Opposition to Copyright Law

[Remiel]

Hopefully the bill ignomiously expires over the summer. The Conservatives should hope so too. I think the Liberals could do worse than forcing an election over the bill and copyright law, because it is something that would very much affect Canadians day to day lives.

[August1991]

The CMCC is unimpressed by government claims that this bill strikes the right balance between all the stakeholders. It notes that business groups, creators groups and consumer groups have all expressed their dissatisfaction with the government's continued attempts to pass a copyright bill that does not consider Canadian's interests.

"The question is, who gains from this bill?" explained Brendan Canning, co-founder of Broken Social Scene and a CMCC member. "It's not musicians. Musicians don't need lawsuits, we don't need DRM protection. These aren't the things that help us or our careers. What we do need is a government that is willing to sit down with all the stakeholders and craft a balanced copyright policy for Canada that will not repeat the mistakes made in the United States."

This is a disingenuous argument in the extreme.

If musicians don't like this legislation, they have only to remove the copyright on their material and put it into the public domain. IOW, they can simply decide not to protect their copyright.

These musicians are hiding behind this legislation and letting the government do their PR dirty work. They know their (teenage) clientele and want to pretend to be on their side.

My point is that there is more than one model to incent creators of content. It doesn't necessarily depend upon preventing consumers of content from duplicating content. What if for example, Justin Timberlake let all his songs be downloaded and distributed for free, and it drove up exposure, awareness and popularity of JT? He potentially could be renumerated from revenues through brand endorsements, live concerts, and merchandise.

The only question is what is appropriate mechanism to incent creators of content. You should not limit yourself to business models which restrict the duplication of content for that incentive.

Renegade, I just don't see this as a viable business model. It's like GM giving away cars because this creates interest in the cars and so GM will sell more.

Justin Timberlake gets revenues from his live concerts and merchandise now. By denying him revenues from his music sales, we are simply denying him revenues. That means he can't hire as many session musicians and so on. Justin Timberlake and many musicians will be poorer and fewer people will want to get into the music business. We'll have less music in general.

Hopefully the bill ignomiously expires over the summer. The Conservatives should hope so too. I think the Liberals could do worse than forcing an election over the bill and copyright law, because it is something that would very much affect Canadians day to day lives.

The only people who oppose this legislation are young kids who don't vote.

The issue at stake (intellectual property rights in general) is far more important than a few script kiddies downloading music and movies on bittorrent or limewire. This legislation will pass, the ISPs will put an end to this free-for-all that we've had in Canada for the past few years and the Conservatives or Liberals will get re-elected.

Edited June 17, 2008 by August1991

[Technocrat]

"The only people who oppose this legislation are young kids who don't vote.

The issue at stake (intellectual property rights in general) is far more important than a few script kiddies downloading music and movies on bittorrent or limewire. This legislation will pass, the ISPs will put an end to this free-for-all that we've had in Canada for the past few years and the Conservatives or Liberals will get re-elected."

Now your showing your age August.

Don't choke on your mammoth.

[jdobbin]

The only people who oppose this legislation are young kids who don't vote.

Really. Seems to me that it can affect anyone who has a gray market satellite dish. Go to any RCMP house in this province (and there are certain districts where many live) and you will see DirectTV and Dish Network dishes on the roof.

In fact, I can walk down my street right now and count the pirate dishes and know that this is a very adult enterprise of stealing.

This isn't just about downloading and when people have their pirate satellites removed and are fined or charged with a crime, they will get pretty angry. The fine for breaking coded machines is $20,000.

[August1991]

This isn't just about downloading and when people have their pirate satellites removed and are fined or charged with a crime, they will get pretty angry. The fine for breaking coded machines is $20,000.

Maybe Dobbin but most of the opposition that I've seen so far seems to be coming from Internet kidz.

The illegal dishes require some tech knowledge and that puts it into a small group too - unless we're talking about people who hire a (tax-evading) installer. I don't think you'll find much sympathy in the general public for people who get their cable for free.

Now your showing your age August.

Don't choke on your mammoth.

If I were a politician, I'd rather have the mammoth-eating vote than the limewire-slurping vote. The mammoth-eaters know what a ballot looks like because they've actually held one in their hand.

[Bryan]

If I were a politician, I'd rather have the mammoth-eating vote than the limewire-slurping vote. The mammoth-eaters know what a ballot looks like because they've actually held one in their hand.

That would be a huge mistake. Politicians always lament the lack of the youth vote. Nothing they do seems ot get them to even pay attention.

