The Forthcoming Copyright Consultation – An Update

CBC and Billboard provide some additional coverage of the copyright consultation to be announced next week.  Word is that the roundtables will begin immediately with at least two planned next week in Vancouver and Calgary with more to follow across the country.  The first is apparently scheduled for the Vancouver Public Library on Monday, July 20th.  The roundtables are by invitation-only but broader online consultations – likely to include both a submission process and online discussion forum – will be launched on the same day.


  1. pat donovan says:

    privitze, sanitize, throttle.

    any mention of tyhe broadcsat treaty, or all c-61?

  2. Little Old Lady says:

    So who’s on the invitation-only roundtable “A-list”?

  3. JoeComputer says:

    Why does any business or organization get priortization in these so called “round-table” talks. I think thats neither fair nor democratic.

    I think it would be a much more favorable and unbiased idea to make it a democratic process. If someone believes they should be heard as well as priority over everyone else, then they should have to prove it to the general populace. This consultation already lost its credibility in my view, as their will be people not representing my views at these discussions. That is, if it even makes its way to southern Ontario. You and I readers, will have no choice in the matter.

  4. News Alerter says:

    Why Stop at Entertainment? ACTA Plans To Criminalize Generic Meds Could Hurt Poor

  5. oldranger says:

    A copyright is not property, intellectual or otherwise. It is the limited time protection of an expression. It cannot be “stolen”, it can only be copied. In it’s simplest terms, it is intended to allow a successful artist to spend 100% of their time creating their “art”. In the past, this was often done by a “patron of the arts”. The institution of copyright allowed the creation of business models that do nothing but act as “patrons of the art”, organizing and distributing an artist’s creation to an audience willing to pay for a chance to enjoy the artist’s work.
    Technology does advance, and can fundamentally change business models. Recordable media fundamentally changed the above business model, allowing a much wider audience to appreciate the artist’s talent. An artist no longer needed to travel to their audience, or vice versa (although still very popular). The “patron” businesses built on the foundations of copyright and artistic work became very large, primarily because of the distribution networks for artistic creations.
    Technology advanced again, now allowing the audience to copy the work from one medium to another, from the record to the magnetic tape, from the TV to the VCR. The introduction of the digital CD and the DVD allowed these copies to be done many times without any loss of quality. Now a member of the audience only needed to purchase one copy of the artist’s work, and could enjoy it many times. Even share it with friends. The massive distribution network for these media “patron” businesses became less important, but was still required.
    Technology advances again, this time into the internet and the online sharing of these digital creations. Now the large distribution network is nearly irrelevant. The distribution network that allowed the creation of these large media businesses in the first place. And these companies want to protect that business.
    Some artists recognize the changing technological landscape, and make their creations available directly on the internet, bypassing the middleman “patron” distribution network. They no longer need patrons, they receive compensation directly from their audience. If their audience appreciates their work enough to support them, they can continue to spend 100% of their time “creating their art”. If not, then either their work is not valuable enough to their audience, or their particular audience does not have the means to contribute.

    Copyright was never intended to protect a business model. It isn’t even intended to “make money with”. It is simply a limited time protection of an expression.
    Because of the way copyright laws have evolved, everything you do or say is protected. Even this posting is protected by copyright, although CBC does state “By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever”, that allows them usage of my posted material.

    Technology has advanced to the point where artists no longer need patrons. They can directly reach their audience, bypassing those patron businesses built up around the distribution of their work. Do we have an obligation to support outdated distribution models? If we as a society are willing to support these artists is also something that has to be considered. And you need to consider if the aggressive acts and resistance to the changing technological landscape by these large organizations, has created an atmosphere whereby our society no longer respects the ethics that initially created copyright laws. Laws that nobody has any respect for, are useless.
    Personally, I don’t think our society has lost respect for the principles of copyright. What we have lost respect for is the large, outdated, and expensive distribution business models built up on the foundations of copyright law.

    If you are an artist, consider who your audience is, do you really need a patron in today’s world. If you are a large media distribution company, consider the source of your income. The technology is here to stay. The least desirable thing would be to see laws that effectively turn every member of your audience into potential criminals. Consider your role in creating the ethics and atmosphere of the society you now operate within. If you are part of the audience, consider what will happen if there is no incentive for an artist to make their work widely available.

    BTW.. There is no such thing as a “consumer”. The use of this term in business circles leads to a lack of respect for your customers and your audience. That lack of respect is reciprocated, with less than desirable results.

  6. Re: oldranger
    Well said.

  7. Christopher says:

    What does “invitation only” mean? Who’s being invited?

    What good is a consultation when only the right people show up?

  8. The Canadian Federation of Students-BC was invited to the Vancouver hearing on Monday, July 20.

  9. How exactly do we go about taking part of these discussions?
    I’m very interested in making my voice heard on this issue but is it just my perception or are these public consultations a sudden surprise i.e. announced on Friday that they are starting on Monday?

    An announcement should occur weeks in advance outlining the consultation schedules to allow all interested parties to prepare and participate.

    Call me jaded but I suspect the intent was to slide these by as quick as possible to allow for a rubber stamp indicating that the public was consulted.

    Where can I find the details of where the meetings are being held – dates, times, places? What are the other means to participate?

  10. Jack Robinson says:

    Mindfog Circus Minimus
    Posted the following on Art Threat’s blog a few minutes ago…

    ‘These ‘public consultations’ are nothing more than toxic mindfog emanating from our Cyborg Caesar at Sussex and his cabal of corporate cronies. The trip-wired trap omnibus Bill 61 that Harper failed to ram up our collectively passive Canuck butts was in fact engineered, according to Michael Geist, at the last Three Stooges Summit of the Amerikas… and will not only assure U.S. Media Congloms’ greedbag hammerlock on everything we read, watch, listen to and wish to share or archive… but give the Big Blue Meanies the means to potentially criminalize and punish everybody they disdain… including your Elvis lovin’ granny.’

    Should this dog and pony side-show distraction roll into my London Ontario home-zone, resident Quebecor and Corus Media mugwhumps will ensure that the citizenry of Melonville only be alerted to the event by artful sound-byte table scraps after the fact… and once the ‘by invitation only’ Tea Party’s a fait complete.