 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArghMonkey
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 353
Location: Vanada
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:57 am Post subject: Canada's about to have a copyright disaster |
 |
|
| Quote: | Uh-oh. Bev Oda (the Canadian Tory Heritage Minister who funded her campaign with money from the big entertainment, software and pharma companies) is poised to bring down new copyright legislation that will plunge Canada into the dark ages, outdoing the USA for sheer boneheaded lunacy. The USA had an excuse in 1998 when it passed the Digital Millennium Act -- no one else had tried legislating copy-proof bits before. It was a dumb idea, but it hadn't been absolutely proven wrong at the time.
Now it has. Nearly 10 years later, bits are still getting easier to copy. Entertainment companies are demanding that governments change the laws of physics to preserve their old business models, and the public expense is immeasurable. Record companies like Sony, Warner and Universal are terrorizing the world by suing hundreds of music lovers every month. Security researchers are afraid to look into harmful DRM because they might fall afoul of copyright law (some of them do it anyway and end up in jail). Companies are afraid to compete because they might get sued for violating copyright by playing an iTune on a Zune or a Zunetune on an iPod.
Canada should be looking to celebrate and protect artists and companies with copy-friendly, Internet-native business models. These made-in-Canada successes, like Barenaked Ladies and Fading Ways Music, are thriving in the face of copying.
Instead of protecting these businesses, Minister Oda is proposing to attack them in order to prop up the ailing, American record labels and movie studios.
We kicked Oda's predecessor out of office because she sold out the public on copyright. Oda's not far behind. MPs should represent the public. They shouldn't take money from giant corporations and then hand those companies laws that grant them windfall profits at public expense.
| Quote: |
Ever taped or PVRed a show so that you can watch it later, otherwise known as time shifting?
Or ripped a CD so you could listen to it on your MP3 player, called format shifting?
With changes to Canada’s copyright laws expected as early as next month, these mundane 21st century activities could theoretically be open to prosecution — unless the Conservative government steps in with expanded "fair use" or "fair dealing" protections for consumers.
Close observers of the file say all signs point to a new regime that will improve safeguards for major music, film and media companies and artists for unpaid use of their material, but neglect to make exemptions for personal use of copyrighted content.
Consumer advocates like Ottawa-based lawyer Howard Knopf are urging the federal government to protect Canadians with wide exemptions in the Copyright Act for "fair use." |
|
http://www.metronews.ca/story.aspx?id=23834
See also:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/18/canadians_howto_stop.html
Canadians: HOWTO stop the Canadian DMCA, act now!
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/21/canadas_dmca_dissect.html
Canada's DMCA dissected
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/03/canadian_mp_imports_.html
Canadian MP imports US's worst copyright AND dirty campaign financing
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/29/canadian_copyfight_t.html
Canadian copyfight: the CC-licensed book!
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/15/editorial_in_toronto.html
Editorial in Toronto Star about Hollywood's Member of Parliament
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/24/canadian_students_as.html
Canadian students ask govt to save them from copyright
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/04/hollywoods_canadian_.html
Hollywood's Canadian Member of Parliament
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/08/can_heritage_ministe.html
Can. Heritage Minister's election was funded by entertainment co's
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/08/canadian_copyright_c.html
Canadian copyright czar forced to turn away industry bribes
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/11/how_hollywoods_mp_in.html
How Hollywood's MP in Canada financed her campaign |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A partial victory? For now? I was just watching Fred Langdon's business show on CBC, and learned that Jim Prentice has pulled the Harpokons' proposed copyright bill, and will not be re-submitting it until at least some time in January, largely because of a huge backlash led by an online advocacy group at Facebook.
Way ta go, folks! Keep up the pressure!
(I dunno if Langdon's show is available online, but it might be worth checking out...)
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparqui
Dog tired
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5154
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Charlie Angus spoke to this and made reference to Facebook shaming Prentice into postponing. He reiterated the points that have been made by Michael Geist for the past many months. 
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
-- Gilles Duceppe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amy Grace
The space-age robot
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 774
Location: The Drive
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
This place has been really helpful in spreading information about this issue too. And slashdot.
I was looking for this thread for past couple of weeks but I didn't find it and I figured someone else would bump it. Now I've forgotten all the things I was planning to post; as I come across them again, I'll post them though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently a coalition of some very large corporations have asked the government to tone down the copyright proposals. The coalition includes Google, Yahoo, Rogers, Telus, the Canadian Alliance of Broadcasters and the Retail Council of Canada, among others. They also take a shot at DRM.
