Andreas Schroeder on Counting the Pennies
June 17, 2011
Tags: copyright / public lending right / schroeder
Share this post
Episode 168: Privacy Commissioner of Canada Philippe Dufresne on How to Fix Bill C-27
May 29, 2023
May 15, 2023
May 1, 2023
Episode 164: Teresa Scassa on the Latest Canadian Court Ruling on Facebook and What It Might Mean for Privacy Reform
April 24, 2023
Search Results placeholder
- Meta to Test Blocking News Sharing on Facebook and Instagram in Canada in Response to Bill C-18’s Mandated Payments for Links
- Globe Publisher Calls Bill C-18 a “Threat to the Independence of Media” As Government Senate Representative Smears Bill Critics
- Extend the Deadline: My Submission to the CRTC on its Deeply Flawed Bill C-11 Consultations
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 168: Privacy Commissioner of Canada Philippe Dufresne on How to Fix Bill C-27
- CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides Faces Her First Big Test: Is the Commission Serious About Public Participation on Bill C-11?
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) .
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.
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