Techrights logo

IRC: #boycottnovell-social @ FreeNode: Sunday, December 13, 2020

(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.

*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)Dec 13 00:56
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Dec 13 00:56
*rianne ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 01:00
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 01:01
*schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation term)Dec 13 01:23
*schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 01:23
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)Dec 13 09:10
*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)Dec 13 09:10
*rianne ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 09:11
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 09:11
schestowitz 13 09:20
-TechrightsSocial/ | EQE 2021: Further details on examination timings and paper format released - The IPKatDec 13 09:20
schestowitz"Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzNed LuddMonday, 7 December 2020 at 20:45:00 GMTDec 13 09:20
schestowitz@bobby, that was the point I was making. In normal years , candidates only had to study and turn up to take the exam. They now have to worry about all the IT, and it is all adding extra stress.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzThe EQE committees present it as simply logging in on a computer at home (or anywhere) and taking the exam. They are slowly shifting all the burdens of organisation, environment and materials to the candidates.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitz3 months to go: there is no demo available, not allowing printing has been announced, and some papers are being split. Who knows what will be in the next communication.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzMajor changes should have been postponed until 2022 to give candidates the opportunity to work with it and to see if the timings are adequate.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzI would like to know who (outside the examination committees) tested the A and B papers to see whether they could be done just as quickly digitally as with a paper copy. And the C with the extra 30 minutes. And the D2 with the extra 15 minutes.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzAnd it worrying to see from the PEB that certain behaviors may be considered afterwards as cheating. There should be a lot a latitude on all sides this year with such changes until we all get used to it - the vast majority of candidates will not attempt to cheat in any way. It is not unusual to use every minute that you can to work on your answer.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:20
schestowitzAnonymousMonday, 7 December 2020 at 11:20:00 GMTDec 13 09:20
schestowitzThe post by the chief examiner just shows us how confused the members of PEB are amongst themselves with its own rules and guidelines. How are candidates expect to know/understand when PEB are themselves utterly confused about their own guidelines.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:20
schestowitzAnonymousMonday, 7 December 2020 at 16:03:00 GMTDec 13 09:20
schestowitzIs Sarah Bloxall intending to clarify her comments suggesting candidates will fail for utilizing the additional exam time in the manner that they were advised to? Or should candidates just await their disqualification in March?Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:20
schestowitzBlurMonday, 7 December 2020 at 19:14:00 GMTDec 13 09:20
schestowitzIt seems utterly irresponsible to add to the anxieties already experienced by each trainee this year by suggesting that, because PEB appears to be unhappy with how they themselves set out the rules, candidates may be disqualified.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzIf the intention was for the breaks to be mandatory, a system should have been set up that enforces them. And if they wanted candidates to hand in their exams after the "normal" period, they should have clarified that if the whole 20 minutes for printing and scanning are not used, the exam should be submitted early.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzI appreciate that PEB is not happy with the conduct of candidates, but the solution is not to blame candidates. Instead, they should reflect on their communication and do better next time.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzGiven the mental health toll this year has taken on everyone, especially candidates, I find the comments by the chief examiner irresponsible and deeply concerning.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzCIPA should intervene, and PEB clarify their position, asap.Dec 13 09:20
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:21
schestowitzRepliesDec 13 09:21
schestowitzAnonymousWednesday, 9 December 2020 at 11:50:00 GMTDec 13 09:21
schestowitzThey have absolutely no right to be unhappy with the conduct of candidates frankly. The guidelines were perfectly clear: "you can take several short screen breaks, one longer break, or none". And no indication to the contrary that that would not be permitted (let alone, could result is disqualification). It is totally dishonest of PEB to be even considering disqualification on those grounds.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:21
schestowitzSunk Costs FallacyTuesday, 8 December 2020 at 11:37:00 GMTDec 13 09:21
schestowitzThe fact that the PEB has chosen to cause further distress to candidates on the topic of a non-PEB exam speaks volumes about the lack of thought and utility behind a body that lacks transparency and modernisation. I don't doubt that CIPA will again come to its aid citing the usual threats and virtual trolling that gets thrown at examiners. While I am not at all condoning verbal abuse, CIPA has for far too long shunned the Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzmental stresses of training in this profession in the UK and failed to address the fundamental issues at the PEB which is at the core of the valid complaints presented here.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzUnfortunately, I don't expect anything to change.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:21