They sent the following to Jim Prentice:
| Quote: | The coalition wants the following in any new copyright legislation:
* Expanded "fair dealing" provisions for users, which give a "large and liberal" interpretation of how consumers can use the copyrighted material they buy. The Copyright Act needs to be amended to accommodate long-standing and accepted uses, such as the copying of a song from one format to another — for example, from a CD to a computer — or the recording of a television program for later viewing, they say. A number of Canada's major trading partners already allow such uses.
* A clause that prevents copyright owners from going after people or companies who circumvent for non-commercial reasons the technological protection measures placed on content. A record label, for example, should not be able to sue a consumer who gets around copy-protection measures in order to transfer a song to an iPod.
* No surcharges on downloadable content. Copyright owners have been pushing for downloads to be considered as "communications to the public," and say they should therefore be subject to an additional fee. The coalition believes such a charge would unfairly double the delivery cost of online music, films, games and other software.
* A scrapping of the surcharge on recordable media, including CDs and MP3 players. The surcharge was originally introduced to compensate artists for revenue they were losing through illegal downloads, which were ending up on the recordable media. But with the proliferation of legal online stores, artists are being compensated for many downloads. The government should therefore consider getting rid of the tax or scaling it back, the coalition says.
* An exemption for violating copyright as part of legitimate business practices, such as when a broadcaster copies a show for its archives.
* No liability for internet service providers for the actions of their users.
* A limit on the damages that can be awarded to copyright holders in lawsuits against those infringing on their copyrights. |
CBC
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiorahim
Free Software Fanatic
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1557
Location: on the other end of a keyboard
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a pretty impressive list of corporate types...and they echo most of the issues raised by the community.
Microsoft of course has come down on the "other" side.
http://enmasse.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=846&start=200
Actually Prentice has said that "our trading partners" want the copyright "reforms"....of course and what "trading partner" might that be?
Canada might have signed the (World Intellectual Property Organization) WIPO treaty, but the treaty has never been brought to the House of Commons for ratification...and it only comes into force when a country ratifies it....and very few countries have.
The whole concept of "intellectual property" is a totally bogus concept to begin with anyway. It attempts to lump copyright, patent and trademark law all into "the same boat" as if they were all the same...but they aren't.
If you want to find out more about this bogus concept of intellectual property you can read Richard Stallman's excellent essay here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
_________________
Free software, Free society |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
The concept of intellectual property is a legal fiction, and yet there are whole law firms that do only intellectual property law. I know people at school who want to work in intellectual property law. I find it perplexing.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peru? and Colombia?
They want to change their IP law too!
Thats the big underlying kicker of many of the new wave of "free trade" agreements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DTA
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 694
Location: ////
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't we already pay a Royalty fee when we purchase blank media? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiorahim
Free Software Fanatic
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1557
Location: on the other end of a keyboard
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the enmasse.ca "acceptable use" policy.
| Quote: | | 2. Disseminating material which violates copyright or intellectual property rights. The member assumes all risk regarding whether material is in the public domain; |
Even folks on the progressive left get sucked in to using this phony corporate terminology.
So enmassistas I hereby do declare that I do not respect "intellectual property rights". I do not even respect the term.
I will respect copyright, patents and trademarks (subject to fair use/fair dealing) on this board...but I totally reject the use of the term "intellectual property".
I guess that puts me in violation of the "acceptable use" policy.
| Quote: | | Don't we already pay a Royalty fee when we purchase blank media? |
We pay a tax...which gets called a "levy" that's supposed to compensate artists...but the artists never see a plug nickel of this money.
The assumption is that you're using all of your blank media to copy music/video.
Although I've got a stack of Linux CD's sitting in front of me that I've legally burned that says otherwise.
_________________
Free software, Free society |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparqui
Dog tired
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5154
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We pay a tax...which gets called a "levy" that's supposed to compensate artists...but the artists never see a plug nickel of this money. |
Very true. Traditional broadcast licences provide an upfront fee to give them rights for a fixed term of time (in my case it was one year exclusive followed by two years non-exclusive). I waived my rights for a community cable station to run the same short film.
I then gave an artist co-op the right to digitize my film on their digital film web site in perpetuity for $200 (plus a request that I donate $50 to the organization). I didn't mind because I support artist-run organizations and they can't afford to do otherwise.
But when it comes to licensing music for my non-profit work, the fees that the recording companies want are almost 1/4 of my budget. Even when you approach an artist who would love to have you use their music, they have limited rights while the music publisher can hold you hostage on reproduction/mechanical rights (money that the artist never sees).
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
-- Gilles Duceppe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DTA
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 694
Location: ////
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Songwriters voice approval for $5 Internet fee
| Quote: | The Songwriters Association of Canada wants to see every Canadian's monthly Internet bill increase by $5 in exchange for the ability to download as many "illegal" music files as they choose.
