Copyright Bill on Notice Paper as Ministers Emphasize Balance, Modernization

The government has placed the forthcoming copyright bill on the Notice Paper, which means that the bill could be introduced as soon as tomorrow.  The campaign to support the bill has also begun, with an op-ed in today's National Post jointly authored by Industry Minister Tony Clement and Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore.  The op-ed throws out lots of statistics about the digital and cultural economies and tries to make the case that it has been years since the last update (it references how the current bill is more than 80 years old, but then states that at the last update Canadians used CD players, pagers, and Sega Genesis – not exactly an eternity given that many still use CD players and pagers).

A word cloud of the op-ed would focus primarily on two words – balance and modernization.  Both words appear repeatedly in the piece, with the Ministers emphasizing that the bill will be balanced and that modernizing the law is long overdue.  This suggests that the C-61 communication line of a "made in Canada" has been dropped, which makes sense given the digital lock provisions will reflect a made-in-the-USA approach.


  1. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    But DRM would guarantee that no one could be using CDs and pagers from back then…

    Something to think about: how much more environmental mess will we have if we are forced to trash still usable technology because of DRM?

  2. Anarchist Philanthropist says:

    Why did we put these people in office?
    Why are they such hypocrites?
    Why are they letting another country dictate CANADIAN policy??

  3. Ed Reddy in Calgary says:

    I’m so angry about this, I’m not really sure where to start. I could be angry at the Government wasting tax payers dollars and my personal time to tell them what I don’t want in this bill, only to have them do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE what every Canadian said they didn’t want. I mean, who’s running our government? MPAA and RIAA? How many fancy suppers were they purchased? Is the Conservative government telling us that the key to their mindset is through their stomach? I’m just baffled at how ‘un-Canadian’ this approach is. They ask us what we want, then do the exact opposite and tell us what we need. What about fair dealing with copyrights and no DRM? How many studies on DRM do government needs to know that they DON’T WORK and they stifle innovation? What does this mean for my locked cell phone? That I’ll go to jail for unlocking it?

    I mean, kill a wheel-chair bound producer for the CBC and get a slap on the wrist, but move my 2000 CD colleciton to my iPod and go to jail for 20 years and a
    $50,000,000 fine. Now tell me this is a fair bill!

    I’m calling my ‘conservative’ MP today and telling him three things:

    1. I don’t like MADE-IN-THE-USA bills being introduced in Canada and as my MP, I think he should vote against it.
    2. If he supports this bill, I will not vote for him in the next election.
    3. If he supports this bill, I will make it my personal goal next election to ensure he’s not elected by running a ABC campaign in my district against him.

    I think that might get his attention. But it shouldn’t require me to threaten my MP to do the right thing.

  4. Um.. guys, this stuff doesn’t work. It’s already been tried elsewhere, and we can see the results.

  5. Failure
    If this passes, it’s one more nail in the coffin of Canadian innovation. Aside from copyright litigators, who benefits? No one. Well, let’s get this show on the road.

  6. says:

    When it comes, if we can not freely share knowledge (media for our kids) with the instruments of technology that we founded: then we write letters, make phone calls, and lobby.

    If our voice will not be heard: then we stop spending our money in DVDs, CDs, Theaters. Only in this way can we protect our foundations: by investing in our freedom of intelligence.


  7. politicians
    I’m guessing Canadian people don’t matter anymore, and the government now works for American corporations. Oh joy for the future of humanity.

    Anyone ever notice James Moore looks exactly like Ricki from trailer park boys

  8. @joah
    “If our voice will not be heard: then we stop spending our money in DVDs, CDs, Theaters. Only in this way can we protect our foundations: by investing in our freedom of intelligence.”

    And they’ll still find a way to blame piracy. Still, I avoid DRM locked media like it’s a plague. Strict DRM does not work well in Canada, this has been proven a number of times. They are cow-toeing to pressure from the RIAA, MPAA and US Government.

  9. VancouverDave says:

    @ Ed Reddy
    I’m afraid it’s more substantial than fancy suppers; this comes down to cold, hard cash. RIAA and MPAA make large donations to every federal political party, which is why you will not see anything concrete in the way of opposition to any **AA-dictated legislation.

