- Oppose the extension of the private copying levy to iPods. Given their desire to find an alternative, they are proposing the creation of a new fund to compensate artists for losses incurred due to “uncompensated” downloads. Funding would come out of general revenues – not from a new levy scheme on devices or ISPs.
- Support extending fair dealing to education, but will seek clarification on the scope of education and the inclusion of a test to determine what constitutes “fairness”
- Support reforms to the digital lock provisions so that consumers will have the right to circumvent for personal uses
- Support retention of the mashup provision with tightened language
- Support the creation of a new resale right for artists
- Remove the ephemeral provision to retain payments by broadcasters
Earlier this fall, I wrote a piece outlining where I thought compromise positions on Bill C-32 might lie. I argued for reforms to the digital lock provisions, for the inclusion of a test on fairness within fair dealing, and for the use of guaranteed funding programs in lieu of new levies.
Yes!!!
The Liberals may actually get my vote in the next election and me a long time conservative.
Why should the government compensate for theft?
Does the government have a fund to pay retailers for losses incurred due to shoplifting?
Why is the recording industry any different. Theft is part of every industry.
Other than that I like the Liberals’ positions.
1) Like the solution to the “levy” problem, and that’s the way it should be if there is going to be a system like this.
2) Sounds good.
3) This is excellent news as well.
4) Eh, neutral.
5 and 6) Not sure what this means.
…
1) Whatever you do make sure that the funds are spent in an accountable, transparent way. Don’t just transfer them to CRIA’s bank account.
2) More clarity in the law is always welcomed
3) Decent; however I would want to see all mentions to digital locks removed
4) Neutral
5) This is wrong; see what it can lead to:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/15/1922205/First-Sale-Doctrine-Lost-Overseas
6) don’t know what it is / no opinion
Thanks for reading,
Nap.
@ Chris A
5. It means that artists can receive compensation when their paintings are resold through a broker, auction house, ect. The European model allows for between 0.25-4% of the purchas price be paid back to the artist for paintings >1000 Euros. Not sure I’m in support of this, as the artist was already paid for the work at the initial point of sale.
@Greg
Ah, okay. Generally neutral since it really depends on how it’s implemented and handled.
…
@Greg: “5. It means that artists can receive compensation when their paintings are resold through a broker, auction house, ect. The European model allows for between 0.25-4% of the purchas price be paid back to the artist for paintings >1000 Euros. Not sure I’m in support of this, as the artist was already paid for the work at the initial point of sale. ”
This is wrong, see the link I posted. However if they’re willing to go ahead with it. Will it apply too to some other copyrighted works such as computer software. Because I can see even bigger issues with that. Not to mention that the interior design of my car and especially the logo affixed to the driving wheel are copyrighted art. If I sell my car should I pay the manufacturer again?
Nap.
#3 not far enough
Point #3 is a good start, but it simply doesn’t go far enough. Personal use is insufficient to protect creator’s rights, particularly software developers, documentary filmmakers, journalists. Not to mention Ottawa’s reverse engineering industry, recently profiled in G&M.
1) “Funding would come out of general revenues”
What are general revenues?
Why can’t artists be compensated with the money that comes from infringement convictions. A levy or fund implies a license to steal. To then take money from people who are convicted of stealing seems like double-dipping. Should be one or the other.
General revenues are still tax dollars so in the end it is still a tax supported plan.
I don’t mind supporting artists in producing their works through grants, etc. but to then compensate them for losses due to theft that are both overstated and difficult to calculate is ridiculous.
Artists and record companies should go after thieves the same way they would if they were stealing a truck of CDs from a warehouse, through the courts.
Promising, but not quite there
The compromises are actually pretty reasonable.
Circumvention of digital locks needs to be legal not just for personal use, but for any otherwise non-infringing purpose. I like specifying personal use explicitly so that consumers won’t be dragged into court for a fight over fair dealing on a case by case basis, but reverse-engineering to verify patent compliance and circumvention for the purposes of compatibility outside the home can’t be outlawed either.
Compensation for artists is nice, but it will have to be all copyright holders, not just musicians, and there will have to be some mechanism to prevent them from taking the handout and then going after consumers anyway.
If MPs can push through the Liberal compromises with the two caveats above, then we’ll have a law we can live with. It’s by no means a huge victory for consumers or rights-holders, but it will pull us into the 21th century at least.
It would have been nice to have a larger policy discussion about how businesses built as content gate-keepers should be appropriately regulated and how the government can ensure that they facilitate innovation instead of hindering it. I guess that was hoping for too much.
@Jason
“Point #3 is a good start, but it simply doesn’t go far enough. Personal use is insufficient to protect creator’s rights, particularly software developers, documentary filmmakers, journalists. Not to mention Ottawa’s reverse engineering industry, recently profiled in G&M.”
Reverse engineering in IT is essential to adapt existing systems with upgrades. Without reverse engineering or allowing of this, the cost to the business community and economy would be staggering.
…
1) What general revenues? This makes it sound as if it will be coming out of my tax dollars which ultimately means it will cause an increase to my income tax. So a true tax, on EVERONE, whether you illegally copy or not. This is a shadey move to implement an updated levy without having to offer the benefits afforded by the current private copying levy.
2) Clarity is good. The “fairness” test is good.
3) I don’t think we’re going to see anything more lax than this. Unfortunately, we can’t exclude it altogether and still be WIPO compliant.
4) Again, good and good
5) I see all kinds of potential issues with this and I fundamentally diagree with it. Once I buy a painting, I’m buying the painting…NOT a lease on the painting. I own the painting once I buy it and owe the artist no further restitution. What copyright is protected under this provision, what is not? What constitutes an “artist”? Call it for what it is…a tax!!! For physical art, especially valuable, easily saleable, art, this will just push people to sell private or underground rather than going through an auction house.
6) Michael, can you clarify point 6? Are you talking about section 30.9(5) of the current copyright act? (i.e. “If the copyright owner authorizes the reproduction to be retained, the broadcasting undertaking must pay any applicable royalty.”)
