The Daily Digital Lock Dissenter, Day 20: Appropriation Art

The Appropriation Art Coalition reflects the broad spectrum of Canada’s art community. The coalition now numbers over 600 artists, curators, directors, educators, writers, associations and organizations from the art sector. All have come together to express their concern over the state of copyright policy for artists and the future of ‘Appropriation Art’.  One of its core principles focuses on digital lock rules, expressing concern that artists rely on fair dealing principles such as criticism and review, which can be lost under Bill C-11 if a digital lock is used:

ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION LAWS SHOULD NOT OUTLAW CREATIVE ACCESS. Laws that privilege technical measures that protect access to digital works must be rejected. The law should not outlaw otherwise legal dealings with copyrighted works merely because a digital lock has been used. Artists work with a contemporary palette, using new technology. They work from within popular culture, using material from movies and popular music. Contemporary culture should not be immune to critical commentary.

Previous Daily Digital Locks: Provincial Resource Centre for the Visually Impaired (PRCVI) BC, Canadian Consumer Initiative, Retail Council of Canada, Canadian Council of Archives, Canadian Teachers’ Federation, Canadian Federation of Students, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Documentary Organization of Canada, Canadian Library Association, Council of Ministers of Education Canada, Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright, Canadian Association of Research Libraries, Canadian Historical Association, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Canadian Bookseller Association, Canadian Home and School Federation, Film Studies Association of Canada, Canadian Bar Association, Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences


  1. Here you go kids, candy, candy, candy, coal.
    So, not all Artists are for locking down access to content in the name stronger copyright?

    I speak facetiously, knowing there is a wide berth of opinion in the creative community on this matter, yet we so often hear this line from some of the louder voices.

    One particular voice would often say that it is the option of TPM to be used that should be safeguarded, and I can happily agree to this. Yet, the rights that are being given to users in the same bill [C-11] should also receive the same consideration.

    Simply, TPM should be an allowed market control yet not at the expense of negating rights that are supposedly given at the same time. Make locks valid unless they contravene these rights, or are unlocked in the pursuit of infringement.

  2. Artists vs. Publishers
    It’s often not the artists themselves but their corporate overlords that are behind these things. Smaller artists are usually more excited that people are enjoying their work rather than crying over a potential “lost sale”.

    An artist in 1983:

    That same artist now:

    Let’s disregard the patents-roll-over-after-20-years-until-infinity as this is challenged in the article itself.

    “Today, none of us can not afford Mona Lisa. In contrast, Beethoven’s 9th is worthless. Do you mean that Beethoven is a minor artist compared Leonardo da Vinci? is the whole issue and it is these problems that will have to the laws of the type system Hadopi” [note: “worthless” is a Google-translate

    This is how wrong ideas are being planted in your head as truths. If you somehow had the original manuscript by Beethoven, it would also sell for quite a bit of money, whereas professionally made copies of the Mona Lisa are quite affordable.

    Here, by the way, is that original and priceless manuscript:

    It’s just sad that, if the record labels continue to have their way, we’ll have to wait until far into the 22nd century for Jarre’s work to become available.

  3. EA’s Origin
    Perhaps this has to do with platforms like EA’s Origin:,45612,2561554.html&act=url

    Origin “allegedly” was accessing all kinds of files on the user’s hard drive that it had no business being in:

    Of course they don’t want to run into any legal trouble here, so why not just change the law:

    Darth Sidious: This turn of events is unfortunate. We must accelerate our plans. Begin installing your surveillance software.
    Nute Gunray: My lord! Is that… legal?
    Sidious: I will make it legal.

  4. We don’t need no criticism. Our movies are the best.

  5. RE: Napalm
    Transformers 3 was undoubtedly the spiritual successor to Citizen Kane in terms of artistic and cinematic achievement.

  6. EA’s Origin in the wrong post
    My comment should have gone in this posting:

  7. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    Artists vs. Publishers
    Thanks for sharing that link, Byte. It was great to have an opportunity to comment on M. Jarre’s personal greed in the land of Hadopi. It isn’t like he’s offering to replace the useless vinyl copies I have of his work with digital copies I could actually play.

    I’m at the point where I can live without culture that comes with these high costs. Thankfully there is Jamendo….

  8. @Laurel: “I’m at the point where I can live without culture that comes with these high costs.”

    Nicely put. At this point I wouldn’t bother with their stuff unless it reaches me as a no contract no obligation no payment broadcast such as OTA TV or FM radio.

    My total amazon bill for 2009 for music/movies/books was $1200. Yes, I was still completing my collection of music that once I had on vinyl or tape. Yes, it was the “year of the Blu-Ray” and I was exploring what it was about. Yes, there were a couple expensive technical books there too.

    Then came 2010 with C-32 and the new vision our gubermint has on how I can use this stuff.

    And here we are in 2011 and my total amazon bill for “cultural” items is now just $80.

    And no I don’t do “copyright infringement”. I’m just disgusted.