Update 11/1: I have received a request to remove the link to the ACTRA document on the grounds that it was posted prematurely. I have been advised that there is not yet consensus among all groups listed in the document on the various C-32 issues.
When Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore told an IP conference last June that only two groups of radical extremists were opposed to Bill C-32, most assumed that he had user groups in mind. Yet as various groups begin to publicly make their positions known, few have been as critical as a creator coalition that includes ACTRA, a writers’ coalition, visual arts coalition, and Quebec artists groups. In a backgrounder on the bill, those groups oppose nearly all the major reform elements of Bill C-32, with the notable exception of digital locks (on which they remain silent).
Just how broad is the opposition? The position paper stakes out the following positions:
| Consumer exceptions such as format shifting | Oppose. Want an extension of the private copying levy to cover format shifting and limit “private purposes” to limit consumer uses. |
| User Generated content exception | Oppose. Want it removed from the bill. |
| Fair dealing inclusion of education | Oppose. Want it removed from the bill. |
| Statutory damages reform | Oppose elements of C-32 statutory damages reform. |
| ISP Liability | Oppose notice-and-notice approach in C-32. Support move toward graduated response approach. |
| Artists’ Resale Right | Support amendment of the bill to include new resale right. |
| Broadcast mechanical right reform | Oppose. Want it removed from the bill. |
It should be clear that this does not constitute support for the bill with some minor tweaking or modifications (contrast it with this user’s perspective or independent academics). If these groups get their way, it would represent a near-complete gutting of many of the core elements of Bill C-32 and the removal any pretense of trying to strike a balance among stakeholders. In its wake would be a copyright bill with practically no consumer oriented provisions, the loss of the most important educational balancing provision, a three strikes and you’re out system, and digital lock rules that eviscerate rights in the digital domain.
Yeah, pretty much any of those being removed would not create a balanced copyright bill. But then I don’t think that the groups who oppose those changes want balanced copyright.
c-32
prepare to be monintized. Big mamma s’mother hits
info, ed, research and entertainment.
trademark, copyright, patent (data/property) all that everything
censorship, monetize, taboos. (eco) block, filter,cash-in, smear
Web = judge, cop or priest. (justice/dispute settlement) how
Not surprising
From what I’ve seen, most people will oppose a piece of legislation, or portions of one, that have the potential to have a negative impact on their finances, and support where it is good for them. Where it is neutral for them can go either way.
I prefer this James Moore quote from the same talk:
“those who pretend to be experts on copyright reform and who put a smiley, shiny, cute face on what is actually a pretty disingenuous campaign to undermine the rights — the property rights — of individual citizens to invest in their creative goods…”
The ongoing shell-game being played over here around C-32 and the good-faith, honest criticisms and amendment suggestions of creator groups is really a marvel of political manipulation.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
…
Hey it’s Degen! I must be a prophet or something because as soon as I saw this article I KNEW he’d be posting his usual silliness!
You seem to have a problem with facts, my friend. This article states facts. You don’t like facts? Go back to your dream world where facts are irrelevant. We’ll be over here living in the real world.
Well, this blog has managed to redefine “fair,” “balanced,” “criticism” and “support.”
I don’t see why you shouldn’t also redefine “facts.” While you’re at it, let’s make the redefinition of “scholarship” official. It sure does look an awful lot like political campaigning over here.
…
Sarkozy anyone? These groups must be taking their cues from France? All those draconian laws have worked SO well over there. Some time ago, I read an article about the 3-strikes and HADOPI in France and those they were interviewing stated that people, especially in the South of France, have lost so much respect due to all these rediculous rules that circumventing and getting around the tracking and everything else has pretty much become a national pass-time.
None of what these groups want fosters respect for copyright, which is the ONLY way they’re going to increase sale. The idea that a pirated copy is a lost sale is rediculous. It’s easy to circumvent digital protections, it’s easy to avoid getting tracked when downloading something. Groups like this would have ALL consumer rights stripped away and force feed us the copyright mantra when, in fact, they’re all trying to kill copyright altogether in favor of a contract system…glorified rentals or leases as one might have it.
This is kind of a vulgar comparison, but applicable…you know what, if you force feed someone cr4p long enough they’re bound to puke all over you, then you’ll have a huge mess to clean up, one that will leave permanent stains on the Italian leather couch and seriously damage relations and respect.
I will say it publically, I love music and movies, but digital locks or not, I cannot and will not support or abide by anything that does not allow format shifting (Amoung other things C-32 proposes). I will make mixed CDs for the car, I will make back-ups of music I purchase on-line, I will remove digital locks from ALL music I purchase on-line, I will make copies of any music or movies I own that I feel I need a copy of. I have been doing this for the better part of 30 years, since the days of audio tapes and VHS, and will continue to do so no matter what C-32 says. You want to know why? Because these are REASONABLE uses for content I PURCHASE!!!! Under no reasonable circumstance should I be expected to buy the same content for multiple devices. There is a word for this…GOUGING!!!
Legislation such as this is not enforcible at the civil level and will do NOTHING but hurt sales. It will have all kinds on damaging fallout like the DMCA has in the US. I have no idea why our government is trying to mimic legislation which has proven to be a complete failure at protecting what it was originally intended to protect.
So why are copyright groups pushing so hard to have some of these reforms removed from the bill? In 3 words…”BLANKET LAW SUITS”!!! …the new cash cow of the media world. Both the UK and the US have proven that this offers a huge potential for income…our copyright groups want to get on this gravy train as well.
We’ll see how all these digital locks, restrictions and law suits pan out in the end. But you know what, historically, for as long as commerce has existed, within reason, the customer is ALWAYS right and eventually ALWAYS gets their way!!!! With a few exception, you cannot force someone to buy something they don’t want!!! That’s why draconian copyright laws in a digital world are doomed to fail.
@Degen
The prof certainly has redefined scholarship with a 600 page book on the bill, 20 contributors, Canadian publisher, and free on the net. At least we can all agree on something.
@Degan you’ve made
your position on copyright perfectly clear,” Canadian copyright is a law for Canadian creators” from your own blog. I guess this is your new definition of balanced.
Most here think copyright needs modernizing just like you do, most here have only small problems with the bill. The most common of which is making something illegal which is also identified as being fair. That’s an odd contradiction.
Canadians are speaking up and want balanced copyright not one sided everyone should get everything for free copyright or one sided consumers have no rights copyright.
Kepp it up Degan you are becoming the poster boy for divisiveness.
legal “gravy train”
I’d expect it’s the various pro-excessive ownership lawyers who are hoping to have wide options for lawsuits.
As for the so-called “rights holders” (who do not always hold the rights, e.g. Access Copyright), it looks more and more like group bureaucracies and middlemen trying to both justify and pay for their existence.
I’m happy to pay creators (for creations I can use — creation does not occur in a vacuum, so heavy restrictions on use are not earned). Not organizations, though.