  10. Flip-Flop
    What’$ with Clement’$ $udden change in opinion? Ohhhhh, I know, he’$ finally $een the light, found the err of hi$ way$, and came around to Moore’$ way of thinking. YA RIGHT!!! You can bet your A$$ that he’$ received $ome back-room, off the book$, incentive$ to $often hi$ $tance on copyright law$….probably directly from the RIAA and/or MPAA.

    $$$$$$$ M$O$N$E$Y $$$$$ T$A$L$K$S $$$$$$$$

  11. @a.martin
    When was the last time that the Canadian people mattered in Canadian politics? For decades its been about getting the party elected to a majority government and campaign financing. MPs are generally not allowed to vote with the wishes of their constituents, rather they have to toe the party line or be prepared to be ejected from caucus (and lose party support during the next election campaign).

    Campaign financing is a bit trickier now that corporations and unions are prohibited from making contributions. This change to the rules benefited the CPC because of their Reform roots, but hurt the LPC (corporate funding) and NDP (union funding).

    Anyway, back on topic. Since I’ve not seen the legislation I can’t come out against it categorically, based on what has been presented here, this would be a poor piece of legislation. Legislation generally should reflect Canadian society. As described, this does not do so. However, for most people (I would assume) this is low on the priority list, and therefore there is not likely to be a big hue and cry against it. Remember, the government doesn’t consider things like Facebook groups to be a valid way to gauge the wishes of the Canadian public, ditto for online petitions. So, if you want to make your views known, send letters via snail mail to your MP and to the Industry and Heritage ministers. Why letters? Simple, they are postmarked, proving that they were sent from in Canada.

    Further on the FB groups and online petitions… I actually agree with them on this. With these mechanisms, there is no guarantee that the members/signers are actually Canadian residents. So, if we want to ensure that it is, in fact, a “made in Canada” solution, representing the views of Canadian taxpayers, then these mechanisms shouldn’t be used. To complain in these fora may be viewed as hypocritical. Why? For example, let’s say that two FB groups, are created. One against has 100,000 members, 20000 of whom are residents. One for the legislation, 50000 members, 35000 of whom are residents. Which better represents the views of the people of Canada?

  12. Bloc Quebecois?
    Slashdot ran a “Canadian DMCA” article yesterday, and one of the comments stated that the Bloc is going to support the bill, as presented. Granted, one must take a post on Slashdot with a grain of salt, but it has got me wondering, if it’s true, how a bill drafted to protect the interests of the American Media Cartel can possibly have a positive influence on the preservation of French culture?

    I have yet to read a strong counter-argument to the notion that, if the movie and music industry wants to control their product fro beginning to end, then it is their obligation to provide the environment (theatre, arena) and charge consumers to partake of the media in that environment. I keep hearing this baloney about how consumers don’t have the right to diminish their profits (through P2P); as far as I’m concerned, they don’t have the right to diminish my freedom.

    If you don’t like what is happening in the home market, get out of the home market and back into your controlled environment. Your right to profit is not important enough to supersede my rights as a consumer/individual. The home market for digital entertainment is trivial, in the larger scope of things. It is a minor social luxury, and does not warrant special appreciation.

    Your industry, like virtually every other industry, has been influenced by technological change. We have all had to run with the changes affecting our market niches, you should to. When automation and chemical processes led to cheaper production of CD/DVD media, did your industry throw up it hands and say “Whoa, we can’t have that – the blank media industry needs protecting”? Not friggin likely. Every expenditure of your industry which became cheaper, through technological or competitive elements, was exploited to increase your profitability. Now, it’s your turn to feel the pinch.

    Get out of the home market if you don’t like what’s happening in it.

  13. @Anon-K – RE:Facebook Groups
    I would argue the “for” group would be much much more likely to be infultrated by international corporate moles. There isn’t nearly as much benefit for someone outside the country to vote against such legislation.

  14. strunk&white says:

    I’m sorry, who still uses a pager? And do they buy them from Liz Lemon’s boyfriend?

  15. DRM
    If the copyright bill makes it illegal to remove DRM from content that I purchase, then I guess I will be a criminal. I would prefer to only be considered a criminal if I allow others to copy the content that I purchase. I’m thinking that if I become a criminal just by removing the DRM, then I might as well allow others to copy it too, since I would already be a criminal at that point.

    I have always paid for content and have actually paid for a LOT of content over the years. I don’t share content I purchase with others other than people listening to music in my home or car or watching movies with me. I believe that the content creators deserve to be compensated for their work. However I will always remove DRM from any content I purchase to protect my investment in their product. If that makes me a criminal, so be it.

