Andreas Schroeder on Counting the Pennies
7 Comments
Recent Posts
Online Harms’ Forgotten Generation: Why the Government Needs to Pay Attention to Protecting Seniors 
Culture Off the Table? What the Collapsed Canada-U.S. Trade Talks Reveal About the Carney Government’s Cultural Policy 
Digital Trade Alignment: What May Be in Play in the Canada-U.S. Trade Deal 
TMU Picks Damage Control Over Fixing the Damage: Behind Its Shameful Response to the Devastating Benotto Report on Campus Antisemitism 
Thanks For Joining the Movement: French Constitutional Council Strikes Down Kids’ Social Media Ban
What he omits to mention is that PLR has only one payer – the federal government.
And the other thing TWUC folks omit is that PLR only covers non-educational books. It is therefore completely irrelevant as a comparison with AC.
writer
Sorry, but you’re misinformed. While PLR does exclude books that are very specifically self-designated as school textbooks and how-to books, it DOES include a category called “scholarly works” — a very large category that certainly includes many educational books.
PLR also excludes non-Canadian books. It isn’t therefore a licensing scheme. AC has to have the foreign agreements to include non-Canadian publications. There really is no helpful comparison between the two.
Apples and oranges. The PLR is budgeted by the federal government. It is NOT a collective. I love the PLR, but allowing it to be used in an attack against other collectives is shameful.
PLR isn’t the same as AC. I don’t think that was the point of the article. At least not when I read it.
The point is in how it is structured. And why and how it came to be structured this way.
Michael Geist, in reporting on Schroeder’s opinions, writes that his blog posting instructs us “on how copyright collectives need to carefully examine the cost and benefits of some of its initiatives that yield little economic return.”
1. Schroeder did not post to the blog linked to; his words were quoted by Chris Moore.
2. The quote from Schroeder makes no direct reference to collectives, or copyright.
So, other than (or perhaps as a result of) being completely wrong in all the facts he reported, I suppose Michael Geist feels he’s made a relevant point.
If individual writers are content to have their words taken out of context to serve in a concerted attack on the collective rights of fellow creators, that is for them to decide on their own. As for me, I demand better:
an open letter to Canada’s writers and publishers http://t.co/H0cR26A