    "Geopelia" <> wrote in message
    news:gnt79e$feq$...
    >
    > "Apteryx" <> wrote in message
    > news:gnsrhr$3j4$...
    >> vitw wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:51:05 +1300, ChristianKnight wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Internet Servers being made to wipe away accounts that breach any
    >>>> copyright without notice or explanation.
    >>>
    >>> Correction!!!
    >>>
    >>> Internet Service Providers being made to wipe away accounts offering
    >>> content that anyone finds disagreeable to the point of being willing to
    >>> make a copyright infringement allegation, true or otherwise.
    >>>
    >>>> How will that presumably affect us on New Zealand General?
    >>>> and NZ.politics?
    >>>
    >>> Here's how.
    >>>
    >>> Imagine you post a comment on nz.general, nz.politics etc that someone
    >>> doesn't like.
    >>>
    >>> That person then only needs to:
    >>>
    >>> 1) Set up a temporary website on an offshore server.
    >>>
    >>> 2) Tempt you to click on a link to this site (very easily done - eg post
    >>> a seemingly supportive reply under a temporary nym, with a link.
    >>>
    >>> 2) When you click, the web-page linked to can contain <img> tags to
    >>> include pictures, or even some javascript to stream an audio file. By
    >>> the time the page loads, your web client will have sent requests for
    >>> copyrighted material, and if your ISP is logging your outbound HTTP
    >>> requests, these requests will be present in the log.
    >>>
    >>> 3) Person then files a copyright infringement complaint with your ISP,
    >>> via an offshore email address. Person by now has changed the web page so
    >>> it doesn't request copyrighted materials.
    >>>
    >>> 4) Bye-bye internet connection.
    >>>
    >>>> Shall the Government stamp on Free Speach to avoid
    >>>> international embarassments?
    >>>
    >>> The legislation is bizarre in that it completely circumvents any notion
    >>> of due process. If it stays intact, it will be a testament to the apathy
    >>> and stupidity of the New Zealand people for allowing it to remain in
    >>> place.
    >>>
    >>> (crossposted also to nz.comp due to the technical content in the
    >>> argument made above)

    >>
    >>
    >> He wouldn't need to go to all that trouble. Every newsgroup post is a
    >> literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the copyright of
    >> which is held by the author. Net etiquette demands that people replying
    >> to a post should quote it (ie, copy it).
    >>
    >> At the moment that doesn't create any real copyright issues. Any poster
    >> objecting to his post being copied would have to go to Court, and I am
    >> sure no Court would find a breach of copyright. Most likely on the basis
    >> that every poster knows his post will be copied by people replying to it,
    >> and hence can be taken to give implied consent to that copying. Possibly
    >> also on the basis that it is fair dealing for the purposes of comment or
    >> review.
    >>
    >> But from the 28th of Feb, that protection will become irrelevant, because
    >> the issue won't go to Court. The accusation of the copyright owner will
    >> be enough.
    >>
    >> From the 28th, it might be prudent for NZers replying to posts to abandon
    >> net etiquette, and not quote the text of posts they are replying to (for
    >> complete safety, change the subject header too).
    >>
    >>
    >> Apteryx

    >
    > Isn't the whole thing crazy! Let's hope the government sorts it all out.
    >


    Geopelia

    As much as we would all like our MP's to see 'sense' and bin this
    legislation the reality is they won't until the're pressured into it.
    Rather than 'hope' you should write your MP and make it quite clear you
    'don't' like this legislation and 'require' them to fix it immediately.
    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/HvYrSay/Contact/2/9/d/00PlibHvYrSayContact1-Contact-an-MP.htm

    Go on, it's easy.

    Best
    Paul.
    PeeCee, Feb 23, 2009
    #4
  5. On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:44:44 +1300, Apteryx <>
    wrote:
    snip

    > From the 28th, it might be prudent for NZers replying to posts to
    >abandon net etiquette, and not quote the text of posts they are replying
    >to (for complete safety, change the subject header too).
    >ApteryX

    That last one is the best yet. I'm still laughing!

