Which is more important - The TPPA or the Waitress?

Forums › Off topic › Which is more important - The TPPA or the Waitress?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1290461 23-Apr-2015 23:06

Geektastic:
JWR:
shk292:
Zeon: Why does everyone assume the TPPA will be so terrible in its final form? The government will be negotiating for favorable terms for New Zealand and if they aren't felt to be favorable why would they then take it any further?

Because it's a convenient stick with which to whack the national government. There are plenty of exceptions, but it seems to me that many of the TPPA-chicken-littles are also the rabid anti-GM, anti-US, anti-globalisation, anti-free trade crowd

I think you need to open your mind.

You are just grouping people under labels without thinking about the issues involved.

Many people have worries about the TPPA.

It appears that the secrecy is not about ensuring a beneficial outcome (for New Zealand) so much as minimizing protest from the New Zealand public.

If NZ agrees to anything like that Wikileaks PPTA data, then that will be a very dark day for New Zealand imo.

"many people" are also demonstrably idiots; sadly the modern world of the internet means we get to hear the views of the left hand side of the bell curve as well as the right.

Free trade is a good thing in general and some of these things, such as extending copyright after creator's death, are now standard in Europe where the deceased artist's estate receives a percentage of sales. That kind of copyright extension is to be welcomed.

Secrecy is only to be expected - how could anyone reasonably negotiate an agreement like this if every line under discussion appeared in the media and was subject to endless asinine public debate? Nothing would ever get sorted out. The Treaty of Versailles or the founding documents for the UN or NATO were not debated in public, they were agreed behind closed doors. There is ample precedent.

OK. That comment about left and right of the bell curve is just insulting.

I agree, free trade is a very good thing.

But, from the leaks I have read, the US wants to restrict/ban parallel importing.

That isn't free trade!

They also want to influence local law and restrict sovereign rights.

That isn't free trade either!

The problem of it all, is that we could probably have free trade with many TPPA countries, if we negotiated separately.

There are many countries we should be looking to for free trade.. All of Asia, Mexico, Brazil and most of South America, Russia too.

There are many strong lobbies in the US, that are not interested in any fair deal for NZ.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1290485 23-Apr-2015 23:45

"Secrecy is only to be expected - how could anyone reasonably negotiate an agreement like this if every line under discussion appeared in the media and was subject to endless asinine public debate? Nothing would ever get sorted out. The Treaty of Versailles or the founding documents for the UN or NATO were not debated in public, they were agreed behind closed doors. There is ample precedent."

That part of the argument is just stupid and separate.

The ending of WW1 has no relevance to the PPTA at all!

I can't begin to imagine how you think they were related.

Who, of global importance, made huge capital out of the Treaty of Versailles?

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1290529 24-Apr-2015 06:56

JWR: We don't have to adopt everything.

Well, that's kind of the point. It's a treaty. If we sign the treaty, we are obligated to adopt everything. We cannot pick and choose which bits we like.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1290530 24-Apr-2015 07:09

Geektastic: That kind of copyright extension is to be welcomed.

I cannot possibly disagree more. Imagine a world where Shakespeare (TM) was (C) Disney Corporation. It doesn't matter whether you've ever actually seen a Shakespeare play; half the idioms of our language are attributable to his work. A world where important works like that are controlled by corporations forever is a horrifying idea.

Having copyright last for some time after an artist's death makes sense; children get to inherit all the physical possessions of their parents, why shouldn't they be able to inherit the intangibles as well? But it can't last, and it shouldn't. And, in practice, such things don't stay with families anyway - in the end, all roads lead to Disney.

You wouldn't even be able to tell people to imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever, because that would be an infringement. Fortunately, there are some countries where it's already public domain. Like here, where the term is life plus 50 years. At the moment.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1290531 24-Apr-2015 07:16

Geektastic:... such as extending copyright after creator's death, are now standard in Europe where the deceased artist's estate receives a percentage of sales. That kind of copyright extension is to be welcomed.

I'm not so sure... my impression is that many copyrights are not held by the estate of the deceased, but by third parties (e.g. Michael Jackson held the rights to The Beatles' music). I suspect that many copyrights are owned by corporates.

The intention of copyright is that an author gets the benefit of his work & talent. Extending that benefit to include his descendants is maybe a good idea, and maybe copyrights become more saleable if they have 100+ years to run so the artist selling them might get more money for them. But I expect that the major beneficiary would be RIAA members.

