Access Copyright Launches C-32 Advocacy Site
Tags: access copyright / c-32 / copyright
No related posts.
Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era (University of Ottawa Press, 2015)
The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (University of Ottawa Press, 2013)
From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda (Irwin Law, 2010)
In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin Law, 2005) .
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
Depending on how they want it modified, I generally don’t have a problem with them. My main concern really is the digital locks section, which if they want to keep the same, yeah I’m against that.
Though it would be nice if the site actually explained how they want the things they have a problem with changed, not just saying “here’s the problems we have” since it looks like they have no actual solutions. Which makes it hard to try and have a discussion about the issues.
What, you can’t read their minds? 😉
Let’s face it, AC won’t be happy unless they get implants into our heads, so that they get “compensated” every time that we remember something that was written in a book. So, of course they would claim that hundreds of millions of dollars of income would be wiped out. Ignoring that the copy itself may in fact generate a sale for them (sort of like advertising… I may be incorrect but don’t radio stations not pay royalties for playing songs since it was considered to be free advertising for the songs? This would be a similar concept).
The whole concept of “millions of dollars being wiped out” is only partially true. If something is used via fair dealing rather than purchased, that same currency will be used somewhere else in the economy, possibly even in a more productive way. Notice I said ‘fair dealing’ rather than ‘outright stealing’, there is a difference. Incomes decreasing in one sector to the benefit of the other happens all the time in our economies. So wiped out no, redistributed yes.
comes down to one word
… and the word is GREED.
Problem historically has been that once copyright started to expand to include longer timeframes and re-coup royalties from additional sources, those who profited the most from these rights simply wanted more and more… in the recent couple of decades the greed has taken over and more money has become the main objective – not only the purpose of Access, but also the purpose of SOCAN, and of CRIA, and of all the associations that represent the world’s mightiest publishers, and aggregators of information and creative works. Their common bold claim is that the money is to go to originators of the art/works, but in reality artists get the smallest piece of the royalty pie. The corporations get the lion’s share. Here in 2010 we can only ask: When is enough, enough? and maybe it is time to say “no more!”
I just had a thought: wouldn’t the DRM bit circumvent current ownership laws? I mean, when you own a disc, C-32 would still make it illegal to break its security, regardless of whether it was sold to you or not.
Am I wrong?
It comes down to values! I’m no economist so I can’t speak to the validity of the “hundreds of millions of dollars” claim. What I can say is that the true purpose of fair use provisions is to allow the supposed morality of the nation (as represented by our elected officials) decide when the benefit to culture outweighs the prejudice caused tot he individual rights holder. After all, copyright is a LIMITED property right.
In short what I’m saying is that maybe this lost revenue to the rights holder, whatever the amount, is of a lesser importance than the benefit that will be derived by society.
I’m not usually the biggest lefty but I really do see immense value in fair use, specifically the new education provision.
Well here’s the problem, James. Copyright may be a LIMITED right, but if rights holders find the lost revenue guts their ability to make a living, they won’t go on producing things that people like you think they should surrender, which in turn means there won’t be any benefit to culture.
A content creator is the wellspring; not a grocery store. There is always another “product” to create.