|
Wednesday May 16, 2012 |
|
Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro offers up one of the oddest copyright
analogies during the C-11 debate, likening format shifting to socks
and shoes.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday May 16, 2012 |
|
|
Wednesday September 15, 2010 |
J.P. Ellson, the Chair of the Canadian Council of Music Industry
Association and board member of the industry's Balanced Copyright for
Canada site, makes some rather surprising claims in a post
urging Canadians to join the BCFC cause. After the usual industry
talking points on C-32, Ellson
implausibly argues:
Among Bill C-32’s objectives is to
put the pirate download and file-sharing sites out of business. But the
provisions of the Bill that permit user-generated content and
transferring digital files to other formats would in fact, keep the
pirate flag flying and their sites in business.
Ellson's comments are consistent with adage that when you are a hammer,
everything looks like a nail. In this case, when piracy is your only
frame of reference for copyright reform, everything looks like
piracy.
Ellson makes an incredible leap in claiming that consumers that format
shift are somehow engaged in piracy or supporting sites that promote
piracy. Format shifting involves nothing more than allowing
consumers who have already purchased
products
to shift the content from one format to another - ie. move songs from a
CD to an iPod. The new provision includes numerous limitations -
the
original cannot be an infringing copy or it must be legally obtained,
the individual cannot give away the copy, and it must be used for
private purposes (unfortunately, the provision is also subject to the
presence of digital locks). Even the BCFC recognized the reasonableness
of format shifting as an early form letter designed for consumers
stated "If Bill C-32 passes, it will
give me the peace of
mind of knowing that when I take music I've purchased and downloaded
online, and copy it to my player, it's legal."
Given these restrictions and background, how can the lead
representative of Canadian Council of Music Industry Association now
argue that this promotes piracy?
Similarly, the user generated content provision allows Canadians to
make non-commercial new works that incorporate other copyrighted
works. This provision - dubbed by many as the YouTube provision
for
supporting popular online mashups - has nothing to do with piracy. It
is remarkable to find the chair of a leading industry association now
claiming that these provisions support websites that promote
piracy.
In fact, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore had a better
description for these kinds of claims - radically extreme.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday September 15, 2010 |
|
|
Monday December 14, 2009 |
|
The UK has launched a new copyright consultation on exceptions. The consultation notably recommends against a narrow format shifting exception, arguing instead that something far bigger is needed. It states "we would however encourage the EU to look at options that benefit consumers, including the possibility of a broad exception to copyright for non-commercial use." Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday December 14, 2009 |
|
|
Wednesday October 14, 2009 |
The Government continues to post copyright consultation submissions (still lots to go one month after the consultation concluded) with many making for interesting reading. Access Copyright's submission is worth noting for two reasons. First, rather than simply arguing against flexible fair dealing, it argues that the current fair dealing provision as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada is actually too broad. It states:
Rather than an expansion of fair dealing, Access Copyright believes that it may be necessary to qualify the fair dealing provision as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the CCH decision, in order to ensure that Canada is compliant with the three-step test. Access Copyright contends that the fair dealing provision as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada conflicts with the normal exploitation of a work and causes an unreasonable loss of income to creators and publishers.
The collective goes on to say that research should be limited to non-commercial instances only (the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that there was no such limitation). Access Copyright also takes aim at format and time shifting, submitting "that good public policy should not be dictated by legalizing common public practices." It is particularly concerned with format shifting, arguing for additional compensation for such exceptions. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday October 14, 2009 |
|
|
