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
A Standard That Doesn’t Exist: Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Offers Misleading Defence of Bill C-22’s Lower Threshold for Subscriber Information 
More Surveillance Demands to Come?: Government Admits Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Provisions Could Be Expanded 
Win, Lose or Draw?: The Federal Court of Appeal Overrules a Key Copyright Case on Procedural Grounds 
The Lawful Access Debate Begins: Canadians Should Pay Attention to What the Government Isn’t Saying 
The Global Battle for Data Control: How the 2026 U.S. Report on Trade Barriers Targets Data Sovereignty Worldwide
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.