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 8 December 2020 at 13:11:00 GMTDec 13 09:21
schestowitzAfter what I thought was a good job carried out by the PEB in simplifying the exam conditions this year, the PEB (via the Chief Examiner, no less!) has reverted back to its usual shenanigans.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzExam papers which do not assess fitness to practice, (at least some) incompetent examiners, inconsistent marking schemes which, frankly, are sometimes poor quality, tendency to push back any criticism (however constructive), ignoring the recommendations of an external review which highlighted multiple failures, commissioning another review without any consideration as to conflict when putting Chris Mercer in charge (Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzpresumably in the hope that he will exonerate the PEB completely?) to now threatening to disqualify candidates (on an unofficial blog, mind you) FOR FOLLOWING PEB RULES! What is more, the Chief Examiner herself has acknowledged that the amount of time taken to complete a paper has no correlation to whether candidates pass or fail. So why do examiners keep banging on about time management? Sarah Boxall, it is time for you to Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzstep down.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzI am ashamed to be part of a profession that puts up with this.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:21
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 8 December 2020 at 13:46:00 GMTDec 13 09:21
schestowitzHi Joel (if you are still reading) please can you feed back on the PEB the metal strain and how disruption of the exam preparations this year leading up to the exams. I get the impression PEB/CIPA has failed to understand and grasp this nature. Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzMany factors have been involved that has an impact this year including; moving to work from home, some having small children, some forced to look after older members of their family, some having to move back into a larger home/sharing with others, being furloughed, made redundant, lack of training and supervision, constant changing of examination process, lack of clarity of the exam guidelines, late changes to the exam Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzprocesses, burden of complying with IT requirements, admin burden of printing, scanning etc... on the exam day itself, moving towards online exams, the PEBX test that had no invigilators so we couldn't iron out the issues on the day of the exam itself. Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzI'm sure there are many more additional factors this year compared to a normal year.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:21
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 8 December 2020 at 14:46:00 GMTDec 13 09:21
schestowitzAny idea as to when we can expect to see the Mercer Review? It has been over a year now and the last I heard (I think on this blog) was that it was due to be released in October. Why is it taking so long? Appreciate we've all had to deal with the pandemic but all comments regarding the review were to be submitted in Feb, i.e. before lockdown. Surely 10 months to digest them and come up with recommendations are enough?Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:21
schestowitzRepliesDec 13 09:21
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 8 December 2020 at 17:36:00 GMTDec 13 09:21
schestowitzI too would like to know. The review was launched in response to the 2018 fiasco, and since then candidates have had to sit the 2019 and 2020 papers without the benefit of the system being reviewed. Surely we cannot let the system persist until 2021?Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:21
schestowitzAnonymousThursday, 10 December 2020 at 09:33:00 GMTDec 13 09:21
schestowitzRecap - Chief Examiner posts on IPKat on a discussion about EQEs information relating to a discussion this month for candidates being disqualified for working through screen breaks, which is unacceptable in her eyes. Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzWell, as pointed out by my colleagues:Dec 13 09:21
schestowitz"Within the total examination times, you can manage how you use your time as you wish. For example, you can take several short screen breaks, one longer break, or none."Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzPEB Essential Information for Candidates taking PEB QEs in 2020 - Page 2 (Section 2, Examination Times)Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzSo it seems that this would in face be "acceptable" behaviour unless it's "too early" and the rules are to be decided retrospectively and in contrary to the actual rules that were issued?Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzTherefore, the actual "unacceptable behaviour", is for the Chief Examiner to make such a comment. Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzIf PEB do decide as per Sarah's comment, then the above quote from the Guidelines is sufficient to claim against it.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzIf the PEB don't decide this, then Sarah needs to go, she needs to step down, for her unacceptable behaviour.Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzAs for the EQEs, what a blunder! Why over-do it? There are already some necessary changes, why make further changes? Dec 13 09:21
schestowitzBoth the EQEs and Sarah have something in common, incredibly bad timing and unacceptable behaviour.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzGood luck trainees, let's try to get involved in future and make some changes ourselves - so we can help future trainees. One of us can become Chief Examiner and disqualify Sarah for her unacceptable behaviour.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:22
schestowitzRepliesDec 13 09:22
schestowitzAnonymousThursday, 10 December 2020 at 17:04:00 GMTDec 13 09:22
schestowitzAnd if there is any confusion about what was meant by the total examination time, Appendix 3 of the PEB Essential Information for Candidates helpfully defines it for you - total examination time includes "screen breaks, printing, scanning, PDF-ing saving and uploading".Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzFor Sarah to say that the wording is "not clear" is rather odd.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:22
