Andreas Schroeder on Counting the Pennies
7 Comments
Recent Posts
Rushing Lawful Access Backfires: Wyden Letter on Bill C-22 Highlights Political, Trade and Business Risks 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 276: Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard on Canada’s Access to Information Failures and Why Access Delayed is Access Denied 
Why the Government’s Plan for a Social Media Ban in Bill C-34 Is Unconstitutional 
Outdated Data and Dubious Comparisons: Digging into the Government’s AI Strategy Adoption Claims 
Why Being Locked Out of Frontier AI is The Sovereignty Threat Canada Missed
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