Jeff,
Please, don’t be so restrictive in your use of quotations from my blog. Your fair dealing rights give you much more, and I’m happy to have you repeat the fullness of the points that I make. That way, they’ll mean what I actually intended them to mean.
Here are the important words around the eight you pulled from my blog:
“As the debate on C-32 continues, you will hear a lot about new user rights, new consumer protections, new user exceptions to copyright, and fair consumer dealings under the law. Let’s be clear. Canadian copyright is a law for Canadian creators. It exists to give reasonable protection to the creative work and intellectual property of Canadians, and to secure fair markets within the knowledge economy. We must not destabilize these markets. All new consumer exceptions should be thoroughly examined for potential harm to creators, and established creative markets such as education must be protected.
Those who have framed copyright reform as a fight between consumers and creators do a terrible disservice to Canadian culture as a whole. Canadians are recognized worldwide for our creativity and cultural products, and each and every Canadian citizen is a potential professional creator.”
If you need further explanation, here it is — distinctions between creators and users under copyright depend on a false dichotomy that states we are one or the other. In fact, we are — all of us — by our very natures both creators and users at once. Copyright is the part of our law that focuses on our creator selves. There are all sorts of other statutes and legal mechanisms to protect us as users and consumers.
Taking a crowbar to copyright and clumsily forcing our user selves into it helps no-one. The little extra you give to your user self comes at ridiculous cost to your creator self.
Who is divisive? I’d say it’s the dude with the crowbar in his hand.
Darn there’s that mirror again…
@Degen “It sure does look an awful lot like political campaigning over here.”
… as opposed to what you see at balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca or johndegen.blogspot.com 0_o
Oh, and John. Still no comments allowed at balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca, which hosts an article written by you. You blasted Geist for asking for comments but failing to display them on the actawatch.org site and in your own words …
“I’d now have to write a long posting questioning Geist’s ethics in creating the info site, wondering who his backers are and what he’s really telling people behind the screen of ‘free’ public comment.”
If your ethics are affronted by a site asking for comments but not posting them, then I suggest you may want to request to have your articles on balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca removed. After all, it would only be the honest thing to do.
Nice table…
…where I can see they oppose any kind of use of recordings. So why don’t we ban recording altogether? Allow live performances only.
BTW, a word to those “arteests”: in the end, it’s you that have a product to sell and I’m the guy with the money. If your product s**ks (by itself or because of laws making its usage impractical), I just won’t buy it.
Nap.
@degen
The current exceptions for consumers are a smoke screen, consumers get nothing, eventually everything will be protected by digital locks. This bill should just delete these exceptions and quit trying to pretend it’s something it’s not. And please do tell how my creator self gets hurt when locks are broken for legal purposes. I’ve yet to see an explanation of that one.
While this bill could definitely use some improvements from the creators standpoint, sticking to this rights grab of digital locks will likely kill the bill, hope you’ll be happy with that.
Crockett,
Yeah, you get pretty far down the rabbit hole there. My point in the out-of-context quote you used is that it’s Geist’s standard MO to pretend that mere ineptitude is actually hidden evil intent. He’s the one who slashed out the kneejerk accusation that Balanced Copyright is an astroturf group, jumping the political gun and insulting a whole bunch of real people working in a real industry in the process.
So that’s why it’s funny that he then built another of his cookie cutter “concerned citizen advocacy sites” from which he could attack ACTA. See how he does the very thing he accuses others of doing? See how my doing that to him calls attention to how he does it to others? You have to follow the whole discussion to get the brilliance of my sarcasm but, trust me, it’s pretty good stuff.
Or you could just throw yourself in front of the Professor to protect him from his own methods.
Jeff, what makes me happy is honest, good-faith discussion toward amending and eventually passing a real copyright reform bill. That’s probably why I often seem unhappy over here.
@Degen
“All new consumer exceptions should be thoroughly examined for potential harm to creators, and established creative markets such as education must be protected.”
Should this not be a two-way street where new consumer restrictions such as digital locks and anti-circumvention should also be “thoroughly examined for potential harm to” consumers. Only a fool would argue that change is not required to our copyright system, but changes benefiting either side should be “thoroughly examined”, especially those which heavily tilt the balance either way. I would be just as opposed to this bill if it removed all protections and made everything free, this would only benefit the consumer and leave nothing for the creator. If they can’t make money, few will bother to create and that doesn’t benefit me in any way. On the other extreme (C-32 with digital locks and anti-circumvention), if content becomes so locked down that users can only use it on certain devices or have to buy multiple copies for multiple devices then I would also argue that sales will also drop, again not benefiting anyone. Consumers don’t get new content, creaters make less from a drop in sales. That’s why there needs to be some assemblance of balance. Yes, creators need to be compensated, but consumers also need to feel they’re getting something for their money.
You know, if/when it gets to this point, I will simply not buy such content and many of my friends plan to do the same. With the Internet, there is a whole world of media out there waiting to be discovered and if our creators want to lock us in to stupid contract-style restrictions, my money will go to creators in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, etc. YouTube is a GREAT tool for finding such alternatives. Just last night, I ordered a BluRay disk (Region Free) from France (Amazon.fr) of a concert that was recorded in HD. Unfortunately for me the band is from the Netherlands and this recording was only released in North America as DVD, totally negating the benefit of the HD. Even then, it was a very limited release with no sniff of a BD. I could have just as easily downloaded a disk image of it (15G on the torrent sites). As I said a number of times, I only download something I cannot find to buy anywhere in Canada, usually foreign content never released here, at which point much of it becomes legal under the Berne Convention. However…I will still buy it if I can find it as the original is preferable and I want these people to continue to produce.
As an aside, while I agree with you that most creators (Those looking to profit from it anyway) are equaly consumers, I disagree the other way. Your average Joe Blow consumer is usually no more a creator than my cats are.
Mr. Degen, what you repeatedly fail to realize, perhaps willingly, is that most people here aren’t looking for free…we’re looking for FAIR!!
Spin
Geist does put a lot of spin on things that get his ‘followers’ in a tizzy. Half the comments on here have misunderstood the points made by the creator groups.
At no point do they say they want format-shifting to be illegal/infringing copyright. Rather, they are simply saying that the creation of copies obviously has a value to the user, so why should it be free? Their point is, let’s allow format shifting, time shifting and other consumer uses, but put a small fee on it.
It is already the case. One of the comments above complains about the positions and claims he has been making copies of music for his car for years. Yes, and when he used a cassette, he paid a small fee which would then be collected and given to artists.
An extension of this already in place copying regime does not limit the consumer uses at all, rather it is an attempt to legalize them by providing compensation to creators.