schestowitzAnonymousThursday, 10 December 2020 at 09:44:00 GMTDec 13 09:22
schestowitz[sarcasm on] copy/paste from the assessment to the answer is only only allowed during the first 3.5 minutes and the last 7.5 minutes of each exam part. No more than 256 characters each time, except on Thursday at high tide in Helsinki when you can do it for 512 characters. Unless screen breaks are being enforced, of course [sarcasm off]Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:22
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 11 December 2020 at 08:56:00 GMTDec 13 09:22
schestowitzI am concerned that PEB will be much harsher this year. They have already suggested to penalise candidates for working through screen breaks even though it was perfectly fine to do so according to their own guidelines. They don't really have a leg to stand on this so are they going to find other ways to mark candidates. They could easily change the mark scheme of FD1 for example to make it harder for candidates to gain marks Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzor being ridiculously strict on sticking to the mark scheme "word for word". Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzThere are plenty of other ways PEB can mark candidates down without letting us know. How can we trust this. How can we trust the intentions of PEB.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:22
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 11 December 2020 at 09:10:00 GMTDec 13 09:22
schestowitzPEB have now issued a statement. I think they need to clarify their comments. "There was never any intention to penalise candidates...". Will they further confirm (via a formal statement) that they are not going to be disqualifying candidates on the grounds that candidates did not take screen breaks?Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:22
schestowitzJoel David BriscoeFriday, 11 December 2020 at 13:36:00 GMTDec 13 09:22
schestowitzHi Everyone,Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzI have been receiving a number of emails with all your comments, thoughts and complaints since I asked you all to do so in the comments section. Thank you. I hope you all trust me to do the right thing and get to the bottom of this.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzOn that note, I wanted to let you all know that Sarah Boxall (PEB Chief Examiner) and I have agree to sit down and talk through the comments, questions and issues that have been raised, next week. From this discussion, I will write up a sort of Q&A and publish that both on here and the yellowsheet blog. Sarah and I have been in contact this week over email and we want this discussion to be as open as possible.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzIn the meantime, yesterday, the PEB Governance Board released a statement reaffirming their position that “it was never the intention to penalise candidates who did not take screen breaks or who used the full time allowance to upload documents.” So I hope that offers you all as much peace of mind as did it for me. I don't think this goes far enough just yet, so I am working on getting a more concrete answer.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzWatch this space. All the best,Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzJoel David BriscoeDec 13 09:22
schestowitzHon. Sec. of the InformalsDec 13 09:22
schestowitz"Dec 13 09:22
schestowitz 13 09:22
-TechrightsSocial/ | Have you considered the effect of Brexit on the territorial scope of a trademark license? - The IPKatDec 13 09:22
schestowitz"Interesting. Perhaps practitioners should also be thinking about the definition of the UK itself. Already NI is subject to a slightly different legal regime, and the possibility of a Scottish independence vote is far from fanciful. Perhaps best to define the territory as at a particular date, e.g. signature. "Dec 13 09:22
schestowitz 13 09:22
-TechrightsSocial/ | Artists speak out at the UK Economics of Music Streaming Inquiry - The IPKatDec 13 09:22
schestowitz"Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzIf the streaming services will be obliged to pay equitable remuneration, they will no longer conclude direct contracts with the labels.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzRadio stations pay equitable remuneration but are no longer required to obtain the authorization of labels and artists, their compensation for the use of their music is done through collective management organizations.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzThus, it cannot be said that in this system there would be no change for the platform because the remuneration system of artists and labels would change.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzThus, a equitable remuneration system cannot come on top of the existing arrangement between labels and platforms, and labels and artists, but can only replace the existing one.Dec 13 09:22
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:22
schestowitzRepliesDec 13 09:22
schestowitzHayleigh BosherFriday, 11 December 2020 at 09:06:00 GMTDec 13 09:22
schestowitzHi there, the proposal of equitable remuneration is that PPL collect form the record labels 55% share, not the streaming services. If you go to the evidence of the inquiry and look at CC Young, they have a really nice slide that shows how the money would be split - 13 09:22
-TechrightsSocial/ | Economics of music streaming - Committees - UK ParliamentDec 13 09:23
schestowitzHoratiu ColdeaFriday, 11 December 2020 at 09:57:00 GMTDec 13 09:23
schestowitzEquitable remuneration is due for public communication of phonograms published for commercial purposes, but labels do not make public communication.Dec 13 09:23
schestowitzI now looked at the presentation of CC Young and, from the beginning, I noticed a mistake in their statements: performers and producers do NOT have an exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the communication to the public of their recordings. They only have the right of equitable remuneration.Dec 13 09:23
