The anti-innovationists are trying all sorts of channels of persuasion to campaign against Section 92 of the new Copyright Act.
Am I the only one who doesn’t see the sky falling?
One instance among the many — this online video campaign. i’ve also heard to TV adverts including some wannabe artist saying S92a will hinder the progress of his career. At the end his signoff is “My name is Matthew, I’m not signed, yet”. So? When you’re signed, mate, you’ll relish the money and protection copyright gives you, just like all the other artists and creators who are economically successful.
I keep thinking that people are painting RIANZ and the movie industry as such baddies. It’s also ironic that so many right-wingers and libertarians are campaigning against business.
BUT I want U2 and Bruce Willis and David Suchet and Andric Apse and Colin James to make money from protecting their copyright. If they weren’t thus making money, they wouldn’t be there; they would be replaced by spotty-faced oiks from Newtown and Mangare producing mediocre creative content from their garden sheds.
If the copyright model went what would replace it- YouTube? That’s like saying blogs will save/replace newspapers, which of course is what is happening.
Maybe I’m missing something here but I don’t see how giving things away for free actually makes a business. Somebody please convince me!
Recent Comments