Andreas Schroeder on Counting the Pennies
7 Comments
Recent Posts
The Age Verification Bill That Won’t Die: How Bill S-209 Complicates the Government’s Bill C-34 Online Safety Plan 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 280: A Fall Update on Where Things Stand on Canadian Digital Policy Reforms 
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse 
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do 
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the 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