Opposition to Copyright Law

[jdobbin]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...f8-cc5eed7d4108

The game of politics has many rules. But probably one of the most important of all is this: never surprise or embarrass the boss.

And yet, it would seem that that's exactly what's happened at Industry Canada over the contentious copyright reform file.

Whatever the reasons or the context, Industry Minister Jim Prentice was, by many accounts, blindsided by the breadth and ferocity of opposition to the legislation he was expected to deliver before Parliament breaks for Christmas at week's end.

As a result, he has taken direct control of the copyright issue, ordering the proposed bill to be materially revised. It's now not expected to appear again until January.

It is unlikely that the industry minister is very happy about his exposure on this front, although his response reflects a characteristic willingness to listen -- this time around to the vocal groups who deplore any rules that might impinge on the free exchange of intellectual property.

The fight online seems to be growing by the minute.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/technology-bl...kes_the_fi.html

The anger over the government's proposed copyright reform bill is palpable and it is astounding that it's something normally staid Canadians are getting worked up about.

Just take a look at the growth of a Facebook protest group (I'd link to it but you need to log in) started just over a week ago - when I checked this morning, it had just under 15,000 members. As of this writing, it's up past 16,000. In fact, 50 people have joined in the 15 minutes it took me to write this post. That's incredible and, if the group keeps growing at this pace, it's going to be very difficult for the government to introduce the bill it had planned.

It looks like there has been a battle between Heritage and Industry over the issue. The CBC reported that some Tories were "freaked out" at how ferocious the response has been.

Edited May 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[Fortunata]

How could there be opposition to the proposed legislation if it hasn't yet been tabled? How did people know that there was this proposed legislation? How would Prentice know about on-line protests and I'm not sure I understand how that would stop it?

[jdobbin]

How could there be opposition to the proposed legislation if it hasn't yet been tabled? How did people know that there was this proposed legislation? How would Prentice know about on-line protests and I'm not sure I understand how that would stop it?

Some of the discussion eleswhere suggested that Prentice was adopting a controversial template from Israel (among other countries) who have signed on to the U.S. copyright law. It was this sort of talk that exploded into raw fury in several tech and social group forums and the email, phonecalls and letters have been coming in right after.

Edited December 13, 2007 by jdobbin

[Fortunata]

Thanks, up until you posted that info I hadn't heard of it. I have little doubt that the legislation will be introduced though. I don't see this government as one that will support individual's voices over that of a powerful industry. I hope I'm wrong. Or maybe they'll make it reasonable.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Fortunata

[jdobbin]

More on the issue of copyright and how the Tory law is worrying librarians.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

he Canadian Library Association says pending copyright legislation is unbalanced and does not reflect the concerns of some 21 million library users and registered librarians across Canada.

Don Butcher, CLA's executive director, said that in recent weeks thousands of concerned Canadians have voiced their concerns over proposed legislative reforms to the Copyright Act.

"Whether it is through library blogs, Facebook groups, or at the library front desks, we are getting the message that Canadians want a fair and balanced copyright approach," he said.

"Just one simple Facebook group on copyright gained 30,000 members in a few short weeks with another Canadian joining the group every 30 seconds. There have been public rallies in Calgary and Toronto. The government needs to listen to average Canadians."

The new legislative reforms will likely meet the demands of the Canadian Recording Industry Association by making it illegal to download or share songs on the internet without paying a fee.

Amendments would also apply to the circumvention of technologies that protect against infringement and "persons who, for infringing purposes, enable or facilitate circumvention or who, without authorization, distribute copyright material."

The CLA says these amendments make the same mistakes as the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

"American law makes no differentiation in penalty between a counterfeiter circumventing technical protection measures for illegal profit and an individual circumventing technical protection measures to make a single copy," a release from CLA said Friday.

The reforms to the Canadian Copyright Act were promised by the Harper government in the Speech to the Throne.

The Tories better be wary of a grassroots revolts over the law if they try to mimic what the U.S. has.

[guyser]

The Tories better be wary of a grassroots revolts over the law if they try to mimic what the U.S. has.

