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
The Draft Bill C-11 Policy Direction: Canadian Heritage Implicitly Admits What It Spent Months Denying 
Tough Talk, Empty Answers: How Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez is Propelling Canada’s News Sector Toward the Bill C-18 Cliff 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 169: Alissa Centivany and Anthony Rosborough on Repairing Canada’s Right to Repair 
Meta to Test Blocking News Sharing on Facebook and Instagram in Canada in Response to Bill C-18’s Mandated Payments for Links 
Globe Publisher Calls Bill C-18 a “Threat to the Independence of Media” As Government Senate Representative Smears Bill Critics
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.