    Tizard, btw, I read was NOT expected to get the nod for Mt Albert if
    Helen Clarke moves onto the international stage.
    Lukagain Cos ThistleBounce, Feb 23, 2009
    #5
  6. Apteryx

    Geopelia Guest

    "PeeCee" <> wrote in message
    news:gntd1p$rgl$...
    >
    > "Geopelia" <> wrote in message
    > news:gnt79e$feq$...
    >>
    >> "Apteryx" <> wrote in message
    >> news:gnsrhr$3j4$...
    >>> vitw wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:51:05 +1300, ChristianKnight wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Internet Servers being made to wipe away accounts that breach any
    >>>>> copyright without notice or explanation.
    >>>>
    >>>> Correction!!!
    >>>>
    >>>> Internet Service Providers being made to wipe away accounts offering
    >>>> content that anyone finds disagreeable to the point of being willing to
    >>>> make a copyright infringement allegation, true or otherwise.
    >>>>
    >>>>> How will that presumably affect us on New Zealand General?
    >>>>> and NZ.politics?
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's how.
    >>>>
    >>>> Imagine you post a comment on nz.general, nz.politics etc that someone
    >>>> doesn't like.
    >>>>
    >>>> That person then only needs to:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) Set up a temporary website on an offshore server.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2) Tempt you to click on a link to this site (very easily done - eg
    >>>> post
    >>>> a seemingly supportive reply under a temporary nym, with a link.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2) When you click, the web-page linked to can contain <img> tags to
    >>>> include pictures, or even some javascript to stream an audio file. By
    >>>> the time the page loads, your web client will have sent requests for
    >>>> copyrighted material, and if your ISP is logging your outbound HTTP
    >>>> requests, these requests will be present in the log.
    >>>>
    >>>> 3) Person then files a copyright infringement complaint with your ISP,
    >>>> via an offshore email address. Person by now has changed the web page
    >>>> so
    >>>> it doesn't request copyrighted materials.
    >>>>
    >>>> 4) Bye-bye internet connection.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Shall the Government stamp on Free Speach to avoid
    >>>>> international embarassments?
    >>>>
    >>>> The legislation is bizarre in that it completely circumvents any notion
    >>>> of due process. If it stays intact, it will be a testament to the
    >>>> apathy
    >>>> and stupidity of the New Zealand people for allowing it to remain in
    >>>> place.
    >>>>
    >>>> (crossposted also to nz.comp due to the technical content in the
    >>>> argument made above)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> He wouldn't need to go to all that trouble. Every newsgroup post is a
    >>> literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the copyright of
    >>> which is held by the author. Net etiquette demands that people replying
    >>> to a post should quote it (ie, copy it).
    >>>
    >>> At the moment that doesn't create any real copyright issues. Any poster
    >>> objecting to his post being copied would have to go to Court, and I am
    >>> sure no Court would find a breach of copyright. Most likely on the basis
    >>> that every poster knows his post will be copied by people replying to
    >>> it,
    >>> and hence can be taken to give implied consent to that copying. Possibly
    >>> also on the basis that it is fair dealing for the purposes of comment or
    >>> review.
    >>>
    >>> But from the 28th of Feb, that protection will become irrelevant,
    >>> because
    >>> the issue won't go to Court. The accusation of the copyright owner will
    >>> be enough.
    >>>
    >>> From the 28th, it might be prudent for NZers replying to posts to
    >>> abandon
    >>> net etiquette, and not quote the text of posts they are replying to (for
    >>> complete safety, change the subject header too).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Apteryx

    >>
    >> Isn't the whole thing crazy! Let's hope the government sorts it all out.
    >>

    >
    > Geopelia
    >
    > As much as we would all like our MP's to see 'sense' and bin this
    > legislation the reality is they won't until the're pressured into it.
    > Rather than 'hope' you should write your MP and make it quite clear you
    > 'don't' like this legislation and 'require' them to fix it immediately.
    > http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/HvYrSay/Contact/2/9/d/00PlibHvYrSayContact1-Contact-an-MP.htm
    >
    > Go on, it's easy.
    >
    > Best
    > Paul.
    >


    Thanks for the website.
    I last wrote to our MP at Parliament in Wellington, but that was some years
    ago.
    (A bill would have had unforeseen consequences, and was withdrawn).

    It's good to know the official way to go about it.

    It seems they are now holding up the offending clause for further
    consideration.

    But with the recession they will have more important things to worry about
    now.
    Perhaps we will see less of these footling little laws proposed for a while.
    There seem to have been too many of them.
    Remember the "Fart tax"?