Wrong. Making all taxpayers pay for this is the wrong way to do an alternative compensation scheme. Money has to come from from people with at least some connection to the levy. Also, if this is done by fiat through the Consolidated Revenue Fund it will be the subject of intense industry lobbying to forever raise the rate. If you are going to do this, money should come from people with some connection to the copying and the rate should be set by the Copyright Board not in some back room somewhere.
@David
“Why can’t artists be compensated with the money that comes from infringement convictions.”
I say why can’t artist be actually expected to earn a living on their own merrit. If they can’t, they should take a “real” job to supplement their income. As a software developer, if I can’t find a job and my EI runs out, do I get free money handouts from the government? Of course not, they would laugh at me since I would have to be pretty much destitute to get any sort of wellfare. We’re getting taxxed becasue they accept STUPID contracts. It should be these contracts with the recording industry that are legislated. The money from the convictions goes to the copyright holder…which is rarely the artist. This is also a slipperly slope, just look at the “John Doe” law suits in the US.
“A levy or fund implies a license to steal. To then take money from people who are convicted of stealing seems like double-dipping. Should be one or the other.”
It’s generally illegal to download copyrighted material, yet they want to tax us on the assumption we’re doing it anyway. This is called money laundering.
…
@IanMe: “If they can’t, they should take a “real” job to supplement their income. ”
Well. As a programmer I can work freelance or contractor or regular employee.
Freelance is the only way you could possibly become a millionaire and retire early. However, the chance to get there is slim to none and chances are that you’ll be just a “starving programmer”.
Contractor can land you some good pay but not much job security, you should be prepared to update your resume every year or so. Relatively steady income but no chance to ever be a millionaire.
Regular employee offers maximum job security and least pay.
To each its own. However I don’t see why those opting for “regular” should pay a levy to support those guys going for millionaire but not succeeding.
Same with artists. They can make a modest income as an employee somewhere or go for the big pot. Why should I support the later when they fail.
Nap.
Digital lock enforcement for private copying should simply be removed. There’s no need to “balance the equation” by replacing it with an ipod tax or a tax on all Canadians.
It’s only because the idea is slightly less terrible that I’d take the Liberal-proposed tax over digital lock enforcement for private copying. Axe the enformcement, and axe the tax!
Michael Geist – I haven’t seen much comment from you on these proposed taxes. Is your silence to be interpreted as agreement/acceptance?
…
@Nap: “Well. As a programmer I can work freelance or contractor or regular employee.”
Yes, agreed and I was speaking more hypothically. Yes, the benefits and security of a regular job are certainly a bonus. As an Oracle developer with 10 years experience, I could makes buckets of money consulting, at least twice what I’m making now, but I choose a “staff” job primarily for the lower stress, lower time commitment environment. It affords me more time with my family. I fully agree that failing artists should not have a special fund to support them when they don’t make it big. It’s one thing to get a grant when you’re trying to get off the ground, but to continually suckle and rely on government imposed levy income is wrong.
David said: A levy or fund implies a license to steal.
Paying a levy on an iPod is stealing/extortion. iTunes makes it simple for people to legally buy music and transfer it to the iPod. Why should we have to compensate artists when the iPod (which I don’t like personally) give people easy access to BUY music legally already.
Seriously I don’t get why music artists are so special? They make ass all on music sales since they sold their rights to the music anyways and the labels/recond companies take the 98% of the sales anyways. Wanna make money then go on a tour, Ohhhh but wait since they made nothing from the record deal they can’t afford to go on a tour. Not my or any other Canadian problem. Most of us live from cheque to cheque and could care less if you got shafted.
So where is the section that compensates architects for their design when a house is sold/resold?
…
@IanME: “I fully agree that failing artists should not have a special fund to support them when they don’t make it big. It’s one thing to get a grant when you’re trying to get off the ground, but to continually suckle and rely on government imposed levy income is wrong.”
I also agree with what government is already doing (quite successfully) – helping them start.
But living from levies from those that went for a safer but less risky way of life?
And if they make it and strike it rich, will they share back with us? No, and worse than that, they will pay their taxes in Ireland or Cayman Islands…. then storm Ottawa posing as “starving artists” to see if they still can get a share from the levies….
Disgusting….
Nap.
…
correction it should have been “for a modest but less risky”
…
end user said: “Wanna make money then go on a tour, Ohhhh but wait since they made nothing from the record deal they can’t afford to go on a tour. Not my or any other Canadian problem. Most of us live from cheque to cheque and could care less if you got shafted.”
Exactly!!! Ir comes back to my statement basically saying if an artist can’t afford to live as an artist then, perhaps, they should get a real job to supplement income or consider a new line of work. If I choose to be typewritter repair man should I expect the government to give me handouts WHEN my business model fails? The government should be focusing much more on economic recovery than copyright reforms to appease US big content. Without reforms, C-32 is one of the biggest corporate-serving pieces of legislation money can buy. I’m hoping some of these US cables WikiLeaks is releasing sheds some light on some of the back room dealings surrounding C-32 and it’s predecessors.
Libs just went up in my books ..
I am supportive of artists being compensated for their work. In the case where there is a lost sale due to downloading I can understand the desire for compensation. Alternatively, file sharing has been shown in some cases to be of benefit to sales in a promotional sense, in this regard is the artist beholden to pay the file sharer for advertising fees? OK, that last bit was a little facetious but my point is that there is no real way quantify the level of remuneration to a single party never mind the whole industry. It is also obvious that taxing devices that could have no connection to infringing activity is neither fair or I would think even constitutional. Even so, there is some hardship created by the high level of file sharing and thus I am in support of some recompense to artists. Personally, as has been suggested, I like the idea of increasing funding for the support of Canadian artists as this is a use of our tax dollars that has some collective return as it enriches our Canadian identity. Giving a slice of our tax dollars to Lady Gaga in some proportional levy scheme … not.
I think their stance on fair dealing and consumer personal rights is reasonable. I would need to see their ‘tightening’ language on mashups to comment. The resale rights seems a bit strange and I wonder how broad a stroke if implemented it should paint. Will all creative works be getting this same right? Some things are already taxed on resale, a used car for instance, but in that case does the money not go to the government instead of the car manufacturer? As for ephemeral provision, like others here I will have to do some research to have an opinion.