  16. RE: stunk@stupid
    “I’m sorry, who still uses a pager? And do they buy them from Liz Lemon’s boyfriend?”

    Oh, I don’t know. How about the medical establishment? Or regular hospital workers for that matter? For a person supposedly “in” and “current” on digital technology debates, you seem to be quite ignorant of reality.

    Oh but wait, you are “strunk@white”, a name which is now synonymous with ignorance of reality.

  17. Hindgrinder says:

    Country Folks Can Survive Hank Williams REMIX – Sample
    The Lobbyman says it’s the end of free-copy-time,
    and the IP revenue river she’s a going dry,
    The Pirate Bay’s still up and the stock market’s down,
    and you’ll only get unplugged if they 3-strike ya down,
    I live online where “Thought Police” can’t see,
    My wireless, and my network and my HD DRM free,
    I got a 100meg tunnel and a 4 terabyte drive,
    And a Pirate boy can stream live!
    Pirate folks can survive!


    Because you can’t throttle us out,
    And you can’t make us /run,
    Cause we’ll host offshore and crypt all ports for fun,
    We share cyberspace and we broadcast WAN,
    And if you aint into that – just stay off our LAN. – Proud to show my colours – How aboot you paid trolls do the same?

  18. Should we be lobbying the USA to change their antiquated and dangerously inadequate copyright laws? Canada’s Copyright Act was last amended in 1997 and the DMCA, which is the last change in US copyright law (outside of that horrid FECA), was enacted in 1998. Try as I might, I can’t find this glut of technology that magically appeared in that year, so one must assume if the Canadian law is ancient and lacking, that the US must be similarly so.

  19. Hindgrinder says:

    The answer to 1984 is 1776.
    That’s what the USA needs to remember.
    The Canadian public at large is not interested in their lobby law exports.


  20. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    @Anarchist Philanthropist very good questions all: we badly need electoral reform

    In the absence of same, we are fortunate to have a minority government, because its the only time I’ve noticed our government even pretending to listen…

    It is NOT that Canadians don’t care, it is more that most don’t KNOW about it or understand the issues. Look for coverage in the mainstream news media.

    You don’t have to read my anti Canadian DMCA article but at the end there’s a handy list of contact info only requiring cutting and pasting.

    Everyone here there or everywhere has to tell everyone they know about this. News of this needs to GET OUT of the tiny community that knows it is coming. Tell everybody. Get your mom, your kid, your teacher, your student, your, your hairdresser, your grocer… EVERYBODY to write letters. Get letters written. If there is enough noise it CAN be stopped.

  21. I received a 404 error when trying to view the op-ed post on the national post. Is someone firing lasers again or is it just extremely popular?

  22. Scratch that, the site is crawling but it works. If the ministers were truly worried about the video game industry and the game designers who build it, perhaps they would be delighted to hear about the 10,000+ applicants who get turned down at each college across the country for programming and animation related programs. That’s right, limited seating is a huge problem right now. But perhaps these Conservatives are right, consumer locks would be a much better approach to building Canada’s future. /s

  23. @Dan
    Well that’s rather easy….

    Quebec’s major distributor of cr… i mean media and news and other content is Quebecor Media, controled by Peladeau…

    Unfortunatly Peladeau is like every other CEO of a media compagny and will not only try to prevent anny mention of the crap in the Canadian DMCA law but will also do everything it his power to make Quebecers (including the Bloc) think that a Canadian version of the DMCA is the way to go…

    Unfortunatly for him, some people can read english and can use the internet well enought to land on this website.

  24. Laundry List says:

    Thoughts on Copyright
    Sean Cranbury posted a thought-provoking piece on copyright law yesterday on his Books on the Radio blog:

  25. I’d love to make a coherent reply to that op-ed piece. Sadly, I’m still “waiting to see the bill” before I can comment on it.

    Anyone else find it hypocritical that the ministers in support of this bill are allowed to comment on it before the text is released, and those of us whom they work for have to sit here with our mouths closed?

  26. joel cairo says:

    Neo con doublespeak, balance… that means no balance, or weighing in favor of large corporations. modernization…. that means the opposite, ‘let’s try what worked in the last century when actual products changed hands’ no more products? hm..criminalize all citizens! -solidarity works, boycott big media companies, if you give them your money they will use it to screw you more. know thine enemy.