    They should stop people "stealing" films, books and music, but they seem to
    have become bogged down in trivia.
    Why not just let people download what they like if it's freely available on
    the internet (they would do that anyway), but stop them selling copies for
    profit?
    Geopelia, Feb 24, 2009
    #6
  7. Apteryx

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <go0m00$nod$>,
    says...
    >
    > "PeeCee" <> wrote in message
    > news:gntd1p$rgl$...
    > >
    > > "Geopelia" <> wrote in message
    > > news:gnt79e$feq$...
    > >>
    > >> "Apteryx" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:gnsrhr$3j4$...
    > >>> vitw wrote:
    > >>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:51:05 +1300, ChristianKnight wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> Internet Servers being made to wipe away accounts that breach any
    > >>>>> copyright without notice or explanation.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Correction!!!
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Internet Service Providers being made to wipe away accounts offering
    > >>>> content that anyone finds disagreeable to the point of being willing to
    > >>>> make a copyright infringement allegation, true or otherwise.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> How will that presumably affect us on New Zealand General?
    > >>>>> and NZ.politics?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Here's how.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Imagine you post a comment on nz.general, nz.politics etc that someone
    > >>>> doesn't like.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> That person then only needs to:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 1) Set up a temporary website on an offshore server.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2) Tempt you to click on a link to this site (very easily done - eg
    > >>>> post
    > >>>> a seemingly supportive reply under a temporary nym, with a link.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 2) When you click, the web-page linked to can contain <img> tags to
    > >>>> include pictures, or even some javascript to stream an audio file. By
    > >>>> the time the page loads, your web client will have sent requests for
    > >>>> copyrighted material, and if your ISP is logging your outbound HTTP
    > >>>> requests, these requests will be present in the log.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 3) Person then files a copyright infringement complaint with your ISP,
    > >>>> via an offshore email address. Person by now has changed the web page
    > >>>> so
    > >>>> it doesn't request copyrighted materials.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 4) Bye-bye internet connection.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> Shall the Government stamp on Free Speach to avoid
    > >>>>> international embarassments?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> The legislation is bizarre in that it completely circumvents any notion
    > >>>> of due process. If it stays intact, it will be a testament to the
    > >>>> apathy
    > >>>> and stupidity of the New Zealand people for allowing it to remain in
    > >>>> place.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> (crossposted also to nz.comp due to the technical content in the
    > >>>> argument made above)
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> He wouldn't need to go to all that trouble. Every newsgroup post is a
    > >>> literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the copyright of
    > >>> which is held by the author. Net etiquette demands that people replying
    > >>> to a post should quote it (ie, copy it).
    > >>>
    > >>> At the moment that doesn't create any real copyright issues. Any poster
    > >>> objecting to his post being copied would have to go to Court, and I am
    > >>> sure no Court would find a breach of copyright. Most likely on the basis
    > >>> that every poster knows his post will be copied by people replying to
    > >>> it,
    > >>> and hence can be taken to give implied consent to that copying. Possibly
    > >>> also on the basis that it is fair dealing for the purposes of comment or
    > >>> review.
    > >>>
    > >>> But from the 28th of Feb, that protection will become irrelevant,
    > >>> because
    > >>> the issue won't go to Court. The accusation of the copyright owner will
    > >>> be enough.
    > >>>
    > >>> From the 28th, it might be prudent for NZers replying to posts to
    > >>> abandon
    > >>> net etiquette, and not quote the text of posts they are replying to (for
    > >>> complete safety, change the subject header too).
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Apteryx
    > >>
    > >> Isn't the whole thing crazy! Let's hope the government sorts it all out.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Geopelia
    > >
    > > As much as we would all like our MP's to see 'sense' and bin this
    > > legislation the reality is they won't until the're pressured into it.
    > > Rather than 'hope' you should write your MP and make it quite clear you
    > > 'don't' like this legislation and 'require' them to fix it immediately.
    > > http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/HvYrSay/Contact/2/9/d/00PlibHvYrSayContact1-Contact-an-MP.htm
    > >
    > > Go on, it's easy.
    > >
    > > Best
    > > Paul.
    > >

    >
    > Thanks for the website.
    > I last wrote to our MP at Parliament in Wellington, but that was some years
    > ago.
    > (A bill would have had unforeseen consequences, and was withdrawn).
    >
    > It's good to know the official way to go about it.
    >
    > It seems they are now holding up the offending clause for further
    > consideration.
    >
    > But with the recession they will have more important things to worry about
    > now.
    > Perhaps we will see less of these footling little laws proposed for a while.
    > There seem to have been too many of them.
    > Remember the "Fart tax"?
    >
    > They should stop people "stealing" films, books and music, but they seem to
    > have become bogged down in trivia.
    > Why not just let people download what they like if it's freely available on
    > the internet (they would do that anyway), but stop them selling copies for
    > profit?