I don’t know why people are making such a big deal about this. There is simply no way this bill will ever make it to law… Ottawa is already on xmas vacation and is not coming back until February 2011. The committee has hundreds of witnesses to see, they’ll have to read through God-knows how many written submissions, read the proposed changes line-by-line (+70 pages), then argue about each party’s proposed amendments back and forth. Furthermore, at any time Our Dear Great Leader might prorogue parliament, call an election, or declare martial law for all I know. The Libs have already stated their position and the amendments they will be seeking, much of these will be verboten to the Cons, and we haven’t heard from the NDP and the Bloc yet…
The committee saw two witnesses on Monday and cancelled their Wednesday meeting – with the amount of work they have and at the pace they are going – they will be lucky if they get things done by September 2011. In my opinion, C-32 is just a huge smokescreen by the Cons to mess up the system and destabilize the opposition parties, while they line their election ducks. Today’s Torie radio spot attacking the opposition parties on C-32 clearly sounded like an election ad.
@Shawn
If that’s their game, forcing an election is a risky move. The cons are only slightly ahead of the libs in public opinion and I think would be unlikely to gain a majority if an election were called right now. Forcing an election to squash the bill would further harm how foreign countries look at us, which is already quite low. Really, we would look kind of silly if we had to redo the bill yet again, for the fourth time.
As for the torie radio spot, this will only come to bite them on the a$$ by raising public awareness of the bill. People will ask themselves, “If the Tories support it and ALL other parties are against it, what’s wrong withit?” People will look up information and see how unbalanced it. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how unbalanced C-32 is with the digital lock provisions and anti-circumvention, among other things. Given the exclusive choice between levies and digital locks/anti-circumvention…give me the levies!!! The radio spot does nothing but hurt their position and, yet again, puts the oposition in a defensive position, giving them the oportunity to fire back with the truth.
No one ever said the CPC was logical or long sighted
…
“Furthermore, at any time Our Dear Great Leader might prorogue parliament, call an election, or declare martial law for all I know. ”
Martial law. “War On Piracy”. Quash those pesky radical extremist pirates!
Nap. 🙂
They really don’t need a majority government. All they need to do is win another minority government, which will basically relegitimize their position for another 2 years. Meanwhile, the Libs will be completely emasculated, Iggy will be shown the door, and they will spend the next year in leadership conventions. Harper’s only real opposition will then be the NDP and the Bloc – happy times for Our Dear Beloved Leader.
Harper’s only real goal is to stay in power.
I’d rather be funding the arts through general tax dollars than through some levy that is controlled by interest groups.
@ Taxpayer
Agreed!
At least they’d be getting the money.
Artists are actually getting almost nothing from the Candian levies and fees.
The government happily enforces a this “tax system” imposed by corporations blindly without review. Much like Vancouver’s Translink.
What I don’t get is the huge lead the Conservatives still have in the polls? Their popularity seems to grow and grow according to Ekos, the more corruption is exposed. I’m flabbergasted!
…”Oppose the extension of the private copying levy to iPods. Given their desire to find an alternative, they are proposing the creation of a new fund to compensate artists for losses incurred due to “uncompensated” downloads. Funding would come out of general revenues – not from a new levy scheme on devices or ISPs.”
I’m trying to get my head around this one. Are they proposing to create a new type of welfare class? Are they proposing to monitor all P2P and downloading, and track the associated content owners?
The implementation used for the media levy was bad, for both copyright holders and for purchasers. Being against a media levy is smart. But to replace it with something like this is even farther disconnected from reality. Is it flat grant per “registered artist”, or scaled? If scaled, who is going to do the measuring? How?
It sounds like there is a lack of imagination in this proposal. Or perhaps the will to propose something more radical, that just might work.
To make the above idea work fairly, the ISPs will need to be involved at a technical level. So will the existing copyright holders. Plus many others. If you are going to go to all that effort, (tracking the content, content owner, and the download/P2P quantity) simply to create an appropriate scaling factor per copyright holder, then you might as well implement a bandwidth/content levy based on that exact same information.
If the idea is to create a new welfare/grant class of “registered artists”, then I want to sign up immediately.
…
@oldguy: “If the idea is to create a new welfare/grant class of “registered artists”, then I want to sign up immediately. ”
Not really. Since all these “starving arteests” have transferred their rights to some association, we’re talking about welfare for SOCAN and such.
Nap.
Forget Taxes
Once again, why are we discussing compensating artists for lost revenue when it’s unclear that piracy is costing them anything? “It seems to make sense that it should” is not good enough.
The conservatives aren’t suggesting any kind of tax or fund. Take C-32, drop the digital locks enforcement for private copying, and then be done with it!
The problem with a fund created to explicitly compensate artists for losses incurred by “uncompensated” downloads is that it would essentially and completely legalize copyright infringement whenever it is performed without commercial intent. Heck, it’s already implicitly assumed by a lot of people!
However, as theoretically wonderful as this might seem to a lot of consumers if it were to be brought into actual law, it is worth noting that the cumulative effect of potentially very large numbers of infringers, every single one of whom may very well have a wholly noncommercial intent, can easily outweigh any possible effects that might be done by even a single commercial infringer on a copyright holder’s rights over the work. Most notably, even non-commercial infringement impacts the copyrights holders supposedly exclusive rights to dictate who may copy and distribute the works (and who may further grant such permissions), because if others are making and distributing copies without authorization, the very definition of “exclusive” itself is lost, which is what copyright is supposed to be. Thus, the notion that non commercial infringements are not harmful to the copyright holder ends up being a specious argument unless one is to also advocate the abolition of copyright.
