Not to be overlooked by the Bulte issue is the fact that the major parties have provided some feedback into their views on copyright (many individual candidates have as well – those are posted at Digital-Copyright.ca). The Canadian Teachers Federation obtained responses from all parties on the education issue and access to publicly available materials on the Internet. The Liberals confirmed their decision to shift away from the Bulte report by again committing to a consultation on the issue.
The Conservatives and NDP took stronger pro-education stands. The Conservatives confirmed that they are "fighting alongside provincial education ministers and educators for the addition of an amendment that would allow teachers, researchers, and students to access publicly available material online." The NDP expressed concerns about the Bulte report, noting that the "Heritage Committee recommendations [on bill C-60] could put up barriers that would see schools pay extended licensing fees for students' use of online content and even limit rights libraries hold to share Internet resources."
The Liberal party platform has also been leaked and it contains a single paragraph on copyright reconfirming the intent to bring back Bill C-60. It states that:
The most troubling response yet also comes from the Liberals who responded to CIPPIC's question about the need for protection from DRM in light of the Sony Rootkit fiasco. Their none-too-encouraging response?
Update: The NDP has released its platform and it includes a policy recommendation that actually would benefit artists. Rather than focusing on unnecessary copyright reform, the party is calling for an Income tax exemption for the first $30,000 on copyright and certain royalty income.
garden-variety blogger
Fantastic, I was looking for *just this very thing*.
Terrific site, keep up the terrific work.
BlueBerry Pick’n
can be found @ ThisCanadian.com
“Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced”
Music Industry FUD
I continue to be dismayed at the way this issue is being framed. While copyright nominally is about artistic rights, it must be pointed out that many artists do not own their own artistic rights. Large portions of the music catalogue past and present belong to the music company or the publisher or the distributor. These entities are freuqnetly actually the same one.
I believe it to be a kind of conflict of interest for a company to be producer and distributor as well as responsible to watch out for their artists best interest regarding what Intellectual Property Rights they may have left. They re frequently in debt to their Music company in the form of cash advances on future sales.
Let me make it clear, the Distributors, content producers (which are frequently the same corporate entities) guard Intellectual Property for their shareholders first, then everyone else. If I were an recording artist I would definitely *not* want this situation to exist.
Recording artists are regularly left with no one who advocates solely on their behalf. Even their own publicity people have loyalties to themselves and if they are paid based on the income their artist makes, whcih artists will they work hardest for? You guessed it, the artist that brings the biggest gross reveneu. That isnn’t to say that ther aren’t honest people out there, just that the whole system is rife with conflicts of interest. The music industry, the large corporations do not speak *for* their artists, they speak on their own behalf and only where the cloak of their artists because it is the only way to get any public sympathy at all.
cheers,
David Fedoruk
B.Mus, UBC
Internet Systems Administration Certificate, UBC Continuing Studies