    Well... band members will say somethin' like, "we don't make no money
    from our records anymore - everyone just downloads our stuff - now we
    have to go on tours to make money".

    Bloody good job too! :)

    --
    Duncan
    Dave Doe, Feb 24, 2009
    #7
  8. Apteryx

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Well... band members will say somethin' like, "we don't make no money
    > from our records anymore - everyone just downloads our stuff - now we
    > have to go on tours to make money".
    >
    > Bloody good job too! :)


    The vast majority of bands have never made money from selling records
    Nik Coughlin, Feb 24, 2009
    #8
  9. Apteryx

    oneofus Guest

    Nik Coughlin wrote:
    >
    > "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> Well... band members will say somethin' like, "we don't make no money
    >> from our records anymore - everyone just downloads our stuff - now we
    >> have to go on tours to make money".
    >>
    >> Bloody good job too! :)

    >
    > The vast majority of bands have never made money from selling records


    Its a safe bet that the ones whose content is being downloaded do, about
    $600 on average.
    But if I want say Jaco Pastorius from 1976, I'll just download it off
    bit-torrent.
    Copyright ? Don't care.
    Its not on emusic, I can't deal with itunes, buying a cd off Amazon and
    ripping it would be just as bad as downloading and not as convenient and
    I wouldn't bother anyway.
    Some megacorp bought the rights, who cares ?
    Its not the governments problem, only they think it is because some US
    beef quota deal will get held up as ransom.
    So they think the RIAA can contract some hacker company to do a robot
    spider crawl all over the internet and spam millions of automated email
    form complaints to NZ ISPs and the ISPs will automatedly spam the
    customers a few times and then terminate their account.
    And thats their solution.
    Now they think that if the TCF and APRA can jack up a deal that suits
    them both, that will be alright, a bad useless law that needs to be
    selectively applied, but its there so we get our free trade deal.
    Pin O Key O's nose is getting longer every time he talks about it.
    He really has trouble keeping a poker face when he lies, you can see the
    uncomfortable expression and hear it in his voice.
    oneofus, Feb 24, 2009
    #9
  10. Apteryx

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <go1j8i$rhb$>,
    says...
    >
    > "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Well... band members will say somethin' like, "we don't make no money
    > > from our records anymore - everyone just downloads our stuff - now we
    > > have to go on tours to make money".
    > >
    > > Bloody good job too! :)

    >
    > The vast majority of bands have never made money from selling records


    Yeah, but now the "big" bands have to go on tour now too - have you not
    noticed?

    --
    Duncan
    Dave Doe, Feb 24, 2009
    #10
  11. Apteryx

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <49a48291$0$583$4all.se>,
    z says...
    > In article <>, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > (snip)
    > >
    > >Well... band members will say somethin' like, "we don't make no money
    > >from our records anymore - everyone just downloads our stuff - now we
    > >have to go on tours to make money".

    >
    > I heard a day or 2 ago on the radio that bands with recording contracts make
    > about $600 a year from them ... and that's nothing new (apart from the 'big'
    > bands of course). Touring is where they actually *can* make some money :)
    >
    > If that is so, giving it away on the net (and maybe selling a track or 2)
    > makes a lot more sense (lots less expenses) ... and there's data that says
    > you sell more if you give it away anyway. Why ? ... it's thought to be basic
    > publicity. :)


    And a lot of 'em probably do now... Trent Reznor (NiN) has just been
    here, didn't he do that? Radiohead gave away tracks on one of their
    albums for donations - but IIRC, they were very dissapointed by the
    whole outcome, and won't be doin' it again.

    --
    Duncan
    Dave Doe, Feb 24, 2009
    #11
  12. Apteryx

    oneofus Guest

    Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <go1j8i$rhb$>,
    > says...
    >> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Well... band members will say somethin' like, "we don't make no money
    >>> from our records anymore - everyone just downloads our stuff - now we
    >>> have to go on tours to make money".
    >>>
    >>> Bloody good job too! :)

    >> The vast majority of bands have never made money from selling records

    >
    > Yeah, but now the "big" bands have to go on tour now too - have you not
    > noticed?
    >

    They always have, I don't see any connection.
    The iTunes store has now sold 6 billion tracks and their growth rate has
    been increasing all that time.
    If p2p downloads were really affecting music sales it would affect
    iTunes more than CD sales.
    Clever acts are now using various value added subscription models
    http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009...mode-for-itunes-pass-subscription-launch.html
    Thats what its going to take if the big acts want to stay around as brands.
    Otherwise they can be aggregated into someone elses marketing
    http://www.ministryofsound.com/
    People still like being told what they like.
    Its amazing that there are still very successful internet vendors of CDS
    http://www.digitalstores.co.uk/ministryofsound/home.jsp?displayCategory=music
    oneofus, Feb 24, 2009
    #12
  13. In article <go0m00$nod$>, "Geopelia" <> wrote:
    (snip)
    >Remember the "Fart tax"?


