Must Reads

Can Copyright Bill Survive With All Its Kinks

The Globe’s Kate Taylor offers a survey of reaction to C-32 and the challenges it will face in the legislative process.

Tags: /

15 Comments

  1. Fewer’s Comments
    “Fewer, for example, praises the way it goes after pirates rather than consumers, who will be subject to lower penalties if caught infringing copyright for non-commercial purposes.”

    Interesting that he defined pirates as commercial infringers, and separates out consumers! A welcome distinction, but not one you see very often.


  2. ““What the government gives with one hand, it takes away with the other,” notes John Lawford, a lawyer with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. ”

    Quite twisted comment. Remember that the default is that there is no copyright law. So *any* copyright law just *takes* from the consumer and *gives* to “the industry”.

    The “balance” is that whatever you take should not impede a legal, paying consumer to make full use of his purchased materials within his household. This is where the C-32 TPM provisions fall short.

    Nap.

  3. @Nap
    “Quite twisted comment. Remember that the default is that there is no copyright law. So *any* copyright law just *takes* from the consumer and *gives* to “the industry”.”

    This is backwards, copyright was originally created to *give* rights to the consumers and create the public domain. In England, After the creation of the printing press, but before the Statute of Anne in 1710, the “Stationers’ Company” had pure monopoly rights through the Licensing Act of 1662, over the boks they owned the right to.

    Copyright, as it exists today, ESPECIALLY in the presence of TMPs, lacks any rights for the consumer. It is a perversion of it’s original intent and reverting back to more of a licensing scheme much more than actual copyright.


  4. @IanME: “In England, After the creation of the printing press, but before the Statute of Anne in 1710, the “Stationers’ Company” had pure monopoly rights through the Licensing Act of 1662, over the boks they owned the right to.”

    How about before that? Or how about other countries?

    The Licensing Act of 1662 was not a “copyright” law. It was purely instating the “Stationer’s Company” discretionary power in controlling who can own a printing press and what they print with it, mostly as a censorship tool against “pamphlets” and other “seditious treasonable” materials…

    Nap.

    P.S. I got a captcha with greek letters lol.

  5. For the wool over their eyes crowd …
    It is quite sad to see all the reactions in the comments section of this article. So many people are believing the line they are being fed by the industry. For some of those who may make their way here I offer again this advice …

    While I can understand artists thinking ‘pirates’ are stealing their livelihood, the truth is quite different. In depth studies have shown that, on the whole, file sharing actually has a net positive effect on music sales. People who participate in file sharing actually buy much more media than those who do not.

    The actual reasons for lower profits in the music industry are: decline of the CD/Album format and rise of the digital singles; increased competition for the consumers entertainment dollar/time (video games/social networking/etc); and more recently, the economy. File sharing has little, if any, significant impact.

    The Internet actually offers a huge opportunity for artists who take the time and effort to pursue it. Music labels pass on an a max of 15% of sales to the artists, if they are lucky. Direct sales via the Internet/social networking/independent music sites would on the other hand put almost all of the profits in the artist’s pocket. The labels and the CRIA/RIAA know this and are running scared all the while predicting the end of the world.

    Artists would do well to see past the fud they are fed by the industry and embrace the future rather than go down with a sinking ship. The real thieves artists should watch out for are not the consumers but the industry itself.

  6. @ Nap
    Of course, it all pertains to England, but it has to start somewhere. 🙂

    Before that, it was primarily government controlled and, really, there weren’t “that” many machines, compared to today when everyone has a printer on their desk, so it was much easier to control. Before the printing press, it was all done by hand and incredibly labourious, so a non-issue. I’m sure there was a time, perhaps from about 1450 to maybe the early to mid 1500’s where there was a free-for all, but it was still all dependant on who could actually afford to buy the machine and supplies.

    Not really related, but might make for an interested connection. Being a rare book enthusiast, such things interest me. Sometimes books in the early 18th century…when all these copyright changes were happening, actually had a printed list bound in to the book of the recipients who would receive a copy. Perhaps this was some way they used to control distribution…who knows.

    One such book I have is a folio from 1738, “Remarks on several Parts of Europe” by “John Durant Breval”, his second book on the subject and a followup to the first printed in 1726. To my surprise it was worth several thousand dollars in good condition, unfortunately mine is in apauling condition :D, as with most of my books from that era. I primarily collect them keep them complete, to protect them from the cutters would would destroy the books to sell the engravings. The Breval book has 42 wonderful full page engravings, of which 21 are double page or fold-outs. When sold individually they would be easier to move and ultimately might make more than if the book was sold complete.


  7. @IanME:
    “Of course, it all pertains to England, but it has to start somewhere. :)”

    It started by completely removing liberties then giving some of them back. Good deal, eh?

    “…compared to today when everyone has a printer on their desk, so it was much easier to control. Before the printing press, it was all done by hand and incredibly labourious, so a non-issue.”

    Quick question: would you rather borrow a book, scan it and print a copy on your inkjet, instead of ordering it for $29 from amazon.ca?

    I guess no. But here’s exactly where RIAA/CRIA’s problems is. The CDs are way overpriced so their model is unsustainable without special legislation/policing/etc.

    “Sometimes books in the early 18th century […] had a printed list bound in to the book of the recipients who would receive a copy. Perhaps this was some way they used to control distribution…who knows.”

    This is exactly what Apple does these days with iTunes. When you download a music file, it comes with your name inside its header.

    Now imagine how it worked… you were caught reading a book without being listed inside it as an “authorized recipient”…. 200 lashes and 5 years in the Tower… lol…

    Nap. 🙂

  8. @Nap
    “Now imagine how it worked… you were caught reading a book without being listed inside it as an “authorized recipient”…. 200 lashes and 5 years in the Tower… lol…”

    LOL Stranger things have happened.

    I looked up the name on the bookplate and found more information than I could previously. The book has an ownership plate for “Sir Godfrey Copley (2nd Baronet of Sprotborough)”. The interesting thing, is that the book was published in 1738 and he died without a male heir in 1709. The title, Baronet of Sprotborough, became extinct was not reinstated until the 1760s. Makes me wonder if this was an early form of counterfeiting or if the book was built with boards from the different book. Notably “Sir Godfrey Copley” was not on the subscriber list. LOL

  9. @Crockett
    We’re moving into a new world where the market is changing much faster than the businesses (with all their layers of bureaucracy) and some creators can keep up with. So rather than try and keep up, they are trying to put the blame squarely elsewhere and get their business models legalized.

    For me, a lot of the reaction from creators is a fear of having to try and compete in a new world that they don’t understand and don’t want to. For the distributors, it’s a fear of becoming irrelevant. Neither want to get it because they don’t want to change, and in some cases can’t change to keep up with the changing world.


  10. @Crockett: The good old model of live performances still works and will work for the foreseeable future.

    I think it’s the couch arteests that are whining – those that dream that they could spend 3 days in the studio recording some tunes then living their whole lives from the royalties on it.

    Nap.

  11. @Crockett: You forgot a big one with respect to the drop in profits. Large retailers such as Walmart have negotiated agreements with the publishers. Let’s say that this year they pay $1.50 per unit they purchase, and with a, lets say, $0.75 per unit cost to produce, the publisher makes $0.75. Next year Walmart renegotiates the contract for $1.45, saving themselves $0.05 per unit, but the cost of production has remained static or has gone down by $0.01 per unit. The publisher has lost $0.04 per unit with absolutely not piracy involved. Multiple that by the number of units sold… These are real losses but have absolutely zero to do with piracy. Of course, they can blame it on piracy so as not to piss off one of their largest distribution channels… with the side effect that what they are after means that more consumers are likely to go to that distribution channel, who drives down their own price some more, and the cycle begins.

  12. i give up
    just remove the blank between 23888/ and US_Library….

  13. Yeah, that’s one of the problems with an over-protective copyright scheme that few people for it seem to acknowledge.