  27. A question
    How will this bill affect the downloading of movies and/or TV shows from links on 3rd party sites.

    Will that now be illegal under this bill?


  28. strunk&white says:

    Funny thing — I generated a word cloud from the op-ed, and the words balance and modernization are not the most prominent. Instead it shows “Canadian,” “Canada’s,” “economy,””create,” “work,” “laws,” “technologies,””digital,” “jobs,” “artists.” In fact, the bottom section of the cloud is dominated by the word cluster “Digital Copyright Canada.”

    I’m not sure, because like the rest of you I’m still waiting to see the bill, but it sounds like this thing might just focus on Canadian technology and copyright, and jobs for artists in the digital economy.

    Someone tell me where the protest march starts. Send me a massage on my pager.

  29. Dan, Anonyme and pagers
    Dan, glad you asked. Quebecor, on top of what anonyme said, also has Brian Mulroney on their chair of directors. Also worth noting is that they’re the company who owns videotron. Aka, the company that is for suing file sharers, gladly offered ip’s to the CRIA and also supports three strike rules. Although I am suprisedt to see the Block support this bill, the reason for it is unfortunatly sad.

    As for the pagers, I’m currently wearing 2 of them. Strunk, you better pray pagers stay in style longer because otherwise, a cell phone per doctor/health care worker would get very expensive very fast.

    I’m also of the opinion that no conservatives or other mp’s should be allowed to publicly support a bill before it’s actually released to the public. That’s priming the market and border line public opinion tampering. Luckily we do have other sources out there for anybody who chooses to reasearch it further.

  30. One more thing
    Yesteday, Bryan Adams was in America recoding his new hit single, Ameraica 11. He stayed at the Great American Inn. where he enjoyed traditional amercain food. Tomorow, he’ll be continuing on to France where he will give a talk about Canadian artitsts and their upcoming ambitions.

    According to your logic Strunk, that paragrah is definitly about America and not about Bryan Adams and his schedual. How silly am I to think that Bryan Adams was the topic of conversation.

  31. Captain Hook says:

    I couldn’t agree more!
    FTA: “What is needed is a solution that balances the ability of Canadians to access and enjoy new technologies, with the rights of Canadian creators, who are the bedrock of our culture and economy, to be fairly compensated for their hard work.”

    I couldn’t agree more. The sooner we start talking about realistic ways to allow artists to be fairly compensated while protecting Canadians basic freedoms, the better. Too bad the government is so focused on force fitting these old archaic copyright laws into our modern times.

  32. strunk&white says:

    Joel, here’s the thing – it’s not my logic you’re questioning; it’s Michael Geist’s. Read the posting again. He suggests the word cloud analysis. I only followed through on it to see if he was right.

    He wasn’t. Shockingly.

    As to pagers… again, go back to the source. I’m glad the health care profession still uses pagers. My profession still uses pens and paper. I’m one who believes society shouldn’t mindlessly discard old practices just because new ones dominate (and that really is the op-ed’s point, right?… dominant technology).

    Take respect for artist rights under copyright. I think just because digital filesharing suddenly exists and is possible, that should not mean we can discard our respect for the artists who make the works we intend to “share” endlessly and forever.

  33. Missing the truth
    I do not think the canadian government has much choice when it comes to a “Made in the USA” law. I believe I read somewhere that the trade minister from the US came to Canada and there where extensive talks, generally when ever bills all of a sudden get a complete 180 in how they are written it pertains to the lively hood of canadians. Obama has proven that he is the pawn of unions and groups like the motion picture industry, so I am sure he set talks with the government to utilize our trade agreements in a gesture to force the new copy write bill. Essentially, the US is blackmailing canada with reduction of trade and purchasing in an effort to assure considerations of the Movie and record industry are retained.

    Canada exports about 80% of all goods made, and of that a majority heads over the boarder to the US. This means many jobs in canada are directly connected to the US economy and their consumption. This also means the Obama administration is playing dirty pool with these treaties to assure Canada bucks up and does what they want. And I suspect this is also the case with the other countries who have done a 180 on their laws when it comes to the motion picture and record industries. (Both I think are unionized in the US)

    I think for the most part the Harper administration has been doing a good job, but even if the liberals or the NDP where in power they would be still faced with weighing jobs, and exports with copy write and DRM. Until Canada can find another equally large importer of our goods and get away from the US, we have no choice with to have rules much like theirs.