Although I do not know for sure, it does seem like the copyright was written by americans. This is one area that I wish we would just stand up and tell the so called copyright people to bugger off.

[sideshow]

s

Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree. Let Canada worry about Canadian issues. Let America worry about theirs.

I also agree....Canadians should be free to continue the theft intellectual property and media production without American interference. Bring back the cable and satellite TV cheater boxes too!

[guyser]

I also agree....Canadians should be free to continue the theft intellectual property and media production without American interference. Bring back the cable and satellite TV cheater boxes too!

No, what is trying to be outlawed is the sharing of music. It is legal for me to lend a copy of an album (dating myself here) and you could use it for your own pleasure. Just because I can share it via a computer should not change that. If that is the case, maybe the post office can have the internet carriers shut down.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, what is trying to be outlawed is the sharing of music. It is legal for me to lend a copy of an album (dating myself here) and you could use it for your own pleasure. Just because I can share it via a computer should not change that. If that is the case, maybe the post office can have the internet carriers shut down.

OK....but you would have to share the media content in its native form and comply with provisions for sharing a single copy...not replicating the copy to match the vinyl LP example. I don't recall anybody duplicating a vinyl LP, just analog copies. You can do the same with digital media and stay legal.

[Topaz]

The bill for this came up for debate two weeks ago, and the opposition parties were saying that the way the bill was constructed it would hurt all educational schools. For example if they wanted to tape the parliament in action from C-PAC, it woud be legal. Of course, the young people who download music and movies were the biggest voice against.

[August1991]

I agree. Let Canada worry about Canadian issues. Let America worry about theirs.

IOW, Canadians want all the benefist of being American without any of the responsabilities.

In many ways, Canadians are like teenagers who complain about their parents without realizing where the food on the table comes from. It's noteworthy that much of the opposition to copyright laws come from young people who want to get stuff for free.

It's pleasant to be a free-rider and that's what (English) Canadians are. They benefit from all the original artistic and intellectual creation of the United States and they don't want to pay for it.

Of course, the young people who download music and movies were the biggest voice against.

The opposition to this bill is very immature.

At the moment however, the Tories would prefer to avoid controversy.

Edited December 22, 2007 by August1991

[blueblood]

IOW, Canadians want all the benefist of being American without any of the responsabilities.

In many ways, Canadians are like teenagers who complain about their parents without realizing where the food on the table comes from. It's noteworthy that much of the opposition to copyright laws come from young people who want to get stuff for free.

It's pleasant to be a free-rider and that's what (English) Canadians are. They benefit from all the original artistic and intellectual creation of the United States and they don't want to pay for it.

The opposition to this bill is very immature.

At the moment however, the Tories would prefer to avoid controversy.

This coming from a Quebecer. By that logic, why not Albertan oil companies charge royalties for oil and gas sold by Quebec retailers. How about Albertan and Ontarian taxpayers charging royalties on all the Quebec socialist joke programs.

Copyright laws are a ridiculous subsidy to reward bad, totalitarian business practices. If companies are bitching about people "stealing" their music, do a better job securing it.

Copyrighted stuff should fall under the same free market principles everything else is under, this results in cheaper goods, goods being made better due to competition, and more money in the consumer's pocket.

[August1991]

This coming from a Quebecer. By that logic, why not Albertan oil companies charge royalties for oil and gas sold by Quebec retailers.

The Albertan government does exactly that. Indeed, it recently raised the royalties for the benefit (presumably) of all Albertans. Americans (and Quebecers) will pay these royalties - honestly and without complaint - to the Albertan government.

For some reason, in political discusssions, royalties on intellectual property are viewed as less important than royalties on "real" property. I've never understood why. Oil in the ground is a gift of geography. No one in Alberta did anything to get it. The "doing" occurred 60 million years ago or so. Intellectual property is different. The "doing" is done now.

IMV, it is very different to argue about royalties for something that happened 60 millions years ago and royalties for something that happened last year. Between the two, I'd be far more concerned about recent events.