The association says its proposal, which would require federal approval, would wipe out the need for music-selling services such as iTunes, making it legal for one person to share a music CD with as many people as they wish. "On iTunes to download one album, it's $10," said Eddie Schwartz, president of the Songwriters association. "This is half of that and this is pretty reasonable to have access to the entire repertoire of western music."
The organization will gather in Toronto today to demand an immediate amendment to the Canadian Copyright Act to allow the songwriters to begin collecting fees from Canadian Internet subscribers. The proposed fees could see the songwriters association, a lobby group that represents Canada's music composers and lyricists, collect between $500 million and $900 million annually. Sales of music in Canada were $704 million in 2006, the most recent year that sales data has been made available, a far cry from the $1.3 billion reported during the industry's peak sales year in 1999.
A Canwest News study, using the music industry's own figures, suggests that Canadian artists may only be losing as much as $118.8 million a year as the result of illegal downloading. |
Well they do get money from blank media so now they want more? Maybe if they had more than 1 or 3 descent songs on a cd and if cd's were cheaper people would not download as much. Actually at this moment it is not illegal in Canada to download but uploading is.
Link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So how do they (Songwriters Association of Canada) propose to fairly distribute the largess to song writers? Or, is this a new cash cow for the association and industry moguls? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | The concept of intellectual property is a legal fiction, and yet there are whole law firms that do only intellectual property law. I know people at school who want to work in intellectual property law. I find it perplexing. |
Well, to be fair, presumably nearly all law firms deal mainly in legal fictions. The problem with "intellectual property" isn't so much that it's a legal fiction. It's more: It's an incoherent legal fiction. One might call it a legal myth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Intellectual property is constructed for the powerful to control and take the benefits of knowledge. It isn't inconsistent with a lot of things in western culture. I personally do not see it as a myth or a fiction - it is a political tool. It is a bad political tool because it allows for exploitation, domination, and is detrimental to creativity and human advancement as it is constructed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These things are not mutually exclusive. For instance, various things about US or Canadian national identity are myths. The reasons these myths keep getting promulgated have a lot to do with their usefulness for exploitation, domination, imperialism etc.
Normal legal fictions, legal doctrines if you will, have some kind of unifying concept or logic behind them. Even the ones I don't like. "Intellectual property" does not, it is a term referring to a group of different doctrines with different rationales and different mechanisms, none of them very close to identical with those involving actual property. But it is treated for propaganda purposes as if it were a genuine legal doctrine or concept, even though it isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amy Grace
The space-age robot
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 774
Location: The Drive
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, about two months ago, maybe more, I sent an email to Jim Prentice about the copyright changes that the conservatives were talking about.
I got an email back this morning (which was tagged as junk by my mail program, actually  ) and wanted to share.
| Quote: | Dear Ms. [Amy Grace]:
Thank you for your e-mail, regarding possible amendments to the Copyright Act.
The Act must continue to be supportive of innovation and research while reflecting current technological and legal realities. To this end, it must provide adequate protection for copyright holders while promoting access to copyrighted material.
With this in mind, I am pleased to inform you that the federal government committed in the Speech from the Throne on October 16, 2007, to “improve the protection of cultural and intellectual property rights in Canada, including copyright reform.” In this respect, I am working closely with my colleague, the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, with a view to introducing amendments to the Act.
Please be assured that your comments will be taken into account as we move forward.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P. |
Just double-checking, but Verner is the minister who recently defended the (potential) changes to the income tax laws re: tax credits for canadian filmmakers, right? What a pair of people to be working on this. Eeesh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tough copyright laws will restrict access to culture on the web; how to avoid internet censorship and control your privacy online
| Quote: | Governments and corporations are cracking down hard however. The Tories are expected to re-introduce a bill to change Canada's Copyright Act, a bill that died with the last parliament. The bill called for a draconian crackdown on supposed copyright violations, potentially making it illegal to even download your own CDs to an iPod or to record TV shows.
When it comes to internet downloading some of those proposals may be tested before a new bill is passed. Gary Fung, the owner of Isohunt.com — one of the largest BitTorrent search engines on the web, providing links to movies, video games and music — is asking the BC Supreme Court to rule on whether his site violates Canadian copyright law.
Thepiratebay.org, a similar Swedish site that is one of the net's 100 most popular sites according to internet tracker Alexa, consistently gives the finger to corporations demanding the removal of their content. The site claims its activities are legal under Swedish law.
A typical example of the site's responses is its answer to Dreamworks, which demanded the removal of a link to download Shrek 2.
"As you may or may not be aware Sweden is not a state in the United States of America," reads The Pirate Bay reply. "Sweden is a country in northern Europe. Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here. For your information, no Swedish law is being violated.
"Please be assured that any further contact with us, regardless of medium, will result in a) a suit being filed for harassment; b) a formal complaint lodged with the bar of your legal counsel for sending frivolous legal threats.