Gosh, rereading what I’ve just written, I feel like I’m sounding a lot like Mr. Moore here… that’s really not my intent, because I really do not agree with the man on his stance on what is necessary and sufficient to bring an effective copyright reform to Canada. I can certainly agree with his goals, which are to try and minimize the damage being done to copyright holders, but I firmly believe that C-32’s digital locks provisions are taking the entirely wrong approach to solving the issue, and are going to result in epidemic numbers of people breaking the law, and not even caring what the consequences might be, where they would not be considered to be breaking the law if the exact same works they were copying simply did not have digital locks. As the presence or absence of a digital lock is a decision that the consumer is not party to, beyond their choice to only buy works without digital locks on them, this notion is hugely biased against the consumer. This gets even worse when one considers that C-32’s digital locks provisions significantly shift the cost-benefit ratio for copyright holders in favor of utilizing digital locks to further protect their interests, and it is quite a realistic projection under such provisions that the availability of unlocked works will diminish radically in the future so the consumer won’t even have any real choice at all!
…
@Mark:
If someone breaks into my house and steals things, my remedy is to call the police and my insurance company.
Should we replace this system with levies and “digital lock – do not break” stickers?
Dear artists and creators – if you have valuable property please insure it. And call the police and insurance company when it gets stolen.
Nap.
@Nap
Actually, what I would suggest is that exceptions that exist to copyright infringement simply not apply to works that are already infringing on copyright. This would explicitly make the willful act of downloading content that was not authorized for distribution by the publisher clearly illegal (and overrule a previous court decision to the contrary), and would allow the government to shut down such organizations if they are in Canada, and to take legal action against other willful infringers when they are obtaining the infringing content from areas outside of our government’s jurisdiction. Generally, as I’ve said elsewhere, the legitimacy of such content is readily discernable… people know that content they find via pirate websites is not authorized for distribution by the copyright holder, but because of the perception that they are not using the copy for any commercial purpose, they do not feel that they are doing any harm. As I remarked above, this argument may superficially appear to be quite true, but beneath the surface one can show it to be an invalid assumption by applying the principle of scale. An unwillingness to accept that such a notion should have to apply to us as individuals can only be brought about by an attitude of feeling that one does not have any obligation to behave as a responsible person who is part of a larger society.
Anyways, the enforcement issues on my approach would not as bad as they might first seem because it’s worth remembering that the current state of affairs occurred because of an actual court case involving 29 defendants in 2004. The court at that time interpreted that the personal use defense to copyright infringement was valid because the material really was being downloaded for personal use, and did not concern itself with the legitimacy of the work they were obtaining in the first place. Had the court gone the other direction at that time, it would have created an effect of deterring quite a few people who might have simply feared the consequences.
Now, however, with that precedent in Canada’s legal history, even though it could be overturned by new legislation, bringing people into compliance with the new law I would propose would likely involve significantly more effort, but I do not believe it would be impossible to accomplish. A few examples of people who are careless enough to get caught with appropriate consequences for their actions (not statutory damages, but actual legal consequences) would discourage most of the activity that can be reasonably detected and prevented by law, and the rest of the illegal activity that happens below the radar will happen regardless of what laws are passed… even C32. At least, however, perfectly fair and reasonable activities such as format shifting and personal backups would not be adversely affected.
…
@Mark:
Check this, freshly published:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101216/03071712300/nike-sues-guy-who-ordered-single-pair-counterfeit-sneakers-over-internet.shtml
How would you qualify the outcome?
Nap.
@Mark
…”bringing people into compliance with the new law I would propose would likely involve significantly more effort, but I do not believe it would be impossible to accomplish. A few examples of people who are careless enough to get caught with appropriate consequences for their actions (not statutory damages, but actual legal consequences) would discourage most of the activity that can be reasonably detected”
We have ready examples from other countries that have taken this approach. The US and France for example. It does not seem to have had the effect you are suggesting would ensue. Quite the opposite. The available data indicates that general society cannot be “scared” into compliance. If the data is correct, what does that say about the effectiveness of your proposed approach?
Mark, you are totally wrong about legitimacy being readily desernible. I can
testify to having downloaded infringing content several times with no indication that it was included in the package I was downloading. Since it was not my intent to download it, and since I didn’t want or use it of course it made no difference to anyone, but if you ask me I sure as hell wasn’t at fault for anything.
People just include a bit of infringing content in their work and code sample packages and stuff every so often. Not knowing there is infringing content in your download is as simple as either a filename change or not having an inventory of the entire package beforehand. I certainly wouldn’t put any credence into a theory that it isn’t eady to download infringing content without knowing it. I can disprove that easily just from personal experience.
@Nap
Interesting. Since the merchandise was seized at the border as counterfeits, however, I see that there should be no reason to go after the consumer at all… he does not have the counterfeit merchandise, and is out whatever capital that he spent on it… it would be up the purchaser to take civil action against the company he bought it from for wrongfully representing their product and get a refund. Nike suing the buyer seems totally misplaced.
If, by some chance, you are expecting to compare this to downloading infringing content without the knowledge of the downloader, it’s worth pointing out that the comparison does not apply. First of all, the downloader actually *does* receive the work he downloaded. Second of all, ignorance of its legitimacy, as I said before, rarely actually happens in practice. People are generally quite aware that the material you can find on piratebay, for example, or any similar websites is not likely being authorized for distribution by the copyright holder, the reason people download from such places is not out of ignorance, but indifference. So the comparison does not work.
@oldguy:
Actually, the US has not taken the approach I was describing at all… they are generally relying on statutory damages alone, but not usually legal consequences. That is because copyright infringement is a civil offense in the US, and not a criminal act. If a fine had to be paid to the court directly, coupled with a full on criminal record, it gets whole lot harder to face up to.
And bear in mind that we aren’t talking about activities that are fundamental human rights here, we are talking about people infringing on copyright. Although it’s true that most people don’t care that much about copyright, it follows that this very indifference should make it at least as true that most people usually would not be willing to pay hefty fines or face a criminal record over such values.
Attempting to force/scare people to follow copyright when they don’t agree with it has about as much chance of succeeding as pushing a mountain with your hands does of moving it.