And why complain to creators about digital locks. They have not advocated for them or supported their inclusion in this bill. Digital locks are a business decision made by the distributors of content, not the creator. They have decided to use this model and the government has decided to protect their interests. Let’s be clear here, this government is protecting the interest of the big media distribution companies, not creators. Meaning creators and user are not on opposite sides for most of these issues.
On the education issue, again, forget Geist’s rhetoric about ‘important education balance’ provisions. What a load of nonsense. Here’s a fact for you. The monies saved by eliminating copyright licences for educational purposes represents less than 1% of the educational budgets of learning institutions. Yet it means a great deal to artists whose average income levels are in the mid $20 thousand range. Ask yourself what is the point of this. Why kill the educational publishing sector in this country? Why end up with U.S. textbooks in Canadian schools. Do we really want to be nothing more than a nation of Americans with a different flag?
And if you don’t think this has anything to do with attacking certain creative endeavors, ask yourself why software (a creative endeavor) still must be paid in full and not copied for education, but a textbook is ok to simply copy.
…
@Degen: “My point […] is that it’s Geist’s standard MO to pretend that mere ineptitude is actually hidden evil intent.”
We were discussing C-32 here, not Michael?
So, you finally admitted that C-32 is either inept or hiding evil?
Either way it should not be passed period.
Nap.
“At no point do they say they want format-shifting to be illegal/infringing copyright. Rather, they are simply saying that the creation of copies obviously has a value to the user, so why should it be free? Their point is, let’s allow format shifting, time shifting and other consumer uses, but put a small fee on it.”
Why though? They’ve already made money off of it, why should they make more just because I want to move my DVD to my iPod?
“It is already the case. One of the comments above complains about the positions and claims he has been making copies of music for his car for years. Yes, and when he used a cassette, he paid a small fee which would then be collected and given to artists.”
And there’s a copy levy on CDs, which is probably the most retarded thing this country has done in the name of protecting Canadian creators.
“On the education issue, again, forget Geist’s rhetoric about ‘important education balance’ provisions. What a load of nonsense. Here’s a fact for you. The monies saved by eliminating copyright licences for educational purposes represents less than 1% of the educational budgets of learning institutions. Yet it means a great deal to artists whose average income levels are in the mid $20 thousand range. Ask yourself what is the point of this. Why kill the educational publishing sector in this country? Why end up with U.S. textbooks in Canadian schools. Do we really want to be nothing more than a nation of Americans with a different flag?
And if you don’t think this has anything to do with attacking certain creative endeavors, ask yourself why software (a creative endeavor) still must be paid in full and not copied for education, but a textbook is ok to simply copy.”
How would the education exemption make it okay to copy a text book rather than buy it? How would the eduction exception “destroy education publishing”?
If you want to talk about spin, you should really make sure not to have any yourself.
How would the education exemption make it okay to copy a text book rather than buy it? How would the eduction exception “destroy education publishing”?
If you want to talk about spin, you should really make sure not to have any yourself.
——-
How is that spin? The education exceptions would make it possible for the school to buy one copy and then copy it or display it for teaching purposes. Go talk to education publishers and ask them the end result if this goes through.
As to private copying, as I said, the copy has value to you, why should that not equate to value for the creator? You could buy a CD/DVD and a digital version, or you can by just the physical version and make a copy for digital purposes. Both should have some value for creators.
As for the ‘they’ve already been paid” comment, how much of that CD/DVD sale do you think goes to the person who actually created the content vs. the company that packages it? Which do you think is the greater endeavor?
“How is that spin? The education exceptions would make it possible for the school to buy one copy and then copy it or display it for teaching purposes. Go talk to education publishers and ask them the end result if this goes through. ”
Really? Cause it certainly doesn’t look like that use would be fair dealing to me. You know, the basis on which copyright, no matter the exemptions, are dealt with. This certainly sounds like spin to me.
“As to private copying, as I said, the copy has value to you, why should that not equate to value for the creator? You could buy a CD/DVD and a digital version, or you can by just the physical version and make a copy for digital purposes. Both should have some value for creators. ”
They do, and depending on which I choose to buy they get money for that. Once they have my money for the one, why should they get more money just because I want to move a DVD copy to digital because I want to watch it on my computer or iPod? I already purchased it once, why do I need to pay another fee just because I want to watch it in a different format. I mean, if they wanted to do that they should have licenced the copy it and not sold it.
“As for the ‘they’ve already been paid” comment, how much of that CD/DVD sale do you think goes to the person who actually created the content vs. the company that packages it? Which do you think is the greater endeavor?”
Not very much, I already knew that. That really doesn’t have anything to do with what I said though. That’s also not a copyright issues, that’s an issue between the content creator and their distributor.
…
“How is that spin? The education exceptions would make it possible for the school to buy one copy and then copy it or display it for teaching purposes. Go talk to education publishers and ask them the end result if this goes through. ”
Really? Cause it certainly doesn’t look like that use would be fair dealing to me. You know, the basis on which copyright, no matter the exemptions, are dealt with. This certainly sounds like spin to me.
—–
So, are you arguing about the proposed Bill without having actually read it? You do realize that ‘education’ has not only been added to fair dealing but that there are also other exceptions in the Bill for educational purposes.
One thing you are right about though is the ambiguity. That means lawsuits, lawsuits, and more lawsuits. That is the problem with opening up fair dealing with unclear terms such as ‘education’, it just leads to litigation. Should that really be the outcome we want from a copyright act?
“They do, and depending on which I choose to buy they get money for that. Once they have my money for the one, why should they get more money just because I want to move a DVD copy to digital because I want to watch it on my computer or iPod? I already purchased it once, why do I need to pay another fee just because I want to watch it in a different format. I mean, if they wanted to do that they should have licenced the copy it and not sold it.”
But that is what I’m saying. When yo buy a CD/DVD, you buy one technology which allows for viewing on a certain number of devices. If you copy it for use on other devices, it is becasue you value the copy. The creator has not been paid for that use already, they were paid for the CD/DVD sale only. Look, as a consumer, I completely understand your argument, but I also believe we should give payment where it is due. I don’t carry around an iPod because I think it’s a pretty fashion accessory. Is value to me is the content that is on it.
“So, are you arguing about the proposed Bill without having actually read it? You do realize that ‘education’ has not only been added to fair dealing but that there are also other exceptions in the Bill for educational purposes.
One thing you are right about though is the ambiguity. That means lawsuits, lawsuits, and more lawsuits. That is the problem with opening up fair dealing with unclear terms such as ‘education’, it just leads to litigation. Should that really be the outcome we want from a copyright act? ”
Yes. That doesn’t make every use in the name of education fair. And lawsuits are fine since that would be the outcome anyway when someone used it in a way you didn’t like, included in the fair dealings or not. If you’re really that afraid of lawsuits, then we should just do away with copyright all together.