"It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are... morons and that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons.... Go fuck yourself."
So far nobody has felt secure enough under Canadian law to take such a defiant stand. |
More @ link
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Canadian copyright consultation -- video explains why you should get involved
| Quote: | | Michael Geist sez, "Science fiction author Karl Schroeder, Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, Wide Mouth Mason drummer Safwan Javed, Lulu.com's Bob Young, and Nettwerk music exec Terry McBride are among the people in this short video talking about copyright reform as Canadians have the chance for three more weeks to speak out on copyright." Speak Out On Copyright: The Video |
video @ link
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Canadian govt appears to be altering submissions to Copyright Consultation
| Quote: | Michael Geist sez,
| Quote: | The Canadian copyright consultation has one of its biggest days today with a major town hall in Toronto, a roundtable hours before, and increased media coverage. The consultation has attracted growing attention in recent weeks as the chart on submissions below demonstrates. There are now over 3,000 submissions with the overwhelming majority of them speaking out against Bill C-61, anti-circumvention rules, and for stronger fair dealing.
However, it now appears that the government has effectively been altering some of the submissions. This issue has arisen because of the large number of Canadians that have chosen to use the CCER submission form service.
Every Canadian who takes the time to speak out - whether a single paragraph, a long essay, or a form letter - deserves to have their voice count as a submission. Obviously any modified letter should be posted in its original form and I would argue that the same is true for a submission based on a form letter.
Regardless of the approach taken, there are just over two weeks to join the thousands of Canadians who have spoken out. Canadians need to speak out on copyright today! |
|
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Copyright Town Hall security threatened MP, students with ejection for handing out flyers
| Quote: | At last week's Canadian copyright town hall meeting in Toronto -- the one where the speaker-roster was overwhelming stacked with representatives from giant entertainment conglomerates -- security guards prevented the Canadian Federation of Students from distributing literature by the doors that advocated for more liberal copyright rules. They also stopped a Member of Parliament from one of the opposition parties from distributing flyers.
| Quote: | The Canadian Federation of Students has issued a press release disclosing a disturbing incident just prior to last night's townhall in Toronto. CFS says that students attempted to distribute a flyer outlining the organization's position on fair copyright outside the townhall. The students involved were approached by private security guards who threatened to remove them from the hotel if they continued to do so. The CFS decided to distribute the flyers specifically because of the limited number of speaking slots and the fear that they would not be called upon to speak (they were not). It is hard to understand how distributing relevant materials outside a public, government-run townhall is viewed as grounds for ejection. As the chair of CFS-Ontario notes, "it is ironic that while students are concerned that new legislation may allow copyright owners to lock up information, the government is locking up its own consultations."
Update: NDP MP Olivia Chow reports that she faced the same threats when she tried to distribute documents outlining Charlie Angus' position on copyright. |
|
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
American copyright lobby attacks Canadian politicans for supporting balanced copyright
| Quote: | Canadian Member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party and former frontman for the awesome punk band L'Etranger Charlie Angus sez,
| Quote: | I saw your comments on the Toronto town hall copyright forum [ed: in which the NDP was threatened with expulsion for handing out fliers calling for a moderate new copyright law that balanced public rights with the rights of copyright holders]. The fallout has been very bizarre. A copyright lobbyist with the American federation of Musicians is circulating an online e-mail demanding the NDP apologize for our "disgusting" position on balanced copyright.
The attack was caused by Olivia Chow handing out an interview I did with EXCLAIM Magazine on how copyright changes could benefit independent Canadian bands. Exclaim did the interview with me because of my background with DIY bands.
Seems to me the interview is consistent with what the NDP have always said on this file -- we want artists to be able to benefit from the massive stream of information being traded but we don't want average citizens turned into criminals. Here's Michael Geist's blog on the attack on us.
I was elected to participate in discussions about public policy. I have never heard of a lobbyist group demand an apology for speaking out about a totally botched piece of legislation like Bill C-61. If they spent less time running e-mail attacks and more time speaking with the various players they might realize that the NDP position has been balanced and consistent from the beginning.
As for a public recanting to satisfy the C-61 lobby ? Sorry, dude....it ain't happening. |
|
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Canadian Copyright Consultation submission from Tucows and David Weinberger
| Quote: | Canada's copyright consultations are rapidly drawing to a close (you still have time to get your comments in) and the excellent folks at Canadian Internet giant Tucows (who also own Domain Direct and other tech businesses) have hired David Weinberger (author of Everything is Miscellaneous, Small Pieces, Loosely Joined, and co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto) to write a plain-language, brilliantly argued submission. Weinberger explains how moderate copyright is better for creativity than the pervasive system favored by the American entertainment cartel.
| Quote: | Even within any one class of incentive, the effect of money on creativity is rarely a straight line. Mordechai Richler would not have written four times as many books if his advances had been four times larger. The Guess Who might be tempted to release more recycled compilations if you pay them enough money, but their songs would not have gotten 1% better for every 1% their revenues went up. Thus, while copyright may provide a financial incentive that enables many creators to create, stronger copyright that results in more money does not necessarily result in more creativity.