  34. RE:stunk&stupid
    “As to pagers… again, go back to the source. I’m glad the health care profession still uses pagers. My profession still uses pens and paper. I’m one who believes society shouldn’t mindlessly discard old practices just because new ones dominate (and that really is the op-ed’s point, right?… dominant technology).”

    Oh I see. So you’ve just proven you are hypocrite with your posts. Sorry lad, you can’t just say that the law is outdated and then suggest that a new law be based on an old law with old practices (i.e. the DMCA).

    “Take respect for artist rights under copyright. I think just because digital filesharing suddenly exists and is possible, that should not mean we can discard our respect for the artists who make the works we intend to “share” endlessly and forever.”

    I love your generalization here, as if everyone on this board has some agenda to screw over artists by file sharing. I think the vast majority of people discard our respect for “mainstream” artists (since I’m 99.9999% sure you aren’t talking about those who don’t surrender to the RIAA) because the music generally sucks because it is manufactured rather than crafted. I also think that you will find that music people want to here is getting purchased through various traditional and new-age methods. See, people like you seem to ignore the natural way of economics, where demand is an equal component to supply. You want to create a fantasy world where supply is consumed regardless of the quality vs. price. Maybe you should try taking high school economics so you may understand these advanced concepts.

    Furthermore, it is also clear to me that you do not represent the non-music-association-musicians who put music up on MySpace or use other Internet services to showcase their music. Not taking these growing number of musicians into account shows just how much of a dinosaur you really are.

    Finally, I just want to emphasize one point in your post:

    “we intend to “share” endlessly and forever.”

    Right. But it is OK to have copyright/patents/trademarks/rights on DRM that last endlessly and forever? The point of copyright was to protect the distribution rights of a creation for a reasonable period of time, and give the creator a steady stream of revenue. When this time period was up, the artist would be be encouraged to create more things of equal quality. People like you want instead to use copyright as some sort of endless money supply, resulting in uninspired creations since the artist doesn’t give a shit (“Hey, I’m getting money forever anyway; why create good material) and shifting the focus away from actually making good content and instead focusing on screwing over your customers.

    You really do sicken me, whitey.

  35. strunk&white says:

    Eric L.,

    Thanks for the illustration of respect for artists. I think you might want to invest in some anger management classes. Your emotional response is a bit out of whack here. “People like” me are not trying to sicken you. “People like” me are trying to protect you from making a fool of yourself with ridiculous revolutionary play-acting.

    So, after you chill a bit, step two would be for you to understand the position you are actually arguing against. Where do I make a request for copyright that lasts forever? Where do I ask for a law based on the DMCA? You have your head so far up your technology, you don’t even know that I’m a writer, not a musician. I mean, I’ve only said I’m a writer about three hundred times on this blog. Why bother recognizing that when it is so much more satisfying to spit out RIAA snarks and oh-so-clever parodies of my name (which, btw, is a reference to a “writing” manual).

    Take a deep breath.

  36. “I think just because digital filesharing suddenly exists and is possible, that should not mean we can discard our respect for the artists who make the works we intend to “share” endlessly and forever.”

    …and just because digital filesharing suddenly exists and is possible, and I choose not to participate in those practices but still wish to make copies of my DVDs to put on my laptop when travelling or copy older CDs with DRM onto my son’s mp3 player, that should not mean we can discard our respect for the consumers by enacting that broad, encompassing laws that aren’t tied to actual infringment because media companies don’t want to spend resources on chasing the filesharers. Those laws are already in place but apparently are not “cost effective” enough to warant the effort.

  37. Says it all…
    “made in Canada” has been dropped, which makes sense given the digital lock provisions will reflect a made-in-the-USA approach.

  38. @strunk&white
    “Take respect for artist rights under copyright.”

    Unfortunately, under the current regime, most artists don’t own the copyright to their own material and make little, if any, money on the sale of their music. The last time I researched it, less than 5% of signed recording artist actually made ongoing profits from their record sales. So it’s the recording company whose copyright is infringed, not the artist. In many cases filesharing only helps artist profits by getting music distributed quickly before a tour, when the real money is made.

    I know people who used to work in the Nashville recording industry, unless a recording artist or band is at the very top of the food chain, it’s generally only the independents that actually make money from their music sales. A vast majority of the money an artist makes is from merchandise sales and concert ticket sales.