@Mark
The problem is that by and large, the law is generally unenforcible and will largely go unenforced. As oldguy mentioned, this approach tends be ineffective. It’s failed everywhere that has tried it, why would we be any different? If people want it, they will find a way. The technology will ALWAYS be ahead of the law. For this, the ONLY way you’re going to stop on-line infringement is to change business models to be more consumer friendly, which they’re not willing to do, or unplug the Internet, which is by and large, impossible!! With, projects like I2P and TOR, virtually anonymous computing is knocking at our door. If people don’t want to pay for it, they WILL find a way. Once all the bittorrent sites are shut down, something newer and more secure, perhaps based on one of those mentioned above, will pop up. The “industry” has to woo the consumer back in and make believe them their content has value. The “industry” WILL lose if they force this in a direction the general populace considers unfair. This is not a fascist or communist state, with few exceptions, they CANNOT force people to buy a product they do not want!!!
@Chris: It’s not that people don’t agree with copyright, it’s that people don’t think that non-commercial infringement causes any harm… which simply fails to apply the principle of scale to one’s own actions. This isn’t an issue of simple opinion about what is right and wrong, it is actually built on a notion that simply fails to consider the bigger picture than what they are immediately exposed to.
Consider also that it is illegal to pick flowers or remove any vegetation in national parks. Obviously, any single person’s actions does not usually result in any real harm, but principle of scale necessitates that even a single act be illegal, in spite of any single act’s harmlessness.
People who would justify non-commercial copyright infringement even after suich a revelation are people who are then willfully disregarding the notion that they have any obligation to act responsibly as a part of a larger society, or else are advocating the abolition of copyright (but that is not what they generally initially say… since most initially seem quite opposed to copyright infringement when it is done for commercial reasons).
And to be frank, the harder the general population pushes on this issue of wanting everything for free and wanting it all now, the harder the publishers are going to lobby for stricter and stricter laws that won’t stop the people who are intent on actually breaking the law, but restrict perfectly reasonable and supposedly legitimate activities like making private backups and format shifting. Lawbreakers will continue on their merry old way and it is the law abiding citizen that get screwed. I find such a notion wholly and utterly morally reprehensible, but I cannot realistically forsee any other response from parliament as long as the general public continues to ignore copyright.
@Ian: as I said… no possible approach, even one of a totalitarian police state, will prevent people from breaking the law who choose to do so… my position has, from the beginning, *ALWAYS* been one to continue to grant the consumer all perfectly reasonable freedoms that do not, even after applying principle of scale, ever actually impact the copyright holder, simply so that there will not be as significant an incentive to break the law.
People who feel that infringing on copyright for noncommercial reasons is not harmful are, as I said, simply not applying principle of scale to their actions, or else feel that individuals have no responsibility to society to function as a part of it.
The alternative, as I said before, is to abolish copyright law completely… something I don’t want to see happen.
@Mark.. I don’t really see how your opinion about why the people dissagree with the laws really matters.. What difference does it make if they dissagree with specific parts of the copyright laws because they “simply not applying principle of scale to their actions” or “feel that individuals have no responsibility to society to function as a part of it”
Unfortunately apparently for you, we live in a democracy and people who
“simply not applying principle of scale to their actions” or “feel that individuals have no responsibility to society to function as a part of it”
are still supposed to have just as much a say in setting the laws as anyone else.
…
@Mark: “If, by some chance, you are expecting to compare this to downloading infringing content without the knowledge of the downloader, it’s worth pointing out that the comparison does not apply. First of all, the downloader actually *does* receive the work he downloaded.”
I have to disagree at least in the case of P2P networks. The only thing you can see before downloading is a file name. So you think you’re downloading some freeware video encoding utility called FreeMPEGEncoder.3.12.zip. And what you really get can be a virus, a useless file, a copyrighted “pirate” file, or a video of the goatse guy flashing his a** at you.
So the downloader does indeed receive something, but it can be anything.
Nap.
…
@Chris: “Attempting to force/scare people to follow copyright when they don’t agree with it…”
… is like herding cats.
Meowwww!
Nap.
@Mark
I don’t think anyone really “expects” everything for free, only to be treated fairly. Unfortunately, there is a large disparity between what the copyright holder and what the general consumer considers fair use. And I’m talking about legitemate users, like myself, who purchase their content. This gap has to be closed before the industry can expect to bring the consumer back in to the fold. If I have NO rights to use the content as I would see fit, within the comfort of my own home, then it’s nothing more than a gorified rental or lease and I would expect to pay substantially less for it than I do now…ESPECIALLY downloaded content!!! …which I consider vastly overpriced as it is.
In short consumers, in general, have lost respect for copyright. Why? Well the industry hasn’t really given us a reason to, have they? There are two main ressons for it.
** Firstly, the industry has taken an approach in enforcing copyright which the general consumer deems heavy handed and unfair. Suing a strugling single mother for over a million dollars DEMANDS respect doesn’t it? I bet they lost more in sales due to the negative press on this than they will ever squeeze out of her!!! Digital locks are another contentious issue. Widely known to be a complete failure, but frustrating none the less. Do you have any idea how many people download cracked versions of games they’ve purchased simply to kill annoying DRM and the annoying CD-ROM check? And, quite often, the cracked version works better than the original. I know this was the case for Bioshock.
** Secondly, and probably the main reason, the industry has failed to keep up with consumer expectations in content delivery and now they want to punish the world for their lack of foresight? I don’t think so!!! Technology moves on even if the content provider decides not to!! There is a reason they’re commonly referred to as dinosaurs here. Imagine what the industry would look like today if they had have embraced and worked with Napster rather than sueing them and thier users.
@Mark
…”That is because copyright infringement is a civil offense in the US, and not a criminal act. If a fine had to be paid to the court directly, coupled with a full on criminal record, it gets whole lot harder to face up to.”
I suggest you review the society reactions to Prohibition. Making it a criminal act vs a civil one does not cause people to avoid the actions. It simply escalates the reaction to higher levels and sends more of it “underground”.
As I have stated before, proposals that buck society trends are doomed. Proposals that operate on principles that “fear” will cause them to change their “norms” simply promote stiffer and more widespread resistance. The stronger the prohibitions, the stronger the reaction.