schestowitzHayleigh BosherFriday, 11 December 2020 at 10:38:00 GMTDec 13 09:23
schestowitzYou are right the labels do not make the public communication, the streaming platform does. But there is a licence between the label and the platform, my understanding of the proposal is that PPL will collect from the label 55% share from the licence. Under UK law, s182CA CDPA 1988 consent is required for making available to the publicDec 13 09:23
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:23
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 11 December 2020 at 08:00:00 GMTDec 13 09:23
schestowitzI'm confused. Is it not so that PPL represents performers and recording rightsholders, whereas PRS represents songwriters and publishers?Dec 13 09:23
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:23
schestowitzHayleigh BosherFriday, 11 December 2020 at 09:07:00 GMTDec 13 09:23
schestowitzYou are correct, PRS are not suggested here. artists want to be able to collect for the public performance of their rights - they don't own the copyright that is with the label - that's why it would be PPL collecting.Dec 13 09:23
schestowitz"Dec 13 09:23
schestowitz 13 09:24
-TechrightsSocial/ | PEB (seems to) confirm that candidates will not be disqualified for writing during the time allocated for screen breaks and upload time - The IPKatDec 13 09:24
schestowitz"Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzIts a relief for many have the additional stresses loaded onto candidates from the chief examiner. Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzMy concern is whether candidates this year are treated fairly and with the right considerations. Its clear that PEB has the ability to change whatever they want after the exams has taken place. They had to retreat (rightfully) from the possibility of disqualifying candidates unfairly. Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzBut what else can be changed without notifying candidates. Will marking now be stricter/harsher as a result of this retreat, or will candidates get penalised for other things. I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to mark much more harshly.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzAs many have commented, faith in fairness and consideration from PEB has seriously been affected.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:25
schestowitzRepliesDec 13 09:25
schestowitzAnonymousSaturday, 12 December 2020 at 10:19:00 GMTDec 13 09:25
schestowitzI agree with your concerns. I feel that they will now look even harder at scripts and be much harsher to fail candidates.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:25
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 11 December 2020 at 12:03:00 GMTDec 13 09:25
schestowitzI do welcome the quick statement from CIPA, but these statements should never have been needed in the first place. Please can someone in CIPA prevent PEB acting like this again towards candidates. Its unacceptable.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:25
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 11 December 2020 at 12:44:00 GMTDec 13 09:25
schestowitzThis statement was only necessary to clear up unfounded, panic inducing, comments made by a member of PEB on this blog. The comments made contradict the information provided by PEB themselves. Are any steps being taken by PEB to ensure misinformation is not spread in this manner again?Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:25
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 11 December 2020 at 14:02:00 GMTDec 13 09:25
schestowitzMeow, meow (yawn)...meow, here goes:Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzFirstly, why hasn't PEB addressed the fact that the Chief Examiner is communicating about the UK Exams on an EQE-related post? Her communication was clearly inappropriate such that it warranted an official response to rectify it. In other words, if the response to rectify needed to be communicated via an official channel then shouldn't all information that belongs to an official communication be kept to an official channel? Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzAlso, an apology was missing together with a statement to reflect that this would not happen again! If the blog hadn't erupted, would anything have been done? The result has been unnecessary anxiety for UK candidates, and a discussion that should have been about the more relevant EQE changes. Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzThe Chief Examiner has just wasted everyone's time, and this should not be tolerated as it is certainly not within the characteristics of what a person in such a position of responsibility should be advocating.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzSecondly, "to be fair to Sarah" is an overstatement. Let's revisit what she posted:Dec 13 09:25
schestowitz"Candidates should also be aware that the EQE's are taking learnings from what did not go so well with the PEB exams, namely candidates not taking screen breaks and using that time and the upload time to continue writing when the actual exam time had finished, i.e. writing beyond the time allocated for the exam. Such behaviour would result in disqualification in an exam hall and THE MATTER is being considered by the PEB Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzGovernance Board this month."Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzIt is not far-fetched to construe "the matter is being considered by the PEB Governance Board" to mean the matter of disqualification. Despite responses to her comment including from named individuals, there was no attempt to clarify, rather further confusing posts followed.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzAccording to the statement issued today:Dec 13 09:25
