Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
Je suis compositeur pour la télé et le cinéma et je dois vous dire que quand on essaie (je dis bien essaie!) de vendre une trame sonore et bien c'est presque peine perdue…Une semaine après la sortie d'une trame sonore (chansons)d'un film que j'ai produite,on pouvait la télécharger gratuitement sur internet…Les gens ne comprennent pas que s'ils n'achètent pas de musique et bien on aura plus assez d'argent pour leur en produire d'autre…Si personne n'achète dans une boutique,elle fermera…J'ai remarqué une grosse baisse de la qualité des productions d'albums. Les budjets sont d'à peine 15 000$ pour un album complet…Ça c'est environs 2,50$ de l'heure pour le réalisateur/arrangeur…Parce que oui,il faut savoir tout faire aujourd'hui…
Two of the main things about this discussion that worry me are:
Copyright law is the citizens way of giving an artist an incentive to create something. This is an exchange. You pay me by giving me a temporary monopoly to encourage me to create a work, and I agree that eventually the work will be free to everyone. This means that if a law lengthens the term of copyright retroactively (like most of the US laws did) then you are forced to pay me more and I am allowed to give you less. This is unacceptable -- retroactive changes in copyright are like renegotiating the contract after the work is done.
The rules allowing DRM, and preventing circumventing it are fundamentally flawed. Copyright sets certain restrictions, and allows exceptions to those rules. If a DRM system does not allow the public their rights (such as making copies for personal study), then the publisher is attempting to use technological means to take a control that they do not legally have. Currently the bill makes it illegal to circumvent DRM, even if the DRM exceeds the publishers rights. (It is no longer Digital Rights Management, but just Digital Restrictions Management.) At a minimum the bill must be fixed to make it legal to circumvent over zealous DRM. Ideally the bill would be changed to make it illegal to produce any form of DRM that prevents legal copying. (I would go so far as to argue that unless the work can be copied according to fair-use, then it is not considered to be published and none of the copyright protections apply.)
I am a freelance writer who sees a number of problems in the current copyright environment, much of it stemming from poorly conducted studies of who copies what. I'd like to see rigorous, independent scientifically sound studies performed to really sort out who is copying what, and which copying is done by people who are truly 'lost customers'. There also needs to be a more accurate system for the actual collection and distribution of moneys developed. With the current systems, I suspect there is far too much money being collected in some areas, not enough in others, and a general mal-distribution of multi-millions of dollars.
I have several areas of concern:
1. Over-zealous collectives that have no scientifically proven method for fair or accurate distribution of millions of dollars. A single collective collects money through licences and other fees to the tune of millions of dollars each year. While a small portion of that money is indeed accurately distributed to creators as a form of royalty, most money is not so well targeted. In one collective, millions of dollars are divvied up between anyone who decides to join the collective - even if members haven't had anything published in decades. There is something wrong with a system that collects money, and gives, frequently, to the wrong people. I fear both print and music collectives have similar methodologies - with collected money rarely getting to the correct creators.
2. Levies on recording equipment - even when not used for music. I am a journalist who relies on using recording material to record interviews and lectures for use in my reportage activities. Over the years, many of my dollars have been sent to the music industry and divvied up among artists I don't listen to - simply because when I purchased recorders, tapes, writable CDs and the like I've had to pay hidden levies. I don't record music - only material I need to do my job. There is something wrong with a system that assumes everyone is recording and archiving music. Many of these recordable media are being for recording and archiving of non music material (such as storing family photos, work-related PowerPoint presentations, work-related databases, home movies, etc.). I doubt a true, impartial scientific study has been undertaken to truly quantify what is being recorded and archived.
At the very least, people like me should be able to claim back money spent on music industry levies! Is it possible to set up a system so people like me can claim this money back? Better yet, get rid of these levies -- they don't make much sense.
3. Access to information. Fair dealing/fair use is an important concept in an educated and democratic society. One needs to be able to have access to information for educational use, for background for work-related projects, personal growth, for researching material for product development, and more. An important part of fair dealing is being able to make a single copy of an item (a book chapter, a magazine article, etc.) for personal use. Imagine the 12-year old child working on a history project not being able to make copies of chapters so he can take them home, highlight with markers the relevant passages, and finish his/her assignment. Someone who makes copies for personal use was never in the market to purchase the complete works. That 12-year old child (as with most of us) will throw out or delete the copied material once the project is finished.
Any royalties/levees attached to making those single copies for personal use are misguided - they increase the cost of getting information making it less accessible to people in general. If people are less able to pay for material, then in the long-run you have a less educated society. Rules that allow for certain percentages of books, etc. to be copied for personal use are reasonable. But be wary of collectives that want to add fees to anything and everything that is copied. The spirit of copyright protection is to prevent the exploitation of creators - not to restrict access to information or stop people from learning.
4. Library licenses. Has a proper, independent scientific study been done to see just how much copying done in libraries is for anything more than personal use? From my own observations of watching and chatting with people at library photocopy machines, pretty well everyone was copying material for personal use - studies, personal growth, etc. They weren't making copies for profit. But, this needs proper study. If the vast majority of copying in libraries is done for personal use, then why do libraries pay copy licence fees? Where do those fees go? Where are the data? (Also, libraries already pay additional fees for their books, related to copyright.)
5. Corporate copying licences. I used to work at Roger's media, and like many corporations I believe the company has to pay a copying licensing fee to a collective. Nobody that I'm aware of ever came into the building to study just what was being copied (did they? Is that study recorded somewhere?). Never, in the years I worked for the company, did I see anyone copy anything that was for anything more than personal use - not for exploitive purposes. Has anyone studied, independently and scientifically, what is being copied inside of various companies and whether it really warrants the companies having to pay for copy licences? (And please, don't confuse my using your material as background information for a project I'm working on with copying your material and selling it for profit)
6. Internet usage levies. The Internet is a unique beast in that it is like a vast library available from homes, schools, libraries and cafes. Anyone who puts up a website or creates a blog is aware that the content becomes a part of this vast, international library. If people do not want certain material available to all, there are very simple technologies that allow for things such as password protected areas. There should not be hidden levies or fees collected by collectives to divvy up between their members. Instead, have people who don't want their material public put it behind passwords. Besides, the Internet is international - what if all the sites I use are foreign? Why should I pay levies for Canadian sites I don't use? As a website owner who would be allowed to benefit from a collective, why should I be sent distribution fees for visits that were made to other people's sites?
7. Penalties for schools. Having schools pay additional levies for Internet usage is collecting money for material that is largely for personal use (which, by definition, is free). (If the concern is about file-sharing or music stealing - schools can easily block those sites). At even $4 or $5 per child, the amounts asked from schools is daunting. Remember, many can't even afford enough textbooks for their students. This money would better be used for actual educational material.
8. Music in dental offices. Background