“But that is what I’m saying. When yo buy a CD/DVD, you buy one technology which allows for viewing on a certain number of devices. If you copy it for use on other devices, it is becasue you value the copy. The creator has not been paid for that use already, they were paid for the CD/DVD sale only. Look, as a consumer, I completely understand your argument, but I also believe we should give payment where it is due. I don’t carry around an iPod because I think it’s a pretty fashion accessory. Is value to me is the content that is on it.”
And if the creator wants to charge me because I want to move something I already paid for to a different format, they should change how they sell their product. Move to licencing fees instead of purchasing fees. But when I buy something, I expect to be able to use it how I want to use it without any additional fees. I understand your point, but just because I can make a copy that I value doesn’t mean that the creator should get more money out of me without changing how they sell their product in the first place.
Welcome, Sven!
Thanks you for bringing some creator voice to the discussion, rather than the pro-distributor/collective pretenders that we get so often.
@Sven “As for the ‘they’ve already been paid” comment, how much of that CD/DVD sale do you think goes to the person who actually created the content vs. the company that packages it? Which do you think is the greater endeavor?”
I, and many others here, think you do not get your fair due from your work, as much is sucked up by the distributors costs and overheads (and insane litigation costs). That is why it is so hard to understand why many creators are so defensive of the CRIA/RIAA/MPAA and the likes?
I was listening to Pandora yesterday and heard a new group that I really enjoyed. I went to their OWN band website portal and purchased the album directly from there. Now, I am not certain what percentage they get from that sale but I would think it would be much more than from iTunes or a RIAA produced CD.
Now I understand that all types of media may not benefit as much from this type of model but surely the need for the old media business models in decreasing and better opportunities for creators keeping their profits merits moving in this direction.
Having said all that, it is my position that the MP3 album I downloaded should be able to be used on my iPod, computer, media server or burned onto a CD to play in my car without further compensation paid out. I go out of my way to support artists directly as much as possible and fair uses without further payments should also be recognized.
By working towards these two outcomes I believe that both creators and consumers can come to a better and more lucrative relationship. Certainly, the direction of the organizations which proport to represent you are doing the opposite to attain good relationships. Suing your customers has always been a shortsighted, greed based fools errand.
It will take a while for new business models to take hold, while the old ones fight it tooth and nail. I hope though, that eventually creators will be able to distance themselves from the mess that their professional organizations have created and enjoy better profits and relationships with their fans … isn’t that what all artists want?
Yes. That doesn’t make every use in the name of education fair. And lawsuits are fine since that would be the outcome anyway when someone used it in a way you didn’t like, included in the fair dealings or not. If you’re really that afraid of lawsuits, then we should just do away with copyright all together.
—
Wow, we really do look at the world differently. Lawsuits are NOT a desirable outcome at all, in fact, a clear copyright law should seek the avoidance of them. That is part of why collective licensing was created, to find a way to license uses rather than litigate them. Are you a litigator, because I don’t know any other type of person who is actually for incrased recourse to the courts – it is prohibitivly expensive.
And the point anyway is why should people who create intelectual property for education not be as fully paid for their products as the guy who builds the desks? Funny how you never hear professors/teachers volunteer to work for free (or a a reduced wage) for the good of education despite the fact that their salaries are significantly larger than creators’.
“And if the creator wants to charge me because I want to move something I already paid for to a different format, they should change how they sell their product. Move to licencing fees instead of purchasing fees. But when I buy something, I expect to be able to use it how I want to use it without any additional fees. I understand your point, but just because I can make a copy that I value doesn’t mean that the creator should get more money out of me without changing how they sell their product in the first place.”
That would perhaps workable in an ideal world, but if you are suggesting creators should change how they sell their work then you are grossly unaware of how creative industries work. Even when part of a wider organized creator group (Guild, Union etc..) creators are faced with a massive imbalance in bargaining position. Rights are hoovered up by production/distribution companies. In the past 5-10 years, digital distribution rights have been included in contracts without any further compensation to creators. Changing the biz model to favour creatives over producers/distributors is never going to happen.
Again, this is why we have collectives. We need to compensate our artists in creative ways because they are utltimately, despite being the most important part, the bottom feeders in the industry.
Anyway, time to go. Don’t hate creators for wanting to be paid for their work. It isn’t exactly easy what they do (despite the fact that everyone and their brother thinks they can do the same). And don’t buy into everything Geist says – don’t you think he has an agenda, too?
@Degen “He’s the one who slashed out the kneejerk accusation that Balanced Copyright is an astroturf group”
John, When you sign up for the ‘balanced’ copyright site you are encouraged in a step 1-2-3 process to send an uneditable letter to your MP espousing the views of this distributor/collective backed website.
If that does not fall into the Astroturf category then please state your definition.
Couple of comments
A few comments:
First, with respect to the ACTAWatch site, the comment issue has finally been fixed and the site accepts unmoderated comments. My apologies for the long delay.
Second, I am genuinely surprised that this post should be generate any controversy or suggestions of spin. I simply quote directly from (and link to) the ACTRA piece. Calling for the removal of the education fair dealing provision, the development of graduated response, and the creation of a levy for format shifting are not minor tweaks or criticisms as they would dramatically alter the balance the government has tried to strike. The groups are obviously entitled to these views (I have no doubt they are presented in good faith) but they can’t argue for these changes and simultaneously claim to support the bill.
Third, on the substantive issues, the claim that a new education category of fair dealing will kill educational publishing or allow for massive uncompensated copying is completely inaccurate, as has been documented repeatedly on this and other sites, in the peer reviewed volume on C-32 that I recently published, and affirmed by the Federal Court of Canada. Indeed, it is those claims that are perhaps the best illustration of spin and manipulation that we’ve witnessed since the bill was introduced.
MG
@Degen “Yeah, you get pretty far down the rabbit hole there.” “You have to follow the whole discussion to get the brilliance of my sarcasm…”
Actually, the real issue for you is do what I say not what I do. What is OK for me is not OK for you.
Less about ‘brilliance’ and more about integrity John.
“Wow, we really do look at the world differently. Lawsuits are NOT a desirable outcome at all, in fact, a clear copyright law should seek the avoidance of them. That is part of why collective licensing was created, to find a way to license uses rather than litigate them. Are you a litigator, because I don’t know any other type of person who is actually for incrased recourse to the courts – it is prohibitivly expensive.”
No. I’m a computer programmer by profession. The problem with a clear law really is that it becomes to specific and either things that would benefit the creator end up slipping through the cracks of technicality, or the uses end up not being large enough and people end up being charged for things that they really shouldn’t be. I’m a fan of ambiguity because it allows for more things to be caught. Sure this adds more court litigation, but I don’t see that as a problem.
“And the point anyway is why should people who create intelectual property for education not be as fully paid for their products as the guy who builds the desks? Funny how you never hear professors/teachers volunteer to work for free (or a a reduced wage) for the good of education despite the fact that their salaries are significantly larger than creators’.”