Oil royalties matter but copyright law matters more. We in Canada are foolish to believe otherwise. Of all people, Canadians should want to protect royalties.

Edited December 22, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Expect to pay more for memory and Ipods.

Consumers could potentially be hit by a new tax on electronic storage devices such as iPods and blank memory cards in 2008.

The federal Copyright Board has given its approval for a special levy on iPods and other digital players because they can be used to copy movies and music.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective, the non-profit agency that represents the music industry, wants to make sure that artists get compensated.

Small tariffs are currently in place for such items as rewritable CDs and cassettes. The CPCC first requested a levy on removable electronic memory in its 2003-2004 tariff proposal.

The Copyright Board initially concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a new tax; however, the CPCC noted the growing popularity of digital memory devices is cause for concern. A hearing in April will reexamine the proposed levies.

"Our surveys show the vast majority of copies that people put on their iPods come from sources other than legitimatly purchased copies," said David Basskin, the Director of the CPCC.

There is a growing backlash to the increased fees and lack of flexibility on copyright.

[Wild Bill]

Expect to pay more for memory and Ipods.

There is a growing backlash to the increased fees and lack of flexibility on copyright.

The major opposition to the music companies' copyright claims has been that they always took the stand that consumers should buy their product again and again when issued in different media. In the days of vinyl they railed against reel-to-reel tapes. When cassettes came along they successfully got Sheila Copps to enact a bill that put a small tax on every blank tape to go into a fund that supposedly would be used to repay Canadian artists who had lost royalties due to unauthorized copying. Of course, no one has ever managed to find a Canadian artist who actually received some of that money! Sheila always seemed to have a lot of folks following her around at the Juno Awards - sniffin' after that money, we suppose.

Of course, while there have always been commercial pirates most copying is done by folks who have purchased the product on one form of media and made a copy for another player. Cassettes were dubbed from home libraries so they could be played in the car. Later CD's replaced cassettes, DVD's replaced video tape.

So the question really is: how many times is the consumer expected to buy the same product?

Politicians tend to be unaware of this facet of the copyright situation because with only a few exceptions like the late Chuck Cadman they are notoriously technologically behind the times and truly inept! I mean, these are people who need assistants to handle their email! They would likely be genuinely unaware that someone could rip tracks from a precious old (and legally bought!) LP and dubbed onto a CD or loaded into an MP3 player.

Being an old guy I remain firmly convinced that most good rock was produced before 1972. For that reason and also as a bit of protest I tend to listen to my vinyl collection. Much of it was never republished in CD form. Has anyone ever found a Perth County Conspiracy album on CD?

What CD's I do buy I tend to purchase direct from the artist. There are many blues musicians with their own websites that sell their own songs. The major labels abused the system for nearly 2 decades. The 45 single had disappeared and we found ourselves paying $20 in the early 80's for an album that contained only one or two decent songs. The rest were just filler. We paid the same price for re-issues of albums that had long paid off their production costs in the 70's as we paid for brand-new releases of current artists.

Incidently, a google will show a few companies that will release new material in vinyl. They are doing surprisingly well! Remember album cover art?

Anyhow, the Tories had better tread carefully and get themselves educated up to speed quickly before they make any binding decisions on this one.

[geoffrey]

Thanks, up until you posted that info I hadn't heard of it. I have little doubt that the legislation will be introduced though. I don't see this government as one that will support individual's voices over that of a powerful industry. I hope I'm wrong. Or maybe they'll make it reasonable.

Stealing other's property is always cheaper, but eventually, one has to recognize that the materials belong to the artists and labels that produce them.

I see no difference between downloading a song and stealing a chocolate bar. Your a thief either way.

Let the legislation go through and let's start prosecuting those that take what doesn't belong to them. I wouldn't want my property and hard work stolen.

[August1991]

So the question really is: how many times is the consumer expected to buy the same product?

Wild Bill, I buy milk every week or so. Did you expect one litre of milk to last all your life?

