Comments on: Copy me, copy you

By: Lu

Lu — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:40 +0000

speaking of copy right this is the emails we got sent at work:

Hi everyone

Please note that all outgoing emails internal and external will be blocked if containing the following phrases:

2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa
• 2010 FIFA World Cup
• FIFA World Cup
• World Cup
• 2010 World Cup
• World Cup 2010
• South Africa 2010
- SA 2010
- ZA 2010
• 2010 South Africa
• Football World Cup
• Soccer World Cup

This is being done to ensure we keep ourselves within the laws/rules issued by FIFA as FIFA has the right to subpoena documents and emails to check that there are no transgressions.

Please do not mail Mail Marshal asking for blocked outgoing emails of this nature to be released, as it is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

HECTIC HEY!

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:39:33 +0000

Please ask Warren to email us via hi@fox.co.za

We agree with many of his issues

By: BS

BS — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:40:19 +0000

Warren – you know quite well that a seperate license to rip a CD onto your iPod is not required – just because the Copyright Act does not permit it doesn’t make it prohibited. Record companies have never attempted to sue people for this practice. There is certainly the need for debate in this area, but such examples are red herrings, and muddy the waters of the debate. As you point out (but don’t elaborate), piracy cannot be condoned. Thousands of musicians and singers are unable to secure record deals or obtain resources to promote their albums because of the millions of Rands loss that filesharing has caused. So where to draw the line? The music and film industry in South Africa don’t stand a chance if copyright protection becomes a dirty word. Rational debate is needed to create a framework that caters for the expanded uses that digital technology affords, while supported the expansion of businesses that legitimately distribute content on new platforms.

By: MLH

MLH — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:45:03 +0000

As long as the technology to copy anything is freely available, people will copy it. People photstat artwork, but cannot duplicate texture. We didn’t copy records, pre-tape era, because we couldn’t, but I’m sure there were a heap of musicians out there who played by ear and didn’t buy the original sheet music. In the digital age, more that legal changes are necessary; the teckniks need to consider protecting product better.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:26:30 +0000

I suppose the discussion is the difference between copyRIGHT and copyWRONG.

By: Michael Graaf

Michael Graaf — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:20:12 +0000

The current copyright system renders a few musicians superstar status, but most of them un(der)employed.

The internet has made “record companies” potentially redundant and smart musicians have started benefiting – by publishing their own music on a donations-only basis, they have massively increased their live audiences.

By: Kevin Iles

Kevin Iles — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:51:00 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly, Warren. Software programs have been awkwardly shoe-horned into a regime they do not easily belong in. Music, when integrated into the soundtrack of a film, suddenly changes its character to become proctectable as part of the film with no account of the form of the film (digital or otherwise). The Act still distinguishes between broadcasting and diffusion systems (cable distribution) ignoring the content that is being distributed and creating different protection regimes depending on whether identical content is being sent over the net or over the airwaves. That is just daft.

My personal view is that a copyright system which focuses its efforts on creating different protection regimes depending on the manner in which the work is to be transmitted or the form of the work is more likely to be successful than our present system which seeks to classify a work as a book, painting, piece of music etc.

A digital file should be protected in a particular way regardless of its content. A piece of paper or canvas should be protected in an identical way whether it contains words or a Van Gogh masterpiece.

The Americans, and Jerome Reichman and James Boyle at Duke in particular, have been looking at the collapse of the copyright patent dichotomy in the digital age and are advocating the creation of entirely new regimes as the solution.

Bring on the copyright revolution in South Africa, I say.

By: David Allsebrook

David Allsebrook — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:15:59 +0000

Very well said.
Come to LinkedIn and join the World Copyright Summit. I have been chatting there with Paul Sweazey, the chair of an IEEE study group trying to come up with a digital protection standard to address concerns like yours and mine. We could use your input.
Best regards from Canada.

By: Hard Rain

Hard Rain — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:36:24 +0000

“Intellectual Property” is bunk, and needs to be done away with. Some reading material:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010919015101/http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200105229.shtml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella2.1.1.html

By: Michael Francis

Michael Francis — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:06:49 +0000

The music industry has been repetitive about copying music for decades now. The same fears they invoke about file sharing echoes their fears when recordable tapes were released. As a teenager I copied friends tapes and expanded my music collection the same way I do via online sources. I still buy as much music as I would have before but have access to more than I can buy. I also purchase music from artists I like to support.