Why would creators of intellectual property for education have to work for free with the education exemption? If you want the exemption changed slightly to make it more clear that the full use of a work or that the wholesale copying of text books should be wrong, that’s fine. But that’s a while different thing than getting the whole thing removed, which I haven’t seen anyone suggesting is the actual case that people want.
“That would perhaps workable in an ideal world, but if you are suggesting creators should change how they sell their work then you are grossly unaware of how creative industries work. Even when part of a wider organized creator group (Guild, Union etc..) creators are faced with a massive imbalance in bargaining position. Rights are hoovered up by production/distribution companies. In the past 5-10 years, digital distribution rights have been included in contracts without any further compensation to creators. Changing the biz model to favour creatives over producers/distributors is never going to happen.
Again, this is why we have collectives. We need to compensate our artists in creative ways because they are utltimately, despite being the most important part, the bottom feeders in the industry.”
Which is a problem, but that’s not a problem with copyright. Why should I have to pay more because the creators are being screwed by the publishers/distributors, who are more than likely to get more of the money I pay anyway for those additional uses? If a creator wants to be paid for me to be able to make a copy of something I bought, then there needs to be a shift in the way the industry as a whole deals with selling things to the consumer.
“Anyway, time to go. Don’t hate creators for wanting to be paid for their work. It isn’t exactly easy what they do (despite the fact that everyone and their brother thinks they can do the same). And don’t buy into everything Geist says – don’t you think he has an agenda, too? ”
I don’t hate creators, and I want them to be paid. I also just want to be treated fairly by them as well, which the current bill is far from promoting, and will be even less so with the pro-consumer provisions removed. I’ve disagreed with Giest before, but most of the people who come here to post against him generally don’t do so to actually disagree, but to just attack Giest.
United Front? BS
SAC is listed in this “backgrounder” SAC doesn’t not support the Graduated Response. Wondering if this is just window dressing to appear to be united here due to a very weak political position by extremist creator groups going into this.
@Sven
Sven said: “It is already the case. One of the comments above complains about the positions and claims he has been making copies of music for his car for years. Yes, and when he used a cassette, he paid a small fee which would then be collected and given to artists. An extension of this already in place copying regime does not limit the consumer uses at all, rather it is an attempt to legalize them by providing compensation to creators.”
Yes…and I’ve already paid the levy on that blank CD I’m using in the car, why should I be expected to pay more to make more copies? Or limited in what I can do with that retarded DRM used on iTunes or Napster or any other TPM. As I said previously, I immediately convert them to MP3 and remove the DRM. The original file sits in my download folder and NEVER gets played. Not one of them has ever been played…not one.
Sven said: “And why complain to creators about digital locks. They have not advocated for them or supported their inclusion in this bill. Digital locks are a business decision made by the distributors of content, not the creator. They have decided to use this model and the government has decided to protect their interests. Let’s be clear here, this government is protecting the interest of the big media distribution companies, not creators. Meaning creators and user are not on opposite sides for most of these issues.”
Unfortunately, this is splitting hairs. If I’m getting scr3w3d by digital locks I don’t care who’s responsible, I’ll take my business, and money, elsewhere. It’s nothing personal against the actual creators.
Sven said: “But that is what I’m saying. When yo buy a CD/DVD, you buy one technology which allows for viewing on a certain number of devices. If you copy it for use on other devices, it is becasue you value the copy. The creator has not been paid for that use already, they were paid for the CD/DVD sale only.”
This is a weak arguement at best. For one, I never agreed with the private copying levy as it assumes people are guilty of making ilicite copies of content they do not own…the original intent of the legislation and that’s all well and good for recovering those costs. However if I purchase a CD or a movie, just like a book, I should be able to to make as many copies, of any part, in any form, I want…provided they’re for my own personal use, I don’t give them away and I make no money from them. That being said, your thinking is flawed, I don’t know anyone who “values” the copies or who would pay for them, I don’t value the copies not in the least…I value the original, the source, the thing I purchased. The copy is nothing more than a means for a temporary or one-time use. I regularly create, delete and/or dispose of copies. The original is the only constant, the only thing of value, the thing sitting in my media closet or, in the case of music purchased on-line, sitting on multiple RAIDed drives to ensure it’s not lost. I’m still only using one copy at a time. This is nothing more than a money grab by big media.
Genuinely surprised? That’s pretty smiley and shiny… and everything else. What, me spin?
Dr. Geist, you are advocating – campaigning really – for greater user provisions within the Act. You have been very clear that the TPM protections cannot stand as written for you to be happy. And, frankly, it looks like you use some pretty sloppy interpretations — some might say spin and manipulation — while making that call:
http://bit.ly/9KUu7M
The ACTRA backgrounder talks about fixing C-32, not destroying attempted reform. The writer coalition release you attacked earlier asked for “clear legislative guidance,” which somehow became an attack on fair dealing reform.
Why go through a “genuinely surprised” charade? You’ve built this spin machine. Own it.
@Degan
The section on TPMs did not have anything about it being only commercial. The only one who said anything about it being only commercial were the ministers introducing it. The bill covers for everything except for a few cases of fair use and software security/interoperability. Format shifting is not there, so yes Dr. Geist’s assertion is still correct. Unless you care to point out where it doesn’t, because the article you linked just says “It doesn’t” but doesn’t actually prove that at all.
@Degen
In all honesty. You come across more like you’re in a bad relationship with you filling the role of the jealous boyfriend. The amount of effort you seem to always put into using Dr. Geist name in everything you write across the internet is amusing to say the least. If Dr. Geist had a nickle for every time you wrote his name he would be a some what wealthy man. You would be better served to debate the actual issues at hand than to always try to make the argument some what personal.
Tho, by the looks of your writing as of late. Copyright debate has made you relevant I guess. With the constant bickering back and fourth against people who do not share your opinion, it has been some what successful with stroking your ego. So I guess I can’t hate.
@Degen
How exactly is the graduated response “fixing copyright”? Most (including politicians) would see this as an attempt by extremists like yourself to carry on this fight against consumers, and the contract between consumers and creators which is copyright law.
Why are creators like yourself so opposed to User rights. User rights = Canadian Citizen rights. The Internet is not just a play thing Degen, most of the politicians that creators like yourself are up against consider the internet to be an essential part of democracy and use this technology to communicate. Can’t wait to see the spin doctors on the graduated response own this policy in committee.
Trust me eio31, I look forward to the day I can forget this blog exists.
I happily and regularly write tens of thousands of words without reference to copyright.
Good times.
As to my relevance, I’m afraid that’s pretty much all invested in the Leafs right now. How scary is that?
…
@Sven: “At no point do they say they want format-shifting to be illegal/infringing copyright. Rather, they are simply saying that the creation of copies obviously has a value to the user, so why should it be free? Their point is, let’s allow format shifting, time shifting and other consumer uses, but put a small fee on it. ”
Breathing air obviously has a value to these arteests, so why should it be free? The point is, lets allow them breathe freely, but put a small fee on it.