Let me try another angle, perhaps a personal one. If someone comes along and forces you into a certain behaviour that is contrary to your norms and the norms of your peers, what is your reaction? Do you meekly accede to the threat of force? Or do you scheme for a way to get back at the bully?
Now extend that individual reaction to a whole society. A democratic society. What do you think will happen? Does “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” sounds like a plausible possibility?
I am on the side of the creators and copyright holders, and society. But I firmly believe that any proposals that attempt to control or direct society norms or trends will mostly be ignored.
On the other hand, you can work within those society trends, and find mechanisms that will work. Mechanisms that are perceived as fair and equitable to most of it.
…
Nap said: “So the downloader does indeed receive something, but it can be anything.”
HAHHAHA This is so true!! Way back when, when downloading was much more socially acceptible and there was much less chance of actual charges, if I only had a dollar for every time I downloaded one thing and received some foreign language p0rn.
The other thing many people overlook is the fact that a majority of the downloaders of today, in general, are of the younger generation(s) and will be the customers of tomorrow.
Make a salable product or pack up and go home.
Mark, I applaud your distaste for the tactics of the content industry (re TPM etc.) but I have to agree with IamMe and Oldguy that the idea of tougher penalties will not be a viable solution to the problems we are facing. This is sort of a dog chasing it’s tail problem, the industry is expending all of this energy to combat ‘piracy’ and getting nowhere. The harder hand they use the harder the heart of the consumer becomes. The average person, whether they can vocalize it or not, know when they are paying a fair price for a good or service. They instinctively know the value of what they’re getting and that the company selling them is making a fair profit. Similarly, people know when they’re being gouged and react accordingly.
People also don’t react well to being accused of something they don’t think they are guilty off, such as being called thieves for making a backup of a DVD. That’s basic human psychology and something that is generally learned in the playground. This seems to be lost on the people in charge of the media industry. It is them who have a product to sell, customer service and enticement are part of the equation that is being ignored. There are all sorts of new and interesting forms of entertainment that are coming into the public’s eye, industries that refuse to adapt or choose to instead attempt to fix their old business models via legislation will become the aforementioned dinosaurs. That may be hard for some but also may be ultimately necessary, it’s up to them to decide. The consumer’s voice is final.
What I was suggesting was not merely tougher penalties, but simply suggesting it would be beneficial if there were an explicit provision in the law that exemptions to copyright infringement would not apply to copies of works that already *DO* infringe on copyright. Nothing more, and really, nothing less. It does have some enforcement issues, but I believe it’s still wholly achievable, and in general what would happen as a result is people who are actually still intent on breaking the law would simply disappear far below the radar, which is the same place that people who would circumventing TPM’s under C-32 are going to go… I cannot see the former group being larger than the latter, however, because the former group would only consist of people willfully and knowingly infringing on copyright, where with the latter group you have not only the people intent on infringing on copyright, but also otherwise perfectly honest consumers who have simply found themselves unable to utilize a digital work wthat they have legally acquired without having to defeat the lock, even though they may be intending to use it in a way that, in truth, is actually perfectly reasonable and objectively fair, and would even be legal if the exact same work simply did not have a digital lock.
If the goal is to minimize people breaking the law, the law has to be reasonable… but at the same time, the law does not have to be so permissive as to defeat the very purposes for which it is being designed.
@Mark
…”were an explicit provision in the law that exemptions to copyright infringement would not apply to copies of works that already *DO* infringe on copyright”
I’m a little confused about what you are trying to say. “Works” don’t infringe on copyright, unauthorized copying is the basis for infringement. Exemptions apply to a particular use that involves a copy of a work (or portion). An unauthorized copy is still an unauthorized copy, exemptions don’t change that. If I understand you correctly, the law already *is* formulated the way you are suggesting. Nothing in C-32 would change this.
…”If the goal is to minimize people breaking the law, the law has to be reasonable”
Agreed.
…”the law does not have to be so permissive as to defeat the very purposes for which it is being designed”
To be perceived as reasonable and fair, the law must be “designed” to work within society norms and trends, not against them. Permissiveness doesn’t even enter into the picture, except as another factor (among many) in creating a policy acceptable to society.
@IamME
…”is the fact that a majority of the downloaders of today, in general, are of the younger generation(s)”
That too is changing.. More and more parents, grandparents, senior VP’s, and many others are downloading and P2P sharing. Their reasons for doing so have very little to do with “free” and everything to do with immediacy and ease of use. It cuts across all demographics.
I had an interesting conversation with a senior exec of a fortune 500 company a while ago. He unabashedly admitted he used P2P to download movies and TV shows. Why? He does a lot of traveling. He carries a laptop that has more capability than he really needs. He can carry around dozens of current TV shows and a selection of movies. A selection that he has chosen, not some hotel’s in room entertainment channel. He can pause and restart them whenever he wants or gets interrupted. He can watch in the hotel, or the cab, or the airport, or the plane. And get this, he can carry it all through airport security, but cannot carry a DVD onto a plane because it could be made into a “weapon” (by breaking it). He finds it too much of a hassle to remove the DRM from DVD’s he has, so he just downloads the movies. He wants his TV shows current, not a year or so out of date. His corporately secured laptop wouldn’t allow DRM validation apps on it anyway.
Money isn’t his issue. His work and lifestyle forced certain limitations on him in the past. Now technology and a change in society norms has freed him from those limitations. He could pay a fair price for current copyrighted content, but it cannot include DRM. The only place he can easily obtain it is from those “dreaded P2P pirates”. People that are in many ways, just like him. For him to change his habits, it will have to be replaced by something that is just as easy and just as flexible for him to use. Price isn’t part of the picture for him, at least not until there is something comparable available. And oh, laws don’t scare him.
That is the kind of people that the industry and politicians should be thinking of. There is the social trend. How do we address that trend in a fair and equitable way?
IamME, I doubt your statement will still ring true in another year, or perhaps 2 years. It may already be wrong.
ogre51
whats seems to be missed in all this is what is coming out of both Sweden and Spain with the leaked memos from wikileaks on the gross interference by the US embassy on these countries respective government bodies to pass legislation that are not in there own interests, but being pushed solely by the entertainment industry in the USA.