In my view, at some point works of art should be accepted as part of the popular culture and freely accessible by everyone who wants to be part of that culture. Shakespeare is an obvious example, as is Leonardo d Vinci. What about Rembrandt, van Gogh, Monet, Robert Louis Stevenson, Te Rauparaha?

How about "Now Is the Hour" which I think all Kiwis would claim as part of their culture?

From http://folksong.org.nz/poatarau/

In 1913 Palings published a piano-variations piece in Australia, Swiss Cradle Song.

In 1915 its opening theme was modified for the singing of Po Atarau to farewell Maori WW1 soldiers.

In 1920 Maewa Kaihau wrote a This is the Hour verse, and in 1935 she modified the Po Atarau verse.
This became the Haere Ra Waltz Song, which was sung when steamships were departing overseas.

English wartime singer Gracie Fields learnt Haere Ra on a visit to New Zealand in 1945.
Her version of it, known as Now is the Hour, became a world-wide hit in 1948.

Based on this, we wouldn't be allowed to sing this song until 2079 (Gracie Fields died in 1979) without paying money to whoever owns the copyright.

Behodar

10508 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290533 24-Apr-2015 07:24

SaltyNZ: Having copyright last for some time after an artist's death makes sense; children get to inherit all the physical possessions of their parents, why shouldn't they be able to inherit the intangibles as well? But it can't last, and it shouldn't.

I read something the other day that claimed that in the modern (Internet) world, the vast majority of profit comes within 18 months of the work being published. A movie makes most of its money from the original theatrical release and subsequent home video release, music is usually the most popular when it's new, etc. The person writing the article argued that 3-5 years is a sensible copyright term. Personally I think that's too short as people will be liable to just wait out some things instead of buying them, but I think maybe 25 years is much more reasonable than 50/70/95.

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1290534 24-Apr-2015 07:24

frankv:
Based on this, we wouldn't be allowed to sing this song until 2079 (Gracie Fields died in 1979) without paying money to whoever owns the copyright.

Try reading up on the copyright status of 'Happy Birthday to You'.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1290536 24-Apr-2015 07:25

Behodar:
SaltyNZ: Having copyright last for some time after an artist's death makes sense; children get to inherit all the physical possessions of their parents, why shouldn't they be able to inherit the intangibles as well? But it can't last, and it shouldn't.

I read something the other day that claimed that in the modern (Internet) world, the vast majority of profit comes within 18 months of the work being published. A movie makes most of its money from the original theatrical release and subsequent home video release, music is usually the most popular when it's new, etc. The person writing the article argued that 3-5 years is a sensible copyright term. Personally I think that's too short as people will be liable to just wait out some things instead of buying them, but I think maybe 25 years is much more reasonable than 50/70/95.

Well, personally, I agree with you, but that's never going to happen. :-)

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1290565 24-Apr-2015 08:52

SaltyNZ:
frankv:
Based on this, we wouldn't be allowed to sing this song until 2079 (Gracie Fields died in 1979) without paying money to whoever owns the copyright.

Try reading up on the copyright status of 'Happy Birthday to You'.

Interesting read, thanks.

You are supposed to pay a fee (anywhere between $500 & 6 figures) if the lyrics are sung by a group who are not mostly family and friends of the person being sung to. A court case to put it in the public domain was initiated in 2013, and is dragging along, with no end in sight.

From my perspective, it's most interesting that the corporate Warner claims the copyright, that (like "Now is the Hour") the origins are a combination of other songs, and that the authors and their estates aren't anywhere in the picture as far as getting royalties goes.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1290683 24-Apr-2015 11:01

SaltyNZ:
dclegg: will we get a chance to undo this?

I believe it's technically possible if we sign it, but parliament does not ratify it. Unless there's some stinger in it that says it doesn't need to be ratified or something... IANAIL. But I don't know whether parliament get to read it before they ratify it and I suspect it wouldn't matter anyway, because they will ratify it once it's been signed.

It is also possible to withdraw from a treaty, but of course then any benefits you might have gained from it are lost too.

Hmmm ..... thoughts of the UK trying to extract from the EU. Who controls who? Once you give away your sovereignty ............

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290761 24-Apr-2015 12:35

Behodar:
SaltyNZ: Having copyright last for some time after an artist's death makes sense; children get to inherit all the physical possessions of their parents, why shouldn't they be able to inherit the intangibles as well? But it can't last, and it shouldn't.