Nap.
Copyright is an out-righteous joke, only does more harm than good. Period.
No kidding. It’s not like the consumer isn’t already losing first sale rights in a digital economy for the most part. Why should anyone care about fair use rights as well…
@Degen “You’ve built this spin machine. Own it.”
lol .. ditto, sir.
…
Jason K said:
“How exactly is the graduated response “fixing copyright”? Most (including politicians) would see this as an attempt by extremists like yourself to carry on this fight against consumers, and the contract between consumers and creators which is copyright law.”
Graduated response is a farce, a mockery of democracy. Like the private copying levy, it takes the stance of guilty until proven innocent and puts the burden of proving innocence on to the accused rather than properly placing the burden of proof on to the accuser. With how easy it is to steal someone’s IP address or hack a wireless, this is an a$$ backward$, corporate-$erving, bull$hit perver$ion of justice…some of the best laws money can buy. Now ask me how I really feel. ;-D
Creator Groups… what does that mean exactly?
Certainly sounds to me like these “creator groups” are professional organizations, unions and copyright collectives.
Belonging to an organization does not mean that the executive speaks for you. Let’s take ACTRA. If Gordon Pinsent were to call up ACTRA and tell them to jump, ACTRA would probably say “how high”. Yet if some guy named Irving who is a bit player who is lucky to get a line on a sitcom once or twice a season would call up ACTRA and tell them to jump, he’d be lucky to get laughed at.
When ACTRA takes a vote (secret ballot please) we’ll have something to talk about. Even still, it’s easy to mark an “x” without understanding an issue. And for an issue as complicated as this, a written statement — like in a Copyright Consultation, say — from each member would go a lot farther in convincing me that the membership understands and/or empowers the organization to speak for them. Nothing against ACTRA, they’ve done a good job for their members. Just that ACTRA exists to negotiate contracts, not make law. And we need to remember that the agendas of professional organizations, unions and copyright collectives are not always in perfect harmony with the wants and needs of the membership. This is particularly true when the scope of the member representation is exceeded by the organization.
When people join a political party they don’t give up their right to an opinion… nor their right to vote.
Just because Barry Sookman and Michael Geist are both most likely members of the Canadian Bar Association, I doubt either of them would agree to allow the Canadian Bar Association to speak for them on copyright reform.
Creators
The problem with the whole system is that so many “creators” sign away their life and don’t actually own the content they “create”. Creators are making pennies while the collectives and organizations are laughing all the way to the bank. This is true in most areas, movies, books, comics, music, etc. So when most people say “creators”, this is of course a misnomer and one which I think most understand. Of course, no amount of legislation will help the actual creators. They’ve signed and agreed to these horrible, restrictive contracts, so C-32 won’t help them, graduated response won’t help them no legislation will help them unless the industry is investigated for unfair business practices…which will never happen.
C-32 does no more to help the actual “creators” than it does to help the consumer. C-32 comes close to a feasible ballance, but as it’s currently written, it’s a solely a corporate-serving piece of garbage.
Take the R out of ACTRA …
A group of 70+ law professors has signed a letter to President Obama demanding a host of changes to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which has just been negotiated by the US. The letter alleges that Congress must be consulted on ACTA, that some of the rosy statements about the agreement not affecting US law have been false, and that no meaningful transparency has been in evidence. Those experts—joined by over 650 other experts and organizations—found that ‘the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.”
I guess the MPAA couldn’t afford to pay off all those law professors. Damn, the economy is affecting everyone these days 😉
@IamME
“Of course, no amount of legislation will help the actual creators.”
This legislation won’t help creators, but that doesn’t mean legislation to help creators is impossible. Of course, the government would have to first listen to creators. The first law needed to free creators would be a law to prevent assignment of copyright. The most that should ever be allowed would be for creators to license their work for a limited time period.
Reduced copyright term would help too.
So long as special interest groups like copyright collectives and industry associations are given precedence over creators in the making of laws, that will never happen.
However technology, affordability and Creative Commons licensing are making it possible for new creators to choose not to enter Industry indentured servitude, but rather to hang out a shingle independently.
Of course, now that the CRTC has given the green light to Bell’s Usage Based Billing “traffic management” scheme the Internet is about to get even more expensive for Canadians. Oh well.
@Laurel
I’m not sure I understand what’s different about Bell’s Usage Based Billing. It doesn’t sound much different than what other providors have been doing for years. I’ve been limited to a set bandwidth for years with my ISP who is most likely getting their bandwidth from Telus. I get 60G/mo. After that my Internet stops working and I have to phone them to add more bandwidth, only availble in 10G chunks at $24.99. I used to be limited to 40G, but over the summer they upped it to 60G, which was a nice surprise.
@IamME
What some of the DSL resellers (wholesale customers) used to be able to do was sell unlimited and high bandwidth plans, and Bell had to let them work. With this change, Bell can charge them a fixed GB limit like they can a normal consumer. This will generally cause Internet prices to go up for anyone currently or in the future who wants to use a smaller ISP.
Of course I’m rather pissed off at the “Let’s leave it to the market to update out infrastructure” that’s moved us from one of the leaders in Internet access to one of the worst in Internet access.
Attention Degen: Artists’ Resale Royalty is a benefit to artists who are dead and a cost to the young and the living. In the UK, under their resale scheme 50% of all money collected has been paid to just 20 living individuals. The biggest beneficiaries of any artists’ resale royalty are the rent-seeking management groups that seek a right to compulsory management fees.
Attention Michael: you do ‘Creatives’ a disservice by suggesting that the rent-seeking copyright collective agencies are in any way linked to creativity. Copyright is an individual right. It is not a compulsory licence to the likes of Degen.
@IamME
Bell is a carrier and an ISP. The carrier part provides internet connectivity to the Bell Retail ISP as well as selling wholesale bandwidth to the Independent ISPs that directly compete with Bell. The CRTC is supposed to both look out for customer interests and prevent Bell taking unfair advantage. In the US I suspect this would be considered an anti-trust issue.
CRTC allows Bell (and Rogers) to do what thy like to their own customers. Government mandated competition was intended to provide customer choice, so if Bell treats customers badly, customers could go elsewhere. Bell is allowed to cap and throttle their own customers. They are NOT allowed to throttle and cap and UBB other people’s customers. They had to go to the CRTC for permission to do these things.
Amazingly, CRTC gave them permission to first throttle and now to cap people who are not their customers. I personally find it monstrous that even though O have no business relationship with Bell, the CRTC can force me to pay Bell.
That’s one.
This Usage Based Billing is not instead of the old billing, but in addition to existing billing. Bell is forcing customers– again, not their own customers– to have a dramatic cost increase with zero increase in value.