If a politician wanted an issue that would motivate the youth, and get them to vote in numbers previously unheard of, this is it. CPC brings this legislation forward at their own peril. It won't just be the end of the government for them, it will be literally the end of the party. They will not only find themselves facing united opposition from the left, but a significant number of their established core. We won't get a chance at a right leaning government again many years.

If the Liberals are smart, they will ride this issue, and make it front and centre. This is exponentially worse politically than the carbon tax.

[Renegade]

Renegade, I just don't see this as a viable business model. It's like GM giving away cars because this creates interest in the cars and so GM will sell more.

Justin Timberlake gets revenues from his live concerts and merchandise now. By denying him revenues from his music sales, we are simply denying him revenues. That means he can't hire as many session musicians and so on. Justin Timberlake and many musicians will be poorer and fewer people will want to get into the music business. We'll have less music in general.

No it is not quite like GM giving away cars, because there is an incremental cost for each car GM gives away unlike digital content.

Is the purpose to provide JT with revenues? I thought the purpose was to incent invention. So what if we deny JT revenues? Also so what if there was less music in general. I seriously doubt that if we paid JT more for each song he could somehow make it "better" (with more session musicians and such), just as I seriously doubt that if we paid JT less, he would somehow make it "worse". JT would make the best song he can because the overall revenue would greatly exceed production cost.

Where the line gets drawn is for less popular acts who draw less revenue. Of course for them less revenue greatly impacts the songs they can produce. But this even happens today. There are marginal bands who generate very little content but enough to still incent them to produce content. What I'm saying is that all drasticly reducing the revenue generated by invention simply moves the bar up. The best content (ie the most popular) will still be produced. "Bad" (ie less popular content) will not be produced. So what?

[Wild Bill]

This is a disingenuous argument in the extreme.

If musicians don't like this legislation, they have only to remove the copyright on their material and put it into the public domain. IOW, they can simply decide not to protect their copyright.

These musicians are hiding behind this legislation and letting the government do their PR dirty work. They know their (teenage) clientele and want to pretend to be on their side.

That's actually a good idea! I'm not sure if under the terms of the new Bill they can keep copyright on some important aspects while opening it up with "piracy" but it's an idea.

As far as the rest of your argument, I thought I was old but I see I'm not alone! Let me see if I can repeat myself to help you better understand.

The world has already changed. More copyright protection is a waste of time. It's like Prohibition or banning guns from coming into Toronto. Or trying to censor the InterNet when sites are mirrored in other countries outside your jurisdiction. Even China has been having trouble trying to keep on top of censoring the 'Net for its citizens, when they have the unique advantage of funneling the whole thing through one or two servers under their control.

Those who believe in this approach are just showing their naive and old-fashioned lack of experience.

Younger musicians realized that they would be trying to turn back the tide and so they've developed their own business model. They view their music as promotion for live appearances and "off the stage" sales.

Morally you may be right, Ozymandias!

The record companies are still trying to use legal means of ensuring a world where they have some control over the media of their product. Meanwhile the market has turned to a system where music no longer appears on a physical media. They also are abandoning the record companies as no longer necessary or even helpful to their careers.

My point is that we can have all the Bills passed such as this one you can imagine. Or all the forum debate. It's irrelevant. The kids have long gone. We CAN'T do anything about it!

[August1991]

That would be a huge mistake. Politicians always lament the lack of the youth vote. Nothing they do seems ot get them to even pay attention.

If a politician wanted an issue that would motivate the youth, and get them to vote in numbers previously unheard of, this is it. CPC brings this legislation forward at their own peril. It won't just be the end of the government for them, it will be literally the end of the party. They will not only find themselves facing united opposition from the left, but a significant number of their established core. We won't get a chance at a right leaning government again many years.

If the Liberals are smart, they will ride this issue, and make it front and centre. This is exponentially worse politically than the carbon tax.

Bryan, I doubt even a military draft would get young people to vote.

At present, pensioners and rural people vote vote in greater percentages than young and urban people. It's the great secret of modern democratic society. In the past Montreal municipal election, turnout was around 20%. In the school board votes in urban areas, the turnout was around 8%.

Smart politicians know all about this. Copyright legislation has zero effect on aged pensioners such as myself (as WB and Renegade like to describe me). Politicians would tread with far greater care if copyright legislation affected pension payments.

No it is not quite like GM giving away cars, because there is an incremental cost for each car GM gives away unlike digital content.

Is the purpose to provide JT with revenues? I thought the purpose was to incent invention. So what if we deny JT revenues? Also so what if there was less music in general. I seriously doubt that if we paid JT more for each song he could somehow make it "better" (with more session musicians and such), just as I seriously doubt that if we paid JT less, he would somehow make it "worse". JT would make the best song he can because the overall revenue would greatly exceed production cost.