In fact, how long would it take you to list the bands that have gotten worse as they've gotten richer?
For the most important creative cultural works, money is an enabler but not the reason the person is putting pen to paper, chisel to stone, or camcorder to eye socket. There are so many other reasons people create -- from G-d whispering to them, to a neurological itch that can't otherwise be scratched, to wanting to get laid. Copyright could do its job -- facilitate an innovative, sustainable culture -- if it aimed merely at enabling creators to create, rather than thinking that the creativity-to-financial-reward curve is a straight line angled at 45 degrees.
Now, there would be no problem with setting up a system of laws that overemphasizes the financial incentives for creators if that system had no other effects. But it does, especially now that culture and economics have slipped the bonds of the old physics. Even if we devised a copyright law that provided the absolutely right amount of incentive for every creator to keep on creating, it takes more than motivated creators to build a creative, innovative culture.
It takes culture. It takes culture to build culture. |
|
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Canadian Copyright Consultation shows Canadians overwhelmingly support moderate, fair copyright
| Quote: | The Canadian government's copyright consultation has received over 4,000 submissions from Canadians (it's not too late to send yours!). Of these, the overwhelming majority are in favour of more liberal copyright, against extending the term of copyright, against stiffer penalties for infringement (only three submissions advocated this) and against US-DMCA-style rules protecting DRM.
There have been three recent attempts to reform Canadian copyright law without public consultation, and each one provided for stricter copyright enforcement, protection for DRM, stiffer penalties, etc -- in other words, each one tried to implement a law that was the opposite of what the Canadian public asked for, when it was given a chance.
So now what? What kind of copyright law will the Canadian government introduce now that the public has spoken? |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Copyright enforcement versus privacy
| Quote: | In a Calgary Herald op-ed Kris Kotarski talks about the fundamental conflict between modern copyright enforcement and privacy, noting that in the pre-Internet days, "it was conceivable for copyright laws to be enforced in a manner that did not bring the state to anyone's doorstep." Whereas today, the entertainment industry has arrived at a consensus that copyright enforcement means universal network surveillance.
| Quote: | Given today's technological realities, this is no longer the case. If we look at legislation that either exists or is tabled across the Western world, sending a song to a friend by e-mail is a crime. Posting even a short clip of a copyrighted video on a message board for one's friends risks a fine whether the message board is public or not, and taping a television show and passing the tape to your mom or dad may be illegal as well.
No one likes stealing, but the problem lies in the fact that current copyright laws are completely unenforceable unless the government or industry groups start to read every e-mail and analyze every form of online communication done by citizens...
Such efforts aim to turn what citizens do in the privacy of their homes into criminal offences, and to compel enforcement, they aim to make Internet service providers (ISPs) liable for what users do with their Internet connections (just imagine your local grocer being held legally liable for selling a tomato that was thrown at a politician). |
|
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All publicly funded content should be in the public domain
| Quote: | A few years ago I hosted a mini-series for CBC Radio called The Contrarians, a show about "unpopular ideas that just might be right". Each week I'd take a controversial opinion and try it on for size. Sometimes the show was serious, sometimes it was silly- I rarely agreed with the positions I took, but operated on the principle that no idea is so radical or offensive that we should be forbidden to contemplate it (if only to learn why we should discard it). The CBC brass was incredibly supportive of the project and I was given license to explore a lot of unorthodox subject matter. Topics included:
* *Multiculturalism doesn't work (we just eat each other's sandwiches).
* *Feminism isn't dead, it's just finished (take a bow, ladies- you won!).
* *It's a myth- Canadians aren't funny.
* *Copyright should be abolished.
I'd love to link to these shows now, but I can't. They were never posted online or offered as podcasts. I tried posting them on my personal website, and was instructed to take them down by CBC management. I was told I was violating their copyright. Every now and then I'll get an email from a teacher or listener requesting an episode of The Contrarians, and I have to explain that I'd be breaking the law to send one.
Let's put aside my personal frustration at having my work locked away. The real question here is, since CBC content is funded by the public, shouldn't the public own it? Or at least have access to it? Actually, the CBC archives are just the tip of the iceberg: the overwhelming majority of stuff made for Canadians with Canadians' money is inaccessible to Canadians.
In Canada, movies are supported by Telefilm, TV by the Canadian Television Fund, books and art by The Canada Council for the Arts, and so on. But most of this stuff isn't distributed very well or for very long, and you can only get your hands on a fraction of it.