That’s two.
Internet infrastructure is what costs money. Usage does not.
We pay a lot for mediocre service. High prices might be justified if Bell was actually improving the 15 year old Infrastructure. But, as Chris A mentioned, they have not.
That’s three.
If you’re interested, there’s more on the StopUBB blog I started a little over a year ago. http://stopusagebasedbilling.wordpress.com/
@IamME
Sorry, I neglected to mention your expanded cap was very likely due to increased competition from the Independent ISPs. The same way the cell phone companies suddenly managed to come up with better deals when WindMobile showed up.
…
@Laurel: “In the US I suspect this would be considered an anti-trust issue.”
Not since Reagan.
Nap.
Quick question…
…why is this blog making extensive use of Adobe Flash, not only it’s proprietary but also a security liability for visitors?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/28/adobe_reader_critical_vuln/
Nap. 🙂
Filesharing alert!
Quick, someone add a paragraph to C-32 to ban these:
http://datenform.de/blog/dead-drops-preview/
Nap. 🙂
@ Napalm: In Australia, what you are referring to is called ‘monopoly restrictions of the terms of trade of unrelated third parties’; the common term is ‘cartel’. Not long ago, a wealthy eminent philanthropist was jailed for a long term for offences of this nature. He was released shortly before he died. As Adam Smith identified, whenever businessman get together the talk soon turns to talk of monopolies. The real problem is insufficient protection against this all too human failing.
These Alphabet Organizations Don’t Represent Creators Interest
Been an artist for over 5 years now. As soon as I saw these positions, I immediately knew that these organizations are not representing creator interest. It couldn’t be more obvious with the second, fourth and fifth items Geist mentioned.
The day Canada brings in a graduated response (three strikes law) is the day artists have no future – only executives who simply reap billions of dollars off of artists, bankrupting many of the creators they claim to be representing in the process.
These groups that stand behind a graduated response are little more than legal parasites to society and they will gut everyone’s rights – including creators – until the last drop of artistic blood is saturated from the fabric of Canadian culture. They will do so with no remorse or sense of morality and they will do it with a smile on their face and their “support the artists” slogan ringing through the air. Once the cultural fabric of society is lifeless and colorless, they will abandon the country citing something like globalization or economics, leaving mere whirlwinds of dust behind.
The first wave is coming and we Canadians must stand guard and fight to retain our freedom. Canadians fended off C-60 and C-61 and Canadians should fend of these organizations that want to turn C-32 into the most anti-consumer, anti-creator legislation in Canadian history. I do this because I will fight for my rights and I will never back down!
…
@John: How would you qualify this:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/
i.e. Apple refusing to let you run open source / free software?
How exactly does this promote progress and helps the creators or the society?
Nap.
P.S. For people that don’t know what VLC is, it’s a video player that can play any video format (except DRMed ones so it’s not a circumvention tool), is open source and free.
…
@IanME: “Of course, no amount of legislation will help the actual creators.”
It all started when “the industry” introduced the notion of “intelectual propriety” as some kind of an “object” that they can buy, sell, lease or license.
And would be corrected when it would be acknowledged that the creators cannot sell their “intellect”, which is naturally their permanent propriety – they can only sell work performed using it.
Nap.
@ Napalm: In Australia, what you are referring to is called ‘monopoly restrictions of the terms of trade of unrelated third parties’; the common term is ‘cartel’. Not long ago, a wealthy eminent philanthropist was jailed for a long term for offences of this nature. He was released shortly before he died. As Adam Smith identified, whenever businessman get together the talk soon turns to talk of monopolies. The real problem is insufficient protection against this all too human failing.
“it would represent a near-complete gutting of many of the core elements of Bill C-32 and the removal any pretense of trying to strike a balance among stakeholders.”
The extreme absolutism and indifference to the concept of bargaining/compromise of these groups positions is typical of the narcissistic art academy’s that they inhabit.
The Government arts world simply is- a world of Aggressive Authoritarian Mediocrity.
“The expansion of fair dealing to include education and new exceptions for educational purposes subsidizes education at the expense of creators. Copyright material should not be free simply because it is used in schools.”
Extraordinary stuff! Education libraries are big purchasers of books- particularly books expressly written for education purposes. Talk about double dipping.
“subsidizes education at the expense of creators”
Distinguishing between copying for the purposes of education and copying for commercial purposes was the driving force to the development of the copyright/patten system in 19C Britain.
Creation is all about copying, all originality is ‘variations on a theme’: error prone copying plus selection pressure is the basis of all evolution.
These people are anti-creatives.
I am a creative , anybody who can copy the way I move is my equal.
@Sven
Your ‘creator coalition’ friends are closely linked to the Australian Coalition that lobbied (unsuccessfully) for a compulsory management right over the artist resale royalty .
These lobbyists were headed up by the collection agency, Viscopy and its chief lobbyist , the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA) .
In one of Viscopy and NAVA’s private submissions to the Australian federal government, they acknowledged that the compulsory resale royalty that they sought would create hardship for young artists. They stated that this hardship, would offer “unforeseen efficiency gains”. They stated that their scheme would act as a defective “market screening device”-it would reduce the number of young artists, and it would then ‘encourage’ the survivors to “work harder at enhancing their market position”.
All through the decade Viscopy/NAVA ,when in public, described their scheme as as an “important new benefit to artists”.
In another submission to the Australian Government NAVA stated that an important benefit of their scheme was “to create an appropriate level of income for the management services” [ of Viscopy ]’.
Sven – “your friendship costs to much, for the sake of my art be my open enemy”
the ACTRA document states that ” 59 countries that have the Artists’ Resale Right. “. The resale royalty differs so much from country to country to make claims of ‘A’ resale right intentionally misleading.
Only one common law country has a compulsory and retrospective resale royalty like the one ACTRA wants . That country is the UK.
New Zealand canned their scheme before it got off the ground , the Australian scheme is neither retrospective or for artists compulsory and the USA is unlikely to do much in the foreseeable future. The UK scheme came with a caveat , if you cannot get the world to harmonize with the EU/UK scheme , we will have to harmonize with the world.
So Canada is their last chance.
Copy-right is not licensing.
Unconsciously Accepting that copyright = licensing is accepting a inversion of copy-right: The full descriptor for copyright is a “Right of individual control of usage “, when that right of individual control is taken away and handed to a mandated compulsory collective all one is left with is “a mere right of remuneration” a very different and reduced concept to that of “the full rights of copy-right”.
…
@John Walker: “The full descriptor for copyright is a “Right of individual control of usage “, when that right of individual control is taken away and handed to a mandated compulsory collective all one is left with is “a mere right of remuneration” a very different and reduced concept to that of “the full rights of copy-right”. ”
But that’s the method of the scam. “The industry” can buy this “copyright” and “own” it. I’d say that the copyright should stay forever with the creator, and “the industry” could just license usage rights.