schestowitz"[t]here was never ANY INTENTION to penalise candidates who did not take screen breaks or who used the full time allowance to upload documents"Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzSo either there was never any intention or there was "a need but without intention" for THE MATTER TO BE DISCUSSED by the PEB Governance.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzSo, meow, which is it?! Meow.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzThirdly, the response does not refer to IPKat when it should have. This was a mistake, as clearly all UK Candidates will now quickly need to become familiar with the communication channels being adopted by the Chief Examiner. That way, in future, we can all become smarter cats and start searching for unrelated blog-posts to read up on the Chief Examiner's latest comments relating to UK exams. Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzMe last week: "The UK Exams went well! EQEs should learn from the smoothness of the PEB"Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzMe this week: "Oh yeah, it's PEB, and CIPA...should have known better, they're clawful".Dec 13 09:25
schestowitz(Yawn)...meowDec 13 09:25
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:25
schestowitzRepliesDec 13 09:25
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 11 December 2020 at 15:16:00 GMTDec 13 09:25
schestowitz"Also, an apology was missing together with a statement to reflect that this would not happen again!"Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzI'll wager it won't happen again. Despite the PEB's ostensible indifference, Sarah will be feeling foolish.Dec 13 09:25
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:25
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 11 December 2020 at 14:34:00 GMTDec 13 09:25
schestowitzThanks to Merpel for flagging up the PEB response and its poor wording. Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzAs Merpel notes, the PEB's statement doesn't expressly acknowledge or clarify/retract the Chief Examiner's comments. That is presumably deliberate, and is in itself disappointing. It again paints the PEB as stubborn, antagonistic and opaque, rather than responsive, objective and transparent. Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:26
schestowitzAnonymousSaturday, 12 December 2020 at 10:15:00 GMTDec 13 09:26
schestowitzFrankly not offering an apology to the many candidates indicates arrogance and a lack of leadership to accept when you got things wrong. If Sarah as the chief examiner holds her hands up and offers and apology, it will go some way.Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:26
schestowitzAnonymousSaturday, 12 December 2020 at 10:18:00 GMTDec 13 09:26
schestowitzI would like to know what displicinary procedures PEB or CIPA has in place. This needs to be publically published.Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzIt is clear what are the displicinary procedures are for candidates but when PEB Examiners steps out of line, no one knows what are the displicinary procedures are.Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:26
schestowitzAnonymousSaturday, 12 December 2020 at 10:22:00 GMTDec 13 09:26
schestowitzAn apology would be good from the Chief Examiner. Everyone makes mistakes but it is important to admit to it and learn from it.Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:26
schestowitzGraver TankSaturday, 12 December 2020 at 18:16:00 GMTDec 13 09:26
schestowitzDemanding apologies and possible removal of Sarah from her function is completely ridiculous and also arrogant. In the run-up to PEB exams, she was very active trying to answer questions, sometimes quite extensively when everything was still changing. Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzDo you prefer silence? Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzIt is their job to figure out what is acceptable and what is not so that the conditions are the same for all candidates. I interpreted her statement as something they were looking at, but they still have to decide where the limit is. And then decide whether they will apply a punishment or change something for next year. You assume your interpretation of the rules is correct - you should also realise that you could be wrong. Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzIt is easy to criticise exams, thinking you can do much better. I always encourage the critics, once qualified, to get involved and "improve" the exams. Most of them will not bother. And those that do realise how difficult it is to produce exams that are unambiguous to several hundred people (EQE is even worse - they have to be unambiguous in three languages). As well as having unambiguous instructions. Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzSo how many critics will get involved and spend large chunks of their free time doing it?Dec 13 09:26
schestowitz"Dec 13 09:26
schestowitz 13 09:26
-TechrightsSocial/ | A performance review: is copyright doing its job in the music industry? - The IPKatDec 13 09:26
schestowitz"Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzHoratiu ColdeaFriday, 11 December 2020 at 13:00:00 GMTDec 13 09:26
schestowitzThe fact that Fiona Bevan received only £ 100 for co-writing a track on Kylie Minogue's number one album, Disco comes from the fact that although the song she composed was certainly used in many shops, bars, cafes, malls, petrol stations, etc., the distributions made by the collective management organizations are based on archaic systems that take into account only the playlists of the big radio and television stations.Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzThis is although, in 2020, it is very easy to use reporting software or, even more simply, large networks of stores, supermarkets, malls and so on for many years using centralized music programming systems so that the playlist report would be very simple.Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:26
schestowitzGraeme GilfillanFriday, 11 December 2020 at 13:22:00 GMTDec 13 09:26
schestowitzThank you as always for your thought provoking postsDec 13 09:26
schestowitzYou point out a truth…“The 3 major labels are reporting record highs in profits. So clearly, in its goal to encourage and reward the disseminating of music, copyright is doing a great job”…………….how copyright is instrumental in working for a few grains of sand on the beach (by number) so to speak of all practitioners………… and working terribly for the bulk of practitioners Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzThere is a view with copyright that looks can be deceiving when reviewing the effectiveness of copyright doing its job in the music industry for the following reasons: Dec 13 09:26
schestowitz1. By remaining stuck in the “reproduction/performing right” paradigm including derivatives thereof, copyright has not moved/amended/evolved/kept step with the times – When You Tube on the table and openly does not make money from rights under copyright or the exercise thereof….but does make money from advertising, data and text miners……..and declares so, the question must be asked of copyright…………where Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzare the new rights (under different copyrights) such as “data” rights, “advertising” rights, “text and data mining” rights……………….in other words expanding the rights under copyright footprint to address rights embedded in the consumer experience as opposed to being separate from it, rights that should be included in the rights under different copyrights.. By not doing evolving, copyright it can be Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzargued has been constraining the utility, application and income generation opportunity of copyright for the past 15 years at least. Dec 13 09:26
schestowitz2. By copyright authorship and ownership metadata being under exclusively private control, copyright has become…over decades………..copy”wrong”, with the current iniquitous equity landscape being a planned and maintained status quo. Copyright might well take a glance at the progression (and value proposition) of trademarks and patents under proper regulatory oversight of State scrutiny. Placing copyright authorship Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzand ownership metadata under exclusively private control without State oversight rather than appealing to the entrepreneur appeals to the robber baron...the brigand, causing great loss to both the State and all participants. Copyright does itself no favours operating in the penumbra.Dec 13 09:26
schestowitz3. Expanding the previous point, copyright is in very serious danger of being (rightly………sadly and unfortunately) named as a prime vehicle for large scale and diversified money laundering and engaging in institutionalised fraud – there is real evidence of this (e.g. 1) the overcharging licensees by making them pay for the public domain and 2) The wide scale usage of interested parties who are neither natural or Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzjuristic parties to claims shares in works and receive royalties). It is apparent that unless this malaise is confronted very soon it has the potential to indelibly impact the value and operability of copyright in the future – this cuts across the copyright spectrum. Dec 13 09:26
schestowitzIn conclusion notwithstanding the above points there is real reason to be highly concerned about not just the manner that copyright is doing its job….but that it is doing its job at all where it actually matters. Of course there are contrarian views….likely a non-coherent commentary landscapeDec 13 09:26
schestowitzReplyDec 13 09:26
schestowitzHoratiu ColdeaFriday, 11 December 2020 at 13:38:00 GMTDec 13 09:26
schestowitzRegarding the equitable remuneration for streaming, as I said in the previous article, if it is about making available, it cannot be about limiting the exclusive right of the performer to authorize or prohibit the use of his registered (fixed) interpretation.Dec 13 09:27
schestowitzIf we talk about streaming as a program similar to radio (or television) and the user does not have the opportunity to choose what he listens to, when he listens and where, then it is public communication. Even in this situation, if the right holders who are communicated have taken into account exactly the listeners of that platform when they authorized the initial communication, according to the jurisprudence of the CJEU, Dec 13 09:27
schestowitzthere is no communication to the public.(Dec 13 09:27
schestowitzBut if I can choose what I listen to (or see), in the place and especially at the time I choose, it is not public communication.Dec 13 09:27
schestowitz"Dec 13 09:27
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Dec 13 09:58
*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Dec 13 09:59
*rianne ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 10:04
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 10:04
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)Dec 13 10:10
*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Dec 13 10:10
*rianne ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 10:15
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 10:16
*Ariadne has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Dec 13 13:18
*Ariadne_ (~ariadne@2602:fd37:1::86) has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 13:18
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)Dec 13 13:28
*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Dec 13 13:28
*Ariadne_ is now known as AriadneDec 13 13:58
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 14:03
*rianne ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 14:03
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 16:18
*rianne has quit (Remote host closed the connection)Dec 13 16:18
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Dec 13 16:54
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)Dec 13 16:55
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 17:04
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)Dec 13 17:09
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 17:21
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 17:21
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)Dec 13 17:33
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Dec 13 17:34
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 17:35
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 17:37
*rianne_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Dec 13 18:50
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 18:51
*rianne_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Dec 13 19:38
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovell-socialDec 13 19:39

Generated by 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.