I read something the other day that claimed that in the modern (Internet) world, the vast majority of profit comes within 18 months of the work being published. A movie makes most of its money from the original theatrical release and subsequent home video release, music is usually the most popular when it's new, etc. The person writing the article argued that 3-5 years is a sensible copyright term. Personally I think that's too short as people will be liable to just wait out some things instead of buying them, but I think maybe 25 years is much more reasonable than 50/70/95.

Personally I think 3-5 years is a perfectly reasonable copyright time frame.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

Cynic

28 posts

Geek

#1290767 24-Apr-2015 12:38

I just have a simple question for our politicians - if the TPPA is so great for new Zealand as they keep telling us it will be, then why the secrecy ?? Wouldn't they want to be taking credit (and scoring political points) ??

As for the waitress saga, if the allegations are true, then it smacks of yet more double standards in government - but why are we surprised, that's just BAU for this lot.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1290777 24-Apr-2015 12:52

SaltyNZ:
Geektastic: That kind of copyright extension is to be welcomed.

I cannot possibly disagree more. Imagine a world where Shakespeare (TM) was (C) Disney Corporation. It doesn't matter whether you've ever actually seen a Shakespeare play; half the idioms of our language are attributable to his work. A world where important works like that are controlled by corporations forever is a horrifying idea.

Having copyright last for some time after an artist's death makes sense; children get to inherit all the physical possessions of their parents, why shouldn't they be able to inherit the intangibles as well? But it can't last, and it shouldn't. And, in practice, such things don't stay with families anyway - in the end, all roads lead to Disney.

You wouldn't even be able to tell people to imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever, because that would be an infringement. Fortunately, there are some countries where it's already public domain. Like here, where the term is life plus 50 years. At the moment.

Plus 10 for the first paragraph. I respectfully disagree with the second. Everyone should be fairly compensated for the work they do. Because the nature of creative work is different, the manner of compensation should reflect that difference. But I am utterly opposed to intellectual property and copyright in their current form, which just invites abuse (which is widespread). Why should someone’s dependants or even descendants rake in endless rewards for doing absolutely nothing just because they had a creative ancestor? Inherited wealth is a terrible builder of character. Should the children of plumbers collect royalties for the toilets their parents installed? Why should it be any different for authors or musicians or any other creative artists? If artists want to leave a legacy for their precious darlings, let them invest in the stock market or open a savings account or start an art school or do what all the other non-creative people in the world have to do. Why should they be treated any differently?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

shk292

2855 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1290788 24-Apr-2015 13:08

Cynic: I just have a simple question for our politicians - if the TPPA is so great for new Zealand as they keep telling us it will be, then why the secrecy ?? Wouldn't they want to be taking credit (and scoring political points) ??

As for the waitress saga, if the allegations are true, then it smacks of yet more double standards in government - but why are we surprised, that's just BAU for this lot.

Because it's a negotiation. If you're negotiating, you don't give away your position and strategy at the start.

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1290821 24-Apr-2015 13:42

Rikkitic:
Why should someone’s dependants or even descendants rake in endless rewards for doing absolutely nothing just because they had a creative ancestor? Inherited wealth is a terrible builder of character. Should the children of plumbers collect royalties for the toilets their parents installed? Why should it be any different for authors or musicians or any other creative artists? If artists want to leave a legacy for their precious darlings, let them invest in the stock market or open a savings account or start an art school or do what all the other non-creative people in the world have to do. Why should they be treated any differently?

As it happens, I actually agree with you. Vodafone still makes a zillion dollars a year off stuff I built for them 7 years ago, but I don't get paid for it anymore. Why should Kim Kardashian get paid forever just because she's got big enough boobs to stand in front of camera naked?

But ... that's the way it is, and there's basically no chance it will change. So, being realistic, you have to pick your battles: it's much simpler to make a non-ranty argument that copyright terms of life + 50 years are more than enough than it is to say they should only be (say) 5 years from publication, ever - or even, not at all. It's very easy to remind people that copyright and related mechanisms exist for the benefit of society when the artists know they can make a living off their art, and then ask them who benefits from Mickey Mouse these days.

Another thing: if nobody knows who owns the copyright on something, then the law should provide a way to state that nobody does. If someone makes a good-faith effort to find the current owner of an old video game that they wish to recreate on a modern system, and none of the possible owners can even summon up enough care to check, then there should be a safe harbour after which they lose it, even if they later decide they do, in fact, own it. But I don't see that happening either.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6