Nap.
@Laurel
“Sorry, I neglected to mention your expanded cap was very likely due to increased competition from the Independent ISPs. The same way the cell phone companies suddenly managed to come up with better deals when WindMobile showed up.”
Nah, I live in a rural area and my only options are wireless, dial-up, cellular or satelite. The wireless is most economical and as far as I know, the competition has not changed their plans. Their web site is garbage so I can’t even look up their plans. I think my providor had a lot of people leaving because previous to this they had a tiered billing structure which gave people in rural areas less bandwidth than those living in town, when they are all hitting the same tower. While, at the same time, the competition did not differently. My providor flatly told me it was becasue there was less competition so they could get away with charging more. This is a response that would not sit well with a lot of people. The only reason I din’t switch is becasue I’m lazy and the competitor providor has a dismal reputation for support. I know I sent them inquiries and specifically said I was considering switching…I never recieved responses.
BTW, thanks for the response on usage-based billing…I understand the difference now.
“Update 11/1: I have received a request to remove the link to the ACTRA document on the grounds that it was posted prematurely. I have been advised that there is not yet consensus among all groups listed in the document on the various C-32 issues.”
Question remains, why would ACTRA post a document if it was premature on consensus? This was from recollection a document hosted on the ACTRA site. They could have very well e-mailed the document to the interested parties rather than posting it publically on their site. I think some are getting cold feet with respect to the graduated response issues raised in this document, and having to face backlash from politicians, consumers, and the general public on such a policy proposal.
I also think that creators themselves (outside the usual industry trolls) are having issues with the graduated response as well. I guess we’ll find out when the final draft of this document is posted, to see how much this has changed.
@Degen
I am not sure what your intentions are here. I don’t think you are convincing anyone of anything here. More likely, you are turning fence sitters away from your ideology.
If you are trolling, then kudos to you, sir, you are doing a fantastic job. Everyone is biting!
If you are, like, totally for serious, well, at the end of the day…even if you have your way Degen, and the lawmakers listen to you, it won’t matter. Intellectual monopolies are going to die just like traditional mercantilism. The “market” will prevail, just not in the way you think. The internet will see to that. It would take a true totalitarian state to prevent that, and even that extreme may not be enough.
So troll on, Degen, troll on! It won’t make a lick of difference.
@jason k
over the past twenty five years nobody has paid much attention to the copyright collectives. The managements of these collectives haven become more and more out of touch with reality.
The copyright collectives really believe that they are the only ‘creator’, they are like the happy fool of point land who thinks he is the entire universe.
When they do stray into public view the look is pretty shocking, authoritarian aggressive narcissistic mediocrity is not very appealing.
Jesse said:
“Intellectual monopolies are going to die just like traditional mercantilism. The “market” will prevail, just not in the way you think. It would take a true totalitarian state to prevent that, and even that extreme may not be enough.”
EXACTLY!! I said something similar some time ago. You cannot force a consumer to like or dislike something just because it doesn’t fit your business model. In business, within reason of course, the customer is ALWAYS right. We’ve also had some not-so-nice discussions about the similarities between what the pro-copyright collective would like and the ideologies of totalitarian regimes. I’ve seen this comparison pop up a number of times on several different web sites. (To be clear, I was not involved the conversations/boards/blogs on other sites. As much as I periodically read several this is the only site I participate.)
@IamMe
Ever hear of something called “world of warcraft”? of course you have. It’s that game that utilizes peer pressure and skinnerian psychology to be addictive. Its actually crap, but it doesn’t -feel- like it.
My point is this: people are programmed, and its getting worse not better. Eventually, only people who can shield themselves selectively (IE think critically) from the influence of an ever more sophisticated tech industry will not be lining up at taco bell to get a suit or a check-up.
@ IamME
For creatives the ‘collective management’ model is but one of many business models that creatives could use.
For many creatives the collective management model is increasingly uncompetitive ; far too rigid, inflexible and expensive to run, hence the collectives need for compulsory monopoly powers OVER- creatives.
@john walker
I know very well the face collectives put on, I used to and still am a part of the creative industries. Most creators that are not on an authoritarian crusade against the consumers and padding themselves on the back in their blogs scoring “brownie” points with the execs, know very well collectives don’t represent “creators”. It’s just a sham that most “creators” have been silenced through contracts from speaking out against the collectives. As far as I’m concerned those trying to score “brownie†points with collectives should be nowhere near deciding which creators get funding from government *caugh* Degen.
If anything, what should seriously be looked at if you want to really protect creators income, is contract law with publishers, and collectives. You don’t need to convince me, and many, many others that aggressive copyright policies only benefit one party, and both the creator and consumer seem to not be in that equation, nor will they be if we end up with laws that reflect what the collectives are calling for.
I think most creators now have done enough research on their own on the issues with copyright, and I’m hoping during the committee process they stand up and speak out with the public voice and other Canadians, on their thoughts on all of this. This is their future, and from what I understand, the 11th hour is now upon us and many I believe will end up speaking against their own collectives in the near future. I think that’s already starting to happen for the most part.
@ Jason K
I am an visual artist, I make and sell UNIQUE- one off, objects, the people who ‘buy my act’ are my fans (Bless their cotton socks!).
The copy-right collectives tried to force the Australian government to force me to pay fees to their crappy uncompetitive management body, they got a good kicking.
The collectives developed a predatory attitude towards creatives a long time ago.
It dos seem to be the case that the simple truth : when these collectives ‘speak’ of the interests of creatives they are really speaking about their own interests, is a truth that is finally becoming a widely known truth.
Hopefully we will not have to put up with the moral hazard and moral panic of these very bad people for much longer.
Napalm
“I’d say that the copyright should stay forever with the creator, and “the industry” could just license usage rights.” is exactly the scam that turns an individual right of control of usage, into a mere ‘right of remuneration’; If you can not sell ‘it’ or give it away , then you do not own ‘it’.
A great australian book begins with these words ” Unemployed at last!” Freedom is all about the right to say no; No thanks I won’t work for you, you can take your money and shove it. Freedom is not a mere right to be paid.
“It dos seem to be the case that the simple truth : when these collectives ‘speak’ of the interests of creatives they are really speaking about their own interests, is a truth that is finally becoming a widely known truth.”
Agreed, and it seems to me anyway, the more isolated the collectives become, both politically, professionally, and publically. Many creators are becoming tech savvy. A great read:
Modernized Copyright Law In Canada – Not Exactly the Place to Start Reform:
http://www.heartist.ca/2010/10/modernized-copyright-law-in-canada/
@Degan
BTW, I asked that person you linked the same question I asked you here you haven’t answered, and my comment is still awaiting moderation.
Well, Chris A, I hope you get that cleared up soon.
I somehow doubt I will. Either way, it’s not likely to change my stance on digital locks provision.