Peter Shawn Taylor with a lengthy piece in the National Post on copyright.
National Post Op-Ed On Copyright
Tags: copyright / National Post / peter shawn taylorCopyright Microsite - Mainstream Media CoverageCopyright Canada
2 Comments
Recent Posts
Why the Answers to Hateful Content Online are Hiding in the Platforms’ Own Rules 
From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India 
Starting Over: Court Filing Confirms the CRTC’s Streamer Contribution Decisions Are Dead With a Full Online Streaming Act Reset to Come 
The Name on the Window Was Enough: The Attacks on Kiva’s and the Normalization of Antisemitic Violence in Canada 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada’s Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention
Bad Article
It’s a bad article. Interesting from the historical perspective, but bad in that it characterizes you, Michael, as a copyright “free for all” whacko. We know that this is not the case. I’d love to see you write a strongly worded response to that article, which does not mention the issues of DRM at all.
Good Comments
Truly one of the best comments posted on that link:
The historical examples of artists losing profit via unlicensed copying is subtly different from the current state of affairs. These are examples of distributors in other jurisdictions profiting from the work of an artist w/o their permission. In each of the examples, the jurisdiction is attempting to bolster a newly minted industry at the expense of an established industry.
The current digital copyright issue is a case of existing (licensed) distributors worried losing their profit margin. There’s no proof that downloading has actually damaged this profit margin. In fact, changes in distribution (i.e. Walmart’s cheaper prices) may be the primary source of losses in the music industry.
In any case, those who download a work w/o license do not map directly into these historical examples. First, they typically use the unlicensed work for personal use rather than selling it (as a distributor might). Second, there’s no indication that they would have actually purchased the work had they not gained access to an unlicensed copy.