    A wrong name applied vigourously by the 'anti' people for maximum emotional
    reaction. The problem remains, however, and there are still no market
    signals to encourage better behaviour. :)

    >They should stop people "stealing" films, books and music, but they seem to
    >have become bogged down in trivia.
    >Why not just let people download what they like if it's freely available on
    >the internet (they would do that anyway), but stop them selling copies for
    >profit?


    I say again ... complaints from the companies concerned with copyright have
    no data as to 'lost revenue' ... only guesses. When pushed, they will admit
    they have made some assumptions (that means guessed :) ) ... but when looked
    at closely, the guesses aren't even reasonable. They haven't even shown
    there is a problem that needs 'fixing' yet ! <sigh>
    Bruce Sinclair, Feb 25, 2009
    #13
  14. In article <>, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    (snip)
    >
    >Well... band members will say somethin' like, "we don't make no money
    >from our records anymore - everyone just downloads our stuff - now we
    >have to go on tours to make money".


    I heard a day or 2 ago on the radio that bands with recording contracts make
    about $600 a year from them ... and that's nothing new (apart from the 'big'
    bands of course). Touring is where they actually *can* make some money :)

    If that is so, giving it away on the net (and maybe selling a track or 2)
    makes a lot more sense (lots less expenses) ... and there's data that says
    you sell more if you give it away anyway. Why ? ... it's thought to be basic
    publicity. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Feb 25, 2009
    #14
  15. Apteryx

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Radiohead gave away tracks on one of their
    > albums for donations - but IIRC, they were very dissapointed by the
    > whole outcome, and won't be doin' it again.


    In Rainbows. You recall incorrectly :)

    What they actually said what that the strategy was a success, but that they
    doubted that "it would work the same way again".

    Despite two thirds of people paying nothing for it, they still made more
    from donations on In Rainbows than they made from the traditional release of
    their previous album, Hail to the Thief.

    Following the donation experiment they released In Rainbows via traditional
    channels and sold well enough to get #1 placings in several charts (UK
    Albums Chart, Billboard 200). Those figures didn't include the website
    sales, as the website wasn't "a chart-registered retailer".
    Nik Coughlin, Feb 25, 2009
    #15
  16. Apteryx

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <go1j8i$rhb$>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> Well... band members will say somethin' like, "we don't make no
    >>> money from our records anymore - everyone just downloads our stuff
    >>> - now we have to go on tours to make money".
    >>>
    >>> Bloody good job too! :)

    >>
    >> The vast majority of bands have never made money from selling records

    >
    > Yeah, but now the "big" bands have to go on tour now too - have you
    > not noticed?


    Gasp! Don't tell me that they have to work for their millions!

    Some of the best music ever written was produced pre-copyright and pre-mass
    produced recordings. The performers were paid for the performance (or had
    benefactors).

    Musicians (and 'recording companies') making millions off copyrighted music
    was an aberation and will be looked back on as a strange time in the history
    of music. Recordings should just serve as advertsing for the live shows, not
    as a revenue stream. The peformance is where the musicians can make their
    money.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
    he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.
    ~misfit~, Feb 25, 2009
    #16
  17. Apteryx