-----

In this discussion, one can expect any number of angles/arguments (usually self-serving) that in effect justify theft. People have a remarkable ability to justify why they should get something for nothing. "I don't know why it's there. I didn't steal it. I hate that cheap stuff. It must have fallen into my purse... "

English Canadians say the same about American culture and America's military - while freely benefitting from them.

Let the legislation go through and let's start prosecuting those that take what doesn't belong to them. I wouldn't want my property and hard work stolen.

If your property was stolen on a regular basis, what would you do?

If it were easy to steal cars, no one would buy one. If no one buys cars, no one would produce them.

This is the bottom line here.

Edited December 23, 2007 by August1991

[Adelle]

My father has told me that this has been on the government’s agenda for some time. Apparently the then Liberal government wanted to do all this when the put the levy on CD's back in 2001 or so. I'm not sure why they couldn't or didn't do it, but it has obviously laid dormant in some drawer somewhere and has now been brought back to life for the present government to deal with. Like the old saying, if at first you don't succeed ... get what you can now and try for the rest later. It’s that ‘thin wedge’ thing.

BTW, is a levy a good or a service? I ask because GST is charged for it. CD levy, environment levy, gasoline levy (ok, tax).

[jazzer]

Stealing other's property is always cheaper, but eventually, one has to recognize that the materials belong to the artists and labels that produce them.

I see no difference between downloading a song and stealing a chocolate bar. Your a thief either way.

Let the legislation go through and let's start prosecuting those that take what doesn't belong to them. I wouldn't want my property and hard work stolen.

Aah, yes, the good old legislate morality debate. I'm all for the CD/DVD companies to have to pay a tax that can be distributed to artists, and even a heavy tax on the download sites. But you're not going to tell a 15 year old he/she can't download when the technology is there and being used by everybody (adults a plenty as well), legal or not. Now downloading and selling the product is a different matter entirely.

Edited December 23, 2007 by jazzer

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill, I buy milk every week or so. Did you expect one litre of milk to last all your life?

-----

If it were easy to steal cars, no one would buy one. If no one buys cars, no one would produce them.

This is the bottom line here.

Not a good analogy! A song is not a bottle of milk! It is not a perishable item, much as so many of us wished disco songs would be!

It is more like a painting. If you purchased the Mona Lisa and took a snapshot to keep in your wallet, should you have to pay the original price again to have the snapshot?

And yes, I've got vinyl LP's that are over 60 years old. Are you saying I should re-buy them every week?

However, as another poster has already said, folks will do what they will do regardless, as long as the technology is there. Legal attacks on downloading have been even less effective than with the war on drugs. What are you going to do? Put a cop in every 14 year old's bedroom? Or fine the 3 kids you caught in the entire nation and give them a $10 million dollar fine to scare all the others?

Besides, it's not the artists who really have borne the hurt. It's the labels and they deserve it! The artists have long since developed their own revenue streams. They make their money with touring and concerts, live appearances and such where they sell their own promo material from the side of the stage. They can sell their own CD for $15 offstage or through the InterNet and keep a profit of $14 for themselves. If they had sold through a record company they would have been lucky to get $0.50.

There's a good financial reason as to why most bands don't even bother with a record contract today. The Bare Naked Ladies were one of the trendsetters when in 2002 they walked away from renewing their contract and became totally self-produced.

The idea that downloading is hurting the poor starving artist is largely a myth created by the rich, fat cat record company who was oblivious to the new technology until he thought he was losing some money. Then he tried to attack the problem with lawyers instead of offering his customer base similar ease and convenience to acquire the product. Now record labels only look ridiculous as they try to stem the tide with paper towels made from legal writs...

[August1991]

Not a good analogy! A song is not a bottle of milk! It is not a perishable item, much as so many of us wished disco songs would be!

Each time that you listen to a song, or each time you drink a glass of milk, do you not benefit?

Besides, it's not the artists who really have borne the hurt. It's the labels and they deserve it! The artists have long since developed their own revenue streams. They make their money with touring and concerts, live appearances and such where they sell their own promo material from the side of the stage. They can sell their own CD for $15 offstage or through the InterNet and keep a profit of $14 for themselves. If they had sold through a record company they would have been lucky to get $0.50.