"Incent" invention?

What kind of word is that? An incentive to commit horrific grammar errors?

Most young men want to meet young women but I suspect fewer young men want to be bowling aces because golf or basketball pros make more money. You don't meet girls by practicing at bowling. In this modern world, this is where the incentives lie.

I thought I was old but I see I'm not alone! Let me see if I can repeat myself to help you better understand.

The world has already changed. More copyright protection is a waste of time. It's like Prohibition or banning guns from coming into Toronto. Or trying to censor the InterNet when sites are mirrored in other countries outside your jurisdiction. Even China has been having trouble trying to keep on top of censoring the 'Net for its citizens, when they have the unique advantage of funneling the whole thing through one or two servers under their control.

WB, it's not a question of censorship, or putting a genie back in a bottle.

At the moment, I'm in Russia which is a country that lacks protection for all form of property rights - real or intellectual. Many of your arguments about intellectual property rights remind me of discussions with Russians about real property rights. (Russians don't buy, sell or mortgage land because it's not often clear what someone owns. This impoverishes Russia.)

As you, they simply can't imagine that a society can define property rights and respect them. They consider such a society utopic or simply unrealistic.

We can and must define and develop the institutions to protect intellectual property rights just as we have done with real property. It has been a long, complicated process to define and protect real property rights.

An idea of the complexities of real property (eg land) ownership can be seen in this thread: How much "airspace" does a landowner own?

So, I disagree that copyright protection is a waste of time. I happen to think that law and technology can both help in finding a better, more practical method to define intellectual property rights. Canada is ideally placed to enforce such rights. For example, we don't have many ISPs and stringent fines will make them report and force users to comply with download rules. ISPs can easily identify who is stealing or distributing content.

By and large, Canadians are law abiding people and hefty penalties are enough to deter them. The (young) Canadians stealing intellectual property now are not lawbreakers by nature.

From what I have seen of the legislation Prentice is proposing, it makes sense to me. I think fines should be large for someone who copies and distributes intellectual property to friends. In Canada, I even think this is enforceable.

Defining property rights is a mixture of technology and social institution. From what I've seen, this legislation seems to get the mix right.

I largely agree with Terence Corcoran:

While Michael Geist and other Cassandras stood on the sidelines proclaiming Internet doom and a new police state, Industry Minister Jim Prentice ran through the gauntlet yesterday and emerged with a new copyright bill. And it looks to be a sound piece of work, on the whole, taking necessary steps to protect rights that were being eroded by technology.

...

As for stakeholders, a surprising number managed to crank out supportive comments: The Business Software Alliance; a coalition of Canadian music industry organizations, including performers and retailers; the Canadian Publishers Council; the Canadian Independent Record Production Association; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; Microsoft Canada.

These are all groups that want copyright protection expanded and Canada’s laws updated.

This Bill could die on the order paper, as Corocoran notes, but I doubt the Liberals or even the NDP would provoke an election over such an issue. Most voters are against theft.

-----

Younger musicians realized that they would be trying to turn back the tide and so they've developed their own business model. They view their music as promotion for live appearances and "off the stage" sales.

Morally you may be right, Ozymandias!

...

My point is that we can have all the Bills passed such as this one you can imagine. Or all the forum debate. It's irrelevant. The kids have long gone. We CAN'T do anything about it!

This isn't a moral question. Theft, like slavery, is wasteful for society.

Wild Bill, you sound like a slave owner in 1850 South Carolina who argued that slave owning was a fact of life. If we can't do anything about the theft of intellectual property, then we will be a poorer society. I suspect rather that like slavery, people will will figure out a way to make themselves richer. We'll protect intellectual property the same way we eventually abolished slavery.

The basis of property is that I own myself, and what I create.

Edited June 17, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

This Bill could die on the order paper, as Corocoran notes, but I doubt the Liberals or even the NDP would provoke an election over such an issue. Most voters are against theft.

If they regard it as theft. As I said, walk around your street and look at the gray market satellite dishes. It isn't just kids downloading.

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill, you sound like a slave owner in 1850 South Carolina who argued that slave owning was a fact of life. If we can't do anything about the theft of intellectual property, then we will be a poorer society. I suspect rather that like slavery, people will will figure out a way to make themselves richer. We'll protect intellectual property the same way we eventually abolished slavery.

The basis of property is that I own myself, and what I create.

Good Lord! Now I'm Stephen Foster! Oh well, maybe I should sell the plantation and move to Beale Street. I can wait for Handey to midwife the Blues!

Please don't misunderstand me. I too believe in the right to property. I just think that in the case of music those drafting the legislation are out of touch with what's happening and are moving so slow that the market abandoned waiting for them.