There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation is not in the best interests on Canada or it’s citizens and is being driven by external sources purely for greed and control of our culture
At the very least this legislation needs to be thrown out and be rewritten for the benefit of Canadian and not to please some foreign entertainment cartel
In the end what I want to know is this, is this country been run for the benefit of Canadians or some foreign interest group or groups
@oldguy
I can give you that, that more and more from all generations and walks of life are using P2P. I don’t download movies, but like your exec, I download TV shows. Again, like your exec, not because I can’t afford to buy them, but because I have small children and a lot of TV these days is NOT age appropriate for a 2-year-old and a 5-year-old. I do have a Bell PVR, but I find it unreliable and dislike, to put it mildly, how it organizes things. Through my Bell subscription, I have access to watch most, if not all, things downloaded. Now, more often than not, we end up buying the season pack on DVD before we ever get a chance to watch the downloaded copy. However, the downloaded copy acts as a reminder that this is something I wanted to watch. Otherwise, as the old saying goes, out of sight out of mind.
But, if we’re to listen to our friend Degen, we should just accept that some things are not available the way we want them. He actually suggested that if a European movie was not available in North America that instead of downloading it, or even importing a copy from Europe, I should contact distributors on this side of the pond to see if I could get them to pick up the title. I’m sure someone on the other end of the phone for distributors like Lion’s Gate or Anchor Bay would have a great laugh over that. I think such a suggestion shows desperation and is ridiculous.
…
@IanME: “He actually suggested that if a European movie was not available in North America that instead of downloading it, or even importing a copy from Europe, I should contact distributors on this side of the pond to see if I could get them to pick up the title. ”
Interesting how “globalization” was designed to work only one way – i.e. for the corporations only.
And how about out of print works that you cannot find anywhere to buy them from.
Nap.
@Oldguy: “I’m a little confused about what you are trying to say. “Works” don’t infringe on copyright”
My apologies for being unclear. Infringing copies of copyrighted works generally equate to copies that are made whenever the creator infringes on copyright. However, as copyright laws can differ from country to country, it may be possible for an infringing copy to exist without anyone actually infringing on copyright (for example, an unauthorized copy is made in a country which does not recognize copyright law, so the person did not infringe on copyright, but if that copy enters a nation that does recognize copyright law and the copy is not being utilized for a purpose that would otherwise make the creator exempt from infringement, then the copy itself would be considered an infringing one). Obviously, you don’t “punish” infringing copies you punish copyright infringement… but the distinction makes it far easier to describe how to recognize when copyright infringement is actually occurring vs when a copy is being made that is not copyright infringement.
…
@oldguy: “”Works” don’t infringe on copyright, unauthorized copying is the basis for infringement. Exemptions apply to a particular use that involves a copy of a work (or portion). An unauthorized copy is still an unauthorized copy, exemptions don’t change that.”
Why do obsess on “copying”… it is distribution that is the problem… if I wrote a book and oldguy bought it then filled up his basement with copies of it… as long as those copies are staying there in his basement:
-he doesn’t harm me financially
-I cannot enforce him not doing so
so why would I want to fight against this?
Yes I can dream all day long about how much money I could have made if he paid me an additional dollar for each copy… but that’s just a dream and no law could force him to…
Nap.
…”Why do obsess on “copying”… it is distribution that is the problem.”
While I agree with you, the law focuses on “copy”, not distribution. This is what lead to things like the media levy in the first place.
The digital age, even pre-internet, has indelibly changed the social landscape surrounding copyright. The trends were obvious at least a generation ago, possibly 2 or 3. At some time you have to stop trying to “patch up” a failing structure and build a completely new one. Or at least plan where we should be, and start modifying in ways that will get there.
Every once in a while I step back from the details and positions of this debate, and look at the bigger picture. Where each of the positions is “heading”. Then look where society already is, and where it seems to be heading. Any position that disenfranchises or criminalizes significant portions of that overall society is doomed. We need an new “plan” and a new structure. One that stands a chance of working, for everyone. We need to pay attention to the “radical thinkers”, there are some seeds of good ideas there.
Too true bother .. too true 😉
@oldguy ‘We need to pay attention to the “radical thinkers”, there are some seeds of good ideas there.’
Unfortunately the government in power, as well as the suits in charge of the ‘professional’ media organizations, are made up of members too far past the exuberance of youth (in years or mindset) to come up with these ideas themselves or to embrace the necessary changes. I fear unfortunately, rather than progressive reform, that it may take the total meltdown of the current copyright framework before something workable in this new digital age can rise from the ashes.
Wow, upon reading that I do kinda sound a bit like a radical extremist … guess ol’ James was right after all. Now if he would only listen …
…
Here is “radical extremist” non-pirate idea. For the digital world replace the (C) symbol with a (D) symbol signaling that DISTRIBUTION rights are reserved to the author. Make the law talk about DISTRIBUTION not copying when we talk digital.
Computers work by copying data all over in their internal memory devices. By the time I can see this page on my screen, a persistent copy of it is stored on my ISP’s caching proxy and another one on my hard drive in the browser cache. Complaining about this is like complaining that computers use electrical power.
A law initially devised as a censorship tool to prevent medieval printers to print inconvenient pamphlets won’t work in the digital age. If you want to modernize it you need some “radical extremist” changes. Stop talking about “copying” and discuss “distribution”.
And if someone doesn’t agree with how digital works, then he’s free to not publish his work in digital format. Print paper books, record vinyl discs, organize live performances and so on.
Publishing a web page then complaining that I have a copy in my browser cache is disingenuous at best.
Nap.
@oldguy:
Copyright considers the issue of distribution only with respect to the individual copies that are made, not with respect to the person distributing them.
, and if copyright focused only on distribution, then it would not be possible to punish
D’oh! I hit submit before I meant to…
It doesn’t make any sense to punish someone who is distributing copies that were made by someone who was explicitly authorized to make them (eg, the publisher).
…
Mark: “It doesn’t make any sense to punish someone who is distributing copies that were made by someone who was explicitly authorized to make them (eg, the publisher).”