Thieves, when caught, usually have many excuses too.

----

The essence of a civil society is private property: we own ourselves. When society abolished slavery, it defined private property and became civilised.

I own myself.

Edited December 24, 2007 by August1991

[Renegade]

Stealing other's property is always cheaper, but eventually, one has to recognize that the materials belong to the artists and labels that produce them.

What exactly "belongs" to the artist? Only rarely is a work completely original. It is generally built upon generations of predecessors who have created ideas, riffs, musical ways of expression, and other inventions. If the artist was "inspired" by those before him, is he not also "stealing"?

If you hum the latest Justin Timberlake song on your way to work, are you also stealing? Why not?

I see no difference between downloading a song and stealing a chocolate bar. Your a thief either way.

There is a difference. One deprives the original owner of the use of the item, the other does not. It is easy to define "property" when it is something tangible, it is less clear that ideas are "property" in the same sense.

If it were easy to steal cars, no one would buy one. If no one buys cars, no one would produce them.

This is the bottom line here.

Exactly! The sole purpose of copyright legislation is to give inventors sufficient incentive to continue to invent. The purpose is not to protect property in the same way as other physical property is protected. Afterall, why do we expire copyrights and eventually move ideas into the public domain, something we don't do for physical property?

The essential question to determine if we need better protection of copyright, is "Is the incentive enough to continue to produce invention?". Personally I don't see much evidence that more incentive is needed, but given sufficient evidence I could be convinced otherwise.

Edited December 25, 2007 by Renegade

[jdobbin]

Each time that you listen to a song, or each time you drink a glass of milk, do you not benefit?

Thieves, when caught, usually have many excuses too.

----

The essence of a civil society is private property: we own ourselves. When society abolished slavery, it defined private property and became civilised.

I own myself.

The issue the librarians raise is that if we buy the glass of milk, do we have the right to pour it into a different container for our own use or do we have to pay for it again? Do we have to pay the producer for each glass we have in our house that holds milk? If we save our milk to use later, do we have the pay the producer for our fridge?

[Wild Bill]

The issue the librarians raise is that if we buy the glass of milk, do we have the right to pour it into a different container for our own use or do we have to pay for it again? Do we have to pay the producer for each glass we have in our house that holds milk? If we save our milk to use later, do we have the pay the producer for our fridge?

+1 and thank you for plainly stating what I was trying to say!

August1991 keeps sliding around this point. Perhaps he never himself dubbed a vinyl LP that he had bought legally onto a cassette to play in his car but millions did. They had no sense of guilt because they had ALREADY bought the product!

I'm not making the claim that no artist has the right to copyright protection. I'm simply saying that the record companies caused much of their own problem by trying to limit the market's choices. They totally failed to adapt to the new technologies and finally the market went its own way without them!

I'm reminded of an incident in the early 80's when one of my managers wrote and tried to market a database program. He sent it to a software magazine for review. I've never forgotten what the reviewer said. There in print he told of how he tried to run the program but the anti-piracy safeguards were more involved than the actual program, to the point where it locked him out before he could even get it to boot up! My manager looked like a fool for not seeing the whole picture. I'm suggesting the record labels have done the same.

It's like the horse and buggy industry railing against the new-fangled automobiles, and trying to prevent their use with lawsuits.

Anyhow, the entire issue is moot. The CD is dead as a mainstream market. There are kids today who have never touched a CD. They simply download direct into a player. They make no attempt to build a permanent library of their own, trusting that any song they really like will always be available on the Net.

Those who do buy CD's are like me. They buy direct from the artist. They don't mind paying 'cuz that's part of being a true fan. You want to support YOUR artist! This is part of why big chains like Tower Records in the States have gone out of business. The artist no longer needs or wants a record label or a record store (thanks to vertical market integration usually the same thing) to make a living. The label no longer gives them any benefit.

The world has changed...