I'm not saying that there isn't a way to PUT that genie back in the bottle! I'm just glad it's guys like you and not me trying to defend this present attempt as something workable. The thought of taking on such a job to me is a pretty formidable task.

I think I'd find sifting water to be easier! I doubt very much if any musician anywhere will care a whit about this Bill if passed. As for the record companies, they deserve what they get. They asked for it!

[Renegade]

"Incent" invention?

What kind of word is that? An incentive to commit horrific grammar errors?

August, do you have such a problem with my grammar that is precludes you from understanding the meaning and context of what I have written? If you don't, then why make an issue of something irrelevant to the ideas discussed? If you do, I'll be happy to rephrase the offending sentence for you.

Most young men want to meet young women but I suspect fewer young men want to be bowling aces because golf or basketball pros make more money. You don't meet girls by practicing at bowling. In this modern world, this is where the incentives lie.

I don't really follow your analogy as it relates to the topic. The fact is that some sports like basketball provide too much incentive at the highest levels. This causes too many young men to waste effort trying to reach a level where they have slim to no chance of achieving the reward.

[jdobbin]

Poll from Angus Reid on the issue of copyright.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06...-copyright.html

About 45 per cent of respondents to the survey support the proposed bill C-61, which would open the door for lawsuits of $500 for downloading a copyrighted work and up to $20,000 for uploading such material or breaking digital locks put on content. The same number oppose the bill, while 10 per cent were undecided.

Demographically, respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 were far more opposed to the bill than their older counterparts, with 58 per cent saying they want their MP to vote against the bill after it receives its second reading in the House of Commons, likely this fall. About 37 per cent of adults between the ages of 35 and 54 planned to urge similar action, while only 27 per cent of older respondents said they want their MP to vote against the bill.

The opposition to the bill is mounting. A lot of men are against it.

[Bryan]

Poll from Angus Reid on the issue of copyright.

I'd like to know how they worded the question. Once the details of the bill are explained, I've never seen a single person who thinks this bill does not at least need major revisions.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06...-copyright.html

The opposition to the bill is mounting. A lot of men are against it.

As people learn more about what it actually proposes, the opposition will skyrocket. A lot of people mistakenly think that this bill is just about downloading, and people are split on that. It's the restrictions on what you can do with things you bought and paid for that will anger any intelligent person. DRM only infringes on the basic rights of the consumer, it does nothing to stop piracy.

The penalties are completely out of whack with the offense too. Depending on the circumstances, between $500 and $20,000 per infraction? Since some of the supporters of this bill like to keep trotting out inappropriate car analogies, let's apply that logic to car theft. One song costs 99 cents or less to download legally. That means a car thief should get around a ten million dollar fine per car he steals.

[August1991]

I don't really follow your analogy as it relates to the topic. The fact is that some sports like basketball provide too much incentive at the highest levels. This causes too many young men to waste effort trying to reach a level where they have slim to no chance of achieving the reward.

I meant that simply being a "star" is not enough. One must be a rich star. Moreover, it is the money that is attractive in seeking a mate - not the star status.

I'll admit that there are exceptions to this rule but by and large, few cool people are poor.

I agree that setting up a prize to decide who is worthy can lead to wasteful effort. Unfortunately, we have no other way to find anything new. Many sailors drowned before Columbus made it to America.

The opposition to the bill is mounting. A lot of men are against it.

The poll shows that opinion is evenly divided with the 18-34 age group against. That implies that older people favour it.

As I have argued above, younger people vote less often than olfer people. This bill will be a vote-winner in an election.

[Remiel]

August, your conclusion is based on the premise that young people will not vote in increased numbers to defeat this bill. That is a rather large assumption on your part, I think.

[jdobbin]

The poll shows that opinion is evenly divided with the 18-34 age group against. That implies that older people favour it.

As I have argued above, younger people vote less often than olfer people. This bill will be a vote-winner in an election.

I think when people learn that cracking a code to get satellite TV will result in a fine of $20,000, there will be more concern. At the moment, the Tories are not saying that bill also applies to TV.

A lot of older people steal satellite signals. A lot of older people vote. Still think it will be a vote winner when the the $20,000 fines hit people with satellite TV? Or do you think that breaking the code to get satellite will get a free pass?

[guyser]

Here is an interesting twist......pay royalties if using their songs while interrogating (or torturing) a suspect.

http://music.sympatico.msn.ca/New+twist+on...&date=False

[DrGreenthumb]

Another conservative police state law that caters to the very wealthy minority, can't say this surprises me.

Vote these stone age clowns back to the caves they crawled out of.