[videoblogging] Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
- around the 1/8/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re:
Hardball legal tactics. Was: The Histor that:
>I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of 'make anyou're right, old law. as discussed here recently, in Australia this
>example of them to get others to comply, throw the book at them' type
been the norm for years. Small annual licence fee, the money is
redistributed as royalties to the artists (they do audits of what is
played and bought).
>here the cost for clubs has just gone up substantially which they're
>Added together these sorts of extra costs can make it hard for the
>smaller venues to survive, if they arent too profitable to start with.
>But its something Im sure most businesses are used to paying, I think
>in the UK that most companies accept they have to pay such things, or
>they try to avoid it until they are first approached, and then they
>cough up the moolah rather than having to suffer any further hassle.
all upset about, on the other hand if I sell a recording to an
individual for an individual cost and it gets played to a *paying*
audience in a club of 1000, it seems pretty reasonable that the
artist gets a return...
>it is normal practice to buy a different licence for edu use. eg a
>I dont expect anybody that makes a stand in the courts to win, as I
>think the laws are pretty well established regarding public
>performance rights, but maybe Im wrong.
>Like when I was a kid, when they played videos at school the
>smallprint always mentioned that the video was not licensed for
>display at public events, in schools etc. I always wondered if the
>schools paid a blanket fee, or some higher authority covered it on
>their behalf, or whether they were being naughty and ignoring such things.
film that i can buy for $30 over the counter for home use might be
$300 but I can then show it to a lecture theatre full of students.
same logic as for the music. also why technically you can only
photocopy x% of a book to make available to students.
we can complain about it, or we can make work that is not subject to
these forms of copyright if we wish. :-)
this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
[official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
- In a different thread Adam Quirk said:
"I have a special place in my heart for those who want to push
anything farther than most. Creativity, freedom, even obscenity (for
fuck's sake). One of the biggest misses in videoblogging is the lack
of people pushing limits, and I don't exclude myself."
Yes I ponder that a lot all the time. I wanted to do risky stuff but I
struggle because I am a chickenshit, get paranoid, intimidate myself lol.
I have commented not so long ago that a lot of edgy stuff Ive seen in
my life has been on UK television.
But Ive got a few examples of stuff I think is edgy on the net that I
wasnt aware of till recently:
Better Bad News (god knows why I only just saw this amazing stuff)
Pat Condell on Youtube (attacking religions with comic truth, whoa)
I dont know if its harder to stumble over the edge these days, maybe I
am looking for the wrong edge. Would Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks have
been edgy if they were of the vlogging era? Is it harder to be edgy on
Are conspiracy theory talking heads edgy?
Oh I just dont know, so much of this is about cultural taboo's, we
have seen that comments about Thailands king are definately edgy if
you are vlogging such things in Thailand where he is revered and there
still seem to be widespread belief in that sort of deference and respect.
I suppose a reason to expect more edgy stuff on the net, is that such
things may not traditionalyl get on TV due to financial and legal
risks. So maybe youd expect a floodtide of such stuff on the net
because it doesnt currently suffer those barriers much.
Also I guess its about audience, Janet Jacksons nipple can cause a
storm if it slips out to the masses at a certain time of day,
meanwhile look at whats available on the net.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> wrote:
>Yeah... I've TRIED not to laugh at "Better Bad News"
> But Ive got a few examples of stuff I think is edgy on the net that I
> wasnt aware of till recently:
> Better Bad News (god knows why I only just saw this amazing stuff)
> Steve Elbows
<http://betterbadnews.blip.tv/>, but I haven't seen an episode of it
yet where I haven't gotten at least two decent laughs out of it.
There's obviously a lot of writing work ?improv work? that goes into