So I want to put forth one more contrarian position: I think that any publicly funded content should (within, say, 5 years of its creation) be released to the public domain.
Thoughts? (Un-Canadians welcome. Let's open an international discussion about this.) |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unquestionably, I'd support that. It's a great idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
The CBC licenses content with public money. It's not the same as buying shows.
But hey, nice to know you lot would like to see people like me out of business. Fuck you very much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17642
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Er, I haven't been following this debate closely ... Timebandit, what do you mean? Are you talking about independently-produced shows that the CBC licenses? Or shows that the CBC produces and owns? Because I get the impression that the idea is that what would end up in the public domain is the latter, not the former ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vundo Draxon
Leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1712
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raos wrote: | | Unquestionably, I'd support that. It's a great idea. |
Absolutely. If we have to pay for that content to be created with or without our consent, the least they could do is let us enjoy that content without paying again. I have a feeling that some artists will be outraged that they can't get access to public funds to create content that can be sold for their private profit, but I'll be really happy with any government with the guts to tell them to go to hell... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timebandit wrote: | The CBC licenses content with public money. It's not the same as buying shows.
But hey, nice to know you lot would like to see people like me out of business. Fuck you very much. |
Yeah, 'cause the CBC doesn't do and never has done any in house production at all. Right. Chill out.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | In Canada, movies are supported by Telefilm, TV by the Canadian Television Fund, books and art by The Canada Council for the Arts, and so on. But most of this stuff isn't distributed very well or for very long, and you can only get your hands on a fraction of it.
|
I wonder whether things like this (and I can certainly recall hearing things at the beginning or ending of shows like "this show made possible by a grant from the...") refer to works that are solely funded by the CBC, or works for which some funding was provided.
And if it's only some funding, not all funding, how would you put that in the public domain.
But anything the CBC owns the copyright to should be available, as should anything by the NFB (who actually do make a lot available) and so on.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The NFB stuff actually isn't public domain or creative commons licenced for the most part. In one of many Search Engine episodes on the subject of copyright, that came out.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tehanu wrote: | | Er, I haven't been following this debate closely ... Timebandit, what do you mean? Are you talking about independently-produced shows that the CBC licenses? Or shows that the CBC produces and owns? Because I get the impression that the idea is that what would end up in the public domain is the latter, not the former ... |
Well, what was said was, IIRC, anything that the CBC or Telefilm funds.
While there is some in-house production at the CBC, it is limited by the CRTC and the vast majority of programming on the CBC is actually independently produced. Here's how it works: The producer pitches and idea that the CBC likes. They offer a license fee (based on a period of time and a number of plays) and may or may not allocate funds from the Canadian Television Fund, which is a division of Telefilm. The rest is producer investment in the form of federal and provincial tax credits and occasionally grants from other sources.
Technically, Telefilm and CBC have funded the production of the resulting program. However, the copyright on the program remains with the producer who can also license the program into other markets. If you put it in the public domain, the producer is not able to license the program anywhere else, or to distribute it for money. You have effectively removed the "back end".
"Back end" on a one-off isn't significant, but every little bit helps. Series are more profitable. That's the kind of thing that pays the rent between productions and allows us to come up with more ideas so that there will be a "next project".
It's a sore point with me when I see people who have no idea how this business works pontificating about how my creative work should be out there for them to access free of charge. It really pisses me off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vundo Draxon wrote: | | Raos wrote: | | Unquestionably, I'd support that. It's a great idea. |
Absolutely. If we have to pay for that content to be created with or without our consent, the least they could do is let us enjoy that content without paying again. I have a feeling that some artists will be outraged that they can't get access to public funds to create content that can be sold for their private profit, but I'll be really happy with any government with the guts to tell them to go to hell... |
No, you pay to support a public television network that licenses the right to show content. End of story. You don't own my work.
And I am really happy to tell jackasses like you to go to hell, too.
Last edited by Timebandit on Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | Timebandit wrote: | The CBC licenses content with public money. It's not the same as buying shows.
But hey, nice to know you lot would like to see people like me out of business. Fuck you very much. |
Yeah, 'cause the CBC doesn't do and never has done any in house production at all. Right. Chill out. |
Do you find it easy to chill out when the discussion is about whether or not YOU deserve to make a living?
Yes, CBC does have some in-house production, but according to CRTC regulations, the vast majority is licensed from independent production companies, such as the one I run. See my reply to Tehanu if you can pry your head out of your ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timebandit wrote: | | TS. wrote: | | Timebandit wrote: | The CBC licenses content with public money. It's not the same as buying shows.
But hey, nice to know you lot would like to see people like me out of business. Fuck you very much. |
Yeah, 'cause the CBC doesn't do and never has done any in house production at all. Right. Chill out. |
Do you find it easy to chill out when the discussion is about whether or not YOU deserve to make a living?
Yes, CBC does have some in-house production, but according to CRTC regulations, the vast majority is licensed from independent production companies, such as the one I run. See my reply to Tehanu if you can pry your head out of your ass. |
I'm in training to be a lawyer. People discuss legal fees all the time, especially in the context of wanting them lowered. I don't explode with unnecessary abuse when people do. In fact, I tend to support them because legal fees are obscenely high and inhibit access to justice. In the same way, copyright inhibits access to culture.
It really is unnecessary to tell people "fuck you very much" or to ask me to see your point if I can pry my head out of my ass. Abusive debating doesn't get you very far, and certainly doesn't encourage others to come over to your point of view.
You also don't seem open to any compromise at all. Regarding the CBC archives, how about things can be protected for ten years, and then they enter the public domain? Still gives lots of time to earn back-end revenues, while also balancing public access to products they fund. But probably not, since we just want you to go out of business and have our heads in our asses. Or perhaps the NFB archives should be issued under creative commons licensing, but no that is probably part of some nasty plot to put independent producers out of business.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's a difference between lowering fees for service and removing ownership of something you've created. I probably wouldn't be so hot under the collar if you suggested that producers should be paid a smaller percentage of budget for their fees on productions. That's asking me to be paid less for my time, but that sort of thing is always negotiable, although it's already a lot like commission work - I get paid based on what I can raise.
I think a more accurate comparison is this: You bid to build a building. The deal is that they'll pay you so many years in advance for rent if you design and build it. You take on the risks - if you underestimate the manpower or the amount of lumber, you're on the hook for it. You use that money to leverage the rest of the funding and build it, on the condition that you still own the building when they're done using it. You take on the risks - if you underestimate the manpower or the amount of lumber, or something bad happens and it doesn't get built, you're on the hook for it. But you can still make up some of the money you've invested after the fact because you retain ownership.
Now, the suggestion is that if you build for a government agency, after they're done using it, you don't get to own it. Even though you've designed it, pounded the nails, put your own money and reputation on the line. If you do the same thing for a private organization, though, you might get to, just not if the renter is government.
In my view, that's completely unfair. You see, what you're talking about putting into the public domain isn't yours or CBC's to put anywhere. It belongs to the person who came up with the concept, crafted the idea and "rented" it.
There's also the implication that those of us who work in the creative industries don't deserve to retain ownership of our work, that we should be happy to just put it out there without compensation. That's a pretty sucky, right-wing libertarian way of looking at it. Hardly progressive.
And no, I'm not open to compromise. Compromise means that you get to take something away from me and I get sweet fuck all. CBC doesn't archive all independent productions, and what they do have, if copyright is owned by someone else, they have to have permission from the copyright holder. Without that, my work gets used in ways that I might not want it used - regardless of back end.
All of this is very basic. i've been over this argument I don't know how many times. Too many. Yes, I'm rude about it. I was relatively restrained the first fifty times. I don't think it's all that much to ask for people to at least have a clue before they start proposing to curtail my income and my right to own what I create.
And if you think I'm rude, go suggest to Margaret Atwood that her novels should be public domain after a certain period of time - seeing as she's used Canada Council grants to write them.
PS -- another thing you may not know: Telefilm gets a cut of everything you make on the back end until you pay back all of what they put in. That's why the call it equity investment. Then they put the money into other projects. If I make something wildly successful, they get paid out. It's not like we get big fat grants or anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow, chill out indeed. You sound like the RIAA and MPAA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timebandit wrote: | The CBC licenses content with public money. It's not the same as buying shows.
But hey, nice to know you lot would like to see people like me out of business. Fuck you very much. |
Errr... you ARE aware that I was not personally espousing anything, right?! I was quoting Jesse Brown, host of CBC's "Search Engine". If you have a bone to pick, it's with Jesse Brown, I'd say...
So thanks, but I'll pass on the helping of "fuck you".
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to pick out one bit of Timebandit's post re: Margaret Atwood, her next novel WILL become public domain after a certain period. It is a long period, but after a certain period her copyright will lapse and it will enter the public domain. You rag on others for not knowing the details of how the production industry works for television programmes, and yet you apparently don't understand how the copyright system works. Pot, meet kettle.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hephaestion wrote: | | Timebandit wrote: | The CBC licenses content with public money. It's not the same as buying shows.
But hey, nice to know you lot would like to see people like me out of business. Fuck you very much. |
Errr... you ARE aware that I was not personally espousing anything, right?! I was quoting Jesse Brown, host of CBC's "Search Engine". If you have a bone to pick, it's with Jesse Brown, I'd say...
So thanks, but I'll pass on the helping of "fuck you". |
Not directed to you, Heph, just those who think it's a wonderful idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | Just to pick out one bit of Timebandit's post re: Margaret Atwood, her next novel WILL become public domain after a certain period. It is a long period, but after a certain period her copyright will lapse and it will enter the public domain. You rag on others for not knowing the details of how the production industry works for television programmes, and yet you apparently don't understand how the copyright system works. Pot, meet kettle. |
Actually, the same long period pertains to media. I've had to pay attention to that in accessing stock footage through national and provincial archives. I also know that visual artist, painters and such, retain reproduction rights for their work even if they sell it, and these will lapse after a lengthy period as well. Why should motion picture be under seperate rules?
Meanwhile, I actually have work housed in the NAC. You can look at it there, but if you want to copy it or any part of it, you have to have my permission and may have to license it from me. Some day you won't have to, but in the meantime those rights belongs to me.
But what we're actually talking about is taking work away from its creator and making it available in the very short term. Ask Ms Atwood how she would like that, and I can guarantee you'll get a fairly negative response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raos wrote: | | Wow, chill out indeed. You sound like the RIAA and MPAA. |
Again, nobody's talking about walking off with your livlihood. That's not something I'm going to "chill out" about.
Those organizations actually do have a point, you know. It's just a little too facile to say that it's all about big organizations, but the rules also apply to us small operators, and make a big difference to us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Timebandit, what about creative commons licensing? Forbidding for-profit use, but making more material available to more people?
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | But what we're actually talking about is taking work away from its creator and making it available in the very short term. Ask Ms Atwood how she would like that, and I can guarantee you'll get a fairly negative response. |
It's not clear to me why we should be funding Margaret Atwood, but allowing her to retain all rights to the work we funded. This seems to me similar to arguments that if, say, we fund research at a University (which we also fund) then any discoveries that come of that research should belong to us, and not some company or individual.
Apropos of nothing, I'm POSITIVE that I saw Margaret Atwood last week at BMV used books, just off of Yonge, near World's Biggest. No kidding, she was in Canadian Lit, in the "A" section! I was briefly tempted to tell her that I loved The Stone Angel, but thought better of it.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chester
not crazy about trees
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2521
Location: Saskatoon
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | Timebandit, what about creative commons licensing? Forbidding for-profit use, but making more material available to more people? |
or how about letting creative people develop an idea, do the hard work of financng and creating something and getting remunerated for that work (along with funding agencies who exist to support canadian creative work) through maintaining copyright for a reasonable length of time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | Timebandit, what about creative commons licensing? Forbidding for-profit use, but making more material available to more people? |
You know what? When somebody calls me up and asks if they can use my work for something I think is a good cause, I usually say yes. But giving somebody else the power to say yea or nay means giving them the power to make decisions on how my work is used, apart from the profit side. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
The other point is this: Right now, a library or educational organization can purchase my work and show it. They have to pay for public performance rights. They may not make a profit, but I'm still being paid for my work. I'm loath to give that up - it's still part of my bread and butter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
F.
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 2578
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's not clear to me why we should be funding Margaret Atwood, but allowing her to retain all rights to the work we funded. |
I see it as similar to why we as a society generally support ideas like funding for disability support or medically necessary devices.
Even though Canadians generally appreciate art in some form, the capitalist sytem is not generally sympathetic to the challenges and sacrifices involved in producing art. Grants and scholarships are our way of addressing the incompatability between the two.
Atwood is probably a bad example, though, because, along with Ondaatje and Leonard Cohen, she's probably doing just fine financially. These folks are obviously the exception.
Magoo: in this day and age, you gotta be careful that a dig like your Stone Angel comment, no matter how brilliant, might instigate a Christian Bale outburst on you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chester wrote: | | TS. wrote: | | Timebandit, what about creative commons licensing? Forbidding for-profit use, but making more material available to more people? |
or how about letting creative people develop an idea, do the hard work of financng and creating something and getting remunerated for that work (along with funding agencies who exist to support canadian creative work) through maintaining copyright for a reasonable length of time? |
What's a reasonable length of time? So far, I think it's reasonable.
Part of the problem I have with this discussion is words like "letting" creative people do their things... It implies that creative people should be controlled, or might be prevented. The payment for rights does allow me to be remunerated for my work. But it's no just the work that one is remunerated for - it's taking on the risk. Ongoing rights payment allows one to weather the dry patches between projects as well - if you manage to build up a decent library, you might be able to go through a tight spot without having to find a "day job" and put your energy into getting something else up and running.
By the by, most development funding, public or private, has dried up and we're expected to do a lot of development on our own dime. Where do we get that dime if we can't continue to license our work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics