Don't forget the On-Line talk on tuesday

[Aiko]

We've only been having the Tuesday Zooms because we've not been able to meet at our local branches. The Branch meetings and talks have been going on for over 70 years. Hopefully the Tuesday Zooms will carry on in some form going forward.

I am hoping the same. Would be nice for all members living far away, such as many non-UK members. Once a week is probably a bit too much to keep it going, but maybe one digital talk a month or every other month would be nice.

[el48tel]

We've only been having the Tuesday Zooms because we've not been able to meet at our local branches. The Branch meetings and talks have been going on for over 70 years. Hopefully the Tuesday Zooms will carry on in some form going forward.

I am hoping the same. Would be nice for all members living far away, such as many non-UK members. Once a week is probably a bit too much to keep it going, but maybe one digital talk a month or every other month would be nice.

I have suggested that they would be an excellent idea for the winter months. Safer for all than travelling.

[MatDz]

Thanks, that does make sense - one can only ask...

I'm sure this has been discussed before, and BCSS has a good feel for what's possible. But it feels worth raising again as the Society looks to grow in unusual times. I can also understand speaker's reluctance to be filmed via the Internet these days (I certainly would feel uncomfortable). But it does feel a pity that the talks are a flash in the pan and easily missed.

Aston

We've only been having the Tuesday Zooms because we've not been able to meet at our local branches. The Branch meetings and talks have been going on for over 70 years. Hopefully the Tuesday Zooms will carry on in some form going forward.

They are live events - like the theatre and old school television - if you aren't there on the day then you are going to miss it.

But the technology makes it possible for them to not be. The "old school television" is also slowly dying, better to catch up before it's too late.

[Diane]

“ But the technology makes it possible for them to not be”

But it’s up to the speaker, many of these presentations are talks that they would give at branch meetings, and they would prefer they kept within their ownership, unsderstandably.

[MatDz]

“ But the technology makes it possible for them to not be”

But it’s up to the speaker, many of these presentations are talks that they would give at branch meetings, and they would prefer they kept within their ownership, unsderstandably.

That's a valid and undestood argument, even if still a little "old-fashioned". I just pointed out that the current situation is not limited by the technology.

[Diane]

“Old-fashioned” it may be, but it comes under the Intellectual Property and Copyright laws.

[MatDz]

“Old-fashioned” it may be, but it comes under the Intellectual Property and Copyright laws.

That's only if the copyrights are a) imposed and b) broken afterwards, which no one suggested to do!

[el48tel]

Oh if it only were so simplistic.
You don't impose copyright ... IT IS the right of the composer/author in law. Full stop. In all the civilized countries on this planet.
The problem with the web is simple ... people think if it's on the web it's for free. It ain't. Full stop. You want it ... you pay for it.

[MatDz]

Oh if it only were so simplistic.
You don't impose copyright ... IT IS the right of the composer/author in law. Full stop. In all the civilized countries on this planet.
The problem with the web is simple ... people think if it's on the web it's for free. It ain't. Full stop. You want it ... you pay for it.

We are, a few quids a year, but we are.

I honestly don't understand where this defensive and slightly truculent tone comes from. I can give dozens of examples of communities whose online talks are distributed free over the dreaded internet, mainly on YouTube, but also some other proprietary platforms. And I believe they are not breaking copyright laws by doing so. This really is not a discussion about law interpretation, but rather a general approach to "marketing".

[el48tel]

Oh if it only were so simplistic.
You don't impose copyright ... IT IS the right of the composer/author in law. Full stop. In all the civilized countries on this planet.
The problem with the web is simple ... people think if it's on the web it's for free. It ain't. Full stop. You want it ... you pay for it.

We are, a few quids a year, but we are.

I honestly don't understand where this defensive and slightly truculent tone comes from. I can give dozens of examples of communities whose online talks are distributed free over the dreaded internet, mainly on YouTube, but also some other proprietary platforms. And I believe they are not breaking copyright laws by doing so. This really is not a discussion about law interpretation, but rather a general approach to "marketing".

Mat
Thank you for the beautiful alliteration .... truculent tone. I like that. I don't intend entering into a lengthy discussion on this. It's not what you believe about the contractual status, nor what other Internet users believe they may do with published work. It's what contract exists between the author and the organisation which published it.