    PeeCee Guest

    "Geopelia" <> wrote in message
    news:go0m00$nod$...
    >
    > "PeeCee" <> wrote in message
    > news:gntd1p$rgl$...
    >>
    >> "Geopelia" <> wrote in message
    >> news:gnt79e$feq$...
    >>>
    >>> "Apteryx" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:gnsrhr$3j4$...
    >>>> vitw wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:51:05 +1300, ChristianKnight wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Internet Servers being made to wipe away accounts that breach any
    >>>>>> copyright without notice or explanation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Correction!!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Internet Service Providers being made to wipe away accounts offering
    >>>>> content that anyone finds disagreeable to the point of being willing
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> make a copyright infringement allegation, true or otherwise.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> How will that presumably affect us on New Zealand General?
    >>>>>> and NZ.politics?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here's how.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Imagine you post a comment on nz.general, nz.politics etc that someone
    >>>>> doesn't like.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That person then only needs to:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1) Set up a temporary website on an offshore server.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2) Tempt you to click on a link to this site (very easily done - eg
    >>>>> post
    >>>>> a seemingly supportive reply under a temporary nym, with a link.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2) When you click, the web-page linked to can contain <img> tags to
    >>>>> include pictures, or even some javascript to stream an audio file. By
    >>>>> the time the page loads, your web client will have sent requests for
    >>>>> copyrighted material, and if your ISP is logging your outbound HTTP
    >>>>> requests, these requests will be present in the log.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 3) Person then files a copyright infringement complaint with your ISP,
    >>>>> via an offshore email address. Person by now has changed the web page
    >>>>> so
    >>>>> it doesn't request copyrighted materials.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 4) Bye-bye internet connection.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Shall the Government stamp on Free Speach to avoid
    >>>>>> international embarassments?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The legislation is bizarre in that it completely circumvents any
    >>>>> notion
    >>>>> of due process. If it stays intact, it will be a testament to the
    >>>>> apathy
    >>>>> and stupidity of the New Zealand people for allowing it to remain in
    >>>>> place.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> (crossposted also to nz.comp due to the technical content in the
    >>>>> argument made above)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> He wouldn't need to go to all that trouble. Every newsgroup post is a
    >>>> literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the copyright of
    >>>> which is held by the author. Net etiquette demands that people replying
    >>>> to a post should quote it (ie, copy it).
    >>>>
    >>>> At the moment that doesn't create any real copyright issues. Any poster
    >>>> objecting to his post being copied would have to go to Court, and I am
    >>>> sure no Court would find a breach of copyright. Most likely on the
    >>>> basis
    >>>> that every poster knows his post will be copied by people replying to
    >>>> it,
    >>>> and hence can be taken to give implied consent to that copying.
    >>>> Possibly
    >>>> also on the basis that it is fair dealing for the purposes of comment
    >>>> or
    >>>> review.
    >>>>
    >>>> But from the 28th of Feb, that protection will become irrelevant,
    >>>> because
    >>>> the issue won't go to Court. The accusation of the copyright owner will
    >>>> be enough.
    >>>>
    >>>> From the 28th, it might be prudent for NZers replying to posts to
    >>>> abandon
    >>>> net etiquette, and not quote the text of posts they are replying to
    >>>> (for
    >>>> complete safety, change the subject header too).
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Apteryx
    >>>
    >>> Isn't the whole thing crazy! Let's hope the government sorts it all out.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Geopelia
    >>
    >> As much as we would all like our MP's to see 'sense' and bin this
    >> legislation the reality is they won't until the're pressured into it.
    >> Rather than 'hope' you should write your MP and make it quite clear you
    >> 'don't' like this legislation and 'require' them to fix it immediately.
    >> http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/HvYrSay/Contact/2/9/d/00PlibHvYrSayContact1-Contact-an-MP.htm
    >>
    >> Go on, it's easy.
    >>
    >> Best
    >> Paul.
    >>

    >
    > Thanks for the website.
    > I last wrote to our MP at Parliament in Wellington, but that was some
    > years ago.
    > (A bill would have had unforeseen consequences, and was withdrawn).
    >
    > It's good to know the official way to go about it.
    >
    > It seems they are now holding up the offending clause for further
    > consideration.
    >
    > But with the recession they will have more important things to worry about
    > now.
    > Perhaps we will see less of these footling little laws proposed for a
    > while. There seem to have been too many of them.
    > Remember the "Fart tax"?
    >
    > They should stop people "stealing" films, books and music, but they seem
    > to have become bogged down in trivia.
    > Why not just let people download what they like if it's freely available
    > on the internet (they would do that anyway), but stop them selling copies
    > for profit?




    Geopelia

    Must admit it took a while for me to find the right page on that Parliament
    website.
    Like to many websites they put too much into making it look pretty and not
    enough into putting up a plain old Index.

    Best
    Paul.
    PeeCee, Feb 25, 2009
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Netmask
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    615
    anthony
    Jul 23, 2006
  2. Hans Barnhofter
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    776
    Jim Carr
    Aug 22, 2005
  3. ~misfit~

    "New Zealand gets insane copyright law"

    ~misfit~, Feb 21, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,335
    ~misfit~
    Feb 23, 2009
  4. Geopelia

    Re: The new Copyright Law and free speech

    Geopelia, Feb 21, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    391
    Stephen Worthington
    Feb 23, 2009
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    619
    Jasen Betts
    Feb 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page