You’re still thinking “copies”, eh?
First of all, if the ‘copies’ were made by the publisher, they are “originals”. As far as I know there is no law to prevent me to give as a gift or sell an “original” CD I bought from Futureshop.
Second, in a digital age, we should talk about “authorized distributor”. It wouldn’t matter who made the “copies”. It could be the author, a publisher or the distributor itself. What would matter is that the “distributor” has an agreement with the author, collects payment for sold copies, has an accounting process in place, and pays the author his share.
nap.
Distribution
@Mark:
If you want to check how this “distribution” thing would work, take a look here:
http://corporate.digitalriver.com/store/digriv/Corp/sectionName.commerce/subSectionName.commerceOverview/page.commerceOverview
Basically they have a distribution agreement with different “authors”. Let’s take Microsoft as an example. Digital River can sell you MS Office. You pay and download it. Digital River will in its turn pay MS. What’s the most interesting thing is that it is you, the customer, who made the “copy” (i.e. you create on your hard drive a copy of the files located on DR’s servers).
The whole process is based on the concept of “distribution” not “copying”.
Nap.
…
So lets see who has already embraced the concept:
Software industry – checked
RIAA – checked (iTunes works like this)
MPAA – partially (for rentals only)
Writers – checked (e-books)
So basically it is only the movie industry who insists these days in selling their own plastic discs.
Nap.
…
Nap said: “The whole process is based on the concept of “distribution” not “copying”.”
In general, the Steam model is very similar, also based on distribution, not copies. Incidentally, it’s the largest, most successful on-line game store in the world. Coincidence…I think not!!!
…
“So basically it is only the movie industry who insists these days in selling their own plastic discs. ”
And incidentally (or not?) we can quote Mr. Clement with “Hollywood told us…” so we can infer who is really behind C-32….
OTOH I just remembered that $ony will also “sell” you movies via Playstation network. You can rent them but also “buy” and you’ll get a copy on your PS3 that will not “expire” and you’re specifically allowed (and encouraged) to back it up on an external hard drive. So yes in some sense you “own” it (as long as you have a PS3 around as it would not be playable on other devices).
So there’s some progress from the movie industry too.
Nap.
Movie Industry
Keep in mind as well, in Canada, “real” HD movies tend to be preventatively large to download, so they sell us content which is compressed to death and tag it as HD. What’s the reality? Let’s say a BluRay-quality 1080p HD movie is conservatively 20G. That is 1/3 of my 60G monthly bandwidth. Realisticatlly I’m probably looking at 25G+ of used bandwidth including packet overhead. At $65/month for my Internet, it’s often cheaper for me to buy the disk and save my bandwidth for sothing else. If I wait a couple months I can get it second hand at Blockbuster for $10 or even if I waut 6 months and get it at Walmart for $10…it’s WAY cheaper and NOW it’s covered by my house content insurance for the original replacement price.
Make no mistake!! Those 3G-6G “HD” movies on iTunes aren’t even close to the quality of a BluRay…and approximately at the same price as buying the original, it’s a joke. Even at 9G, which is what many 1080p rips come in at, slow motion might be fine, but you’ll still get artifacting in fast sequences (No “Speed Racer” for you!!)…AND the “lossless” audio of a BluRay is compressed to death to make it fit in to 9G. Fine for stereo TV viewing or travel, but not what you want for home theatre. For a full uncompressed BluRay rip I would expect it to be AT LEAST 20G.
..
@IanME:
Real-world example – “Le Nozze Di Figaro”, Blu-Ray, Deutsche Grammophon. The main title has 43GB. It comes with DTS-HD plus uncompressed LPCM 5.1 and 2 channel streams. It’s more than the monthly allowance on Bell High Speed Internet.
What would you want to do with it? Trying to recompress it would take the best part of the week. And to what end? Watching it stamp-sized with crappy sound? No thanks.
OTOH it would be nice if I could copy it on my PS3’s hard drive or my NAS and play it from there. But they don’t want to let me do that.
Nap.
…
@IanME: “Even at 9G, which is what many 1080p rips come in at, slow motion might be fine, but you’ll still get artifacting in fast sequences (No “Speed Racer” for you!!)”
Mhhh. Depends on codec quality, I can assure you that a pro grade one won’t do noticeable artifacts, but expect to spend big bucks to license it:
http://www.mainconcept.com/products/apps-plug-ins/transcoding/reference/h264avc-pro.html
Fitting a regular movie in 9GB at 1080i res means H.264 at 10,000 Kbps + stereo AAC sound. If done with professional tools it is reasonable, but far from spectacular. Blu-Ray discs are usually cut at 35,000 Kbps H.264 + surround sound.
In my experience the “on demand” HD comes at even lower bitstream rate, 6,000-8,000 Kbps. But since it’s done with pro tools it can compete with P2P stuff done at higher rates.
Nap.
@Nap
Exactly my point!! Even without the DTS-HD and stereo streams, you’re still probably looking at over 30G with the LPCM track only. …and would you really want it overly compressed? In my opinion, the music is only one component here, much of the “mood” is achieved in through facial expressions and manorisms, especially so in opera. Operas were the movies of their day and meant to be performed live…acted. You lose so much when you lose the “detail”. I would much prefer to watch “live” (Or video) opera over a straight audio recording.
Unfortunately, for many, quality does not matter…as long as it’s free or cheap. And this is a culture only the industry has themselves for to blame.
…
@IanME: “I would much prefer to watch “live” (Or video) opera over a straight audio recording. ”
Agreed. That’s why I have a collection of European Blu-Rays. Good thing they’re “All Regions”.
The alternative would be getting tickets at “La Scala” or something. Try that when you have some big names performing. “Mission Impossible”. Yes I tried.
Nap.
…
BTW Deutsche Grammophon did a boatload of recordings this year at The Metropolitan. Unfortunately for some obscure reason they released on regular DVD only not Blu-Ray. I bought some then I stopped because I was not happy with the technical quality. Although they spanned them on 2 double layer discs – so less compression than usual. Would you think that I’d be happy with 320×200 P2P stuff instead?
Bwahah.
nap.