    “I think just because digital filesharing suddenly exists and is possible, that should not mean we can discard our respect for the artists who make the works we intend to “share” endlessly and forever.”

    Again, artists should read “recording company”. It also does not mean the RIAA and MPAA can continually use their power and money to push people around all the while while playing ostrich-syndrome with regard to the technology. Pandora’s box has been opened, rather than toils and plague, high-speed Internet and digital entertainment has been unleashed upon the recording industry…there is no putting it back in the box. This is not a new thing and the recording industry has been willfully ignoring it for well over a decade…closer to 15 years. If they had of started adopting the technology back in the mid-90’s when MP3 started to become popular, would they be in the same situation they’re in now? I think not.

    Much like the copyright law, the current recording industry (Not so much movie industry) business model is antequated and relies on “physical media” exchaning hands. It is no longer suitable to the technology. They have to adapt to consumer needs…not ram what they think it is down the consumers throat. Today’s tech-hungry, tech-immersed generation (Say those born after 1993, the so-called generation-Y) are increasingly disillusioned and often have an inherent anti-corporate sentiment. Add to that, with programs like “No kids left behind” in school and awards in sports, no matter how well you perform, this generation is raised with perceived and sometimes perverse sense of entitlement. This generation will not tolerate draconian restrictions. Unless the industry adapts, very soon, all the money and all the laws in the world won’t be able to help them. I’m not being cynical, or overly pro-consumer rights (I spend a lot of money on movies), it’s just how it is.

  39. strunk&white says:

    I tell you, I’m starting to think someone has created a computer program to generate comments on this and similar sites. T-shirts and touring are where ther real money is. This generation won’t stand for draconian restrictions. The recording industry needs to adapt its model.

    So what, to all of that. How is any of that — accurate or inaccurate, undertsated or overstated — a reason to remove established creator rights under copyright. And let’s not be dishonest — if genuine piracy cannot be addressed under the law, then artists rights are effectively removed. If expanded fair dealing expands to the point where educational markets for content disapper, then artists rights are being eliminated.

    All the consumer has to do to make a change in corporate practice is vote with her wallet. No change in law is required, and no “draconian” advancement of corporate rights will make any difference whatsoever if consumers back their demands with a refusal to buy what they don’t want.

  40. Captain Hook says:

    Arrrr… man the torpedoes matey
    Whitey saiz:
    “if genuine piracy cannot be addressed under the law, then artists rights are effectively removed.”

    So true, and the fact is that genuine piracy CANNOT be addressed under the law. So make of that what you will. However I think I understand now. If artists rights are effectively removed, then we should effectively remove everyone elses too. I see now. What you want in vengeance. A little tit for tat. Man the torpedoes! If I’m going down, I’m going to take as many others with me as I can [snatches at passing mom and baby carriage] [shrill scream followed by silence and weeping]

    I think it would be more productive if we found new systems for the aspects of copyright that no longer function due to new technologies, but this works too. At least we’ll all suffer together.

  41. ..
    “And let’s not be dishonest — if genuine piracy cannot be addressed under the law, then artists rights are effectively removed.”

    Agreed, but on the other side, if overly draconian laws has the potential to push people to become bitter and to resort to piracy on principle. Look at Microsoft, people just have an inherant disrespect and hate on for them. For all their security, limitaions, crack kills and outrageous prices, Windows XP is the most pirated software in the world. Prosecuting infringers is completly unrealistic.

    Law driven by corporate pressure become potentially dangerous. Laws become unenforacable when the general populous thinks they’re fundimentally flawed. They just won’t listen.

    “If expanded fair dealing expands to the point where educational markets for content disapper, then artists rights are being eliminated.”

    Working in post-secondary, statements like this worry me. Any copyright provisions levied here will affect the student in a negative way. Strict copyright and DRM could potentially limit availability of resources and make others unavailable and it will almost certainly make university substantially more expensive. There was a time when writers strived to have their books adopted by universities because it immediately increases their status…oh wait…it’s the publishers, not so much the authors who want strict copyright provisions.

    “All the consumer has to do to make a change in corporate practice is vote with her wallet.”

    Now, let’s be honest, the industry would find a way to blame this on piracy.

  42. Lonnie Jones says:

    In reality, like the U.S. version, this act protects the LABELS not the Artists who are making the music/films etc. The Labels rip off the artists AND the public while the artists get … well to put it as politely as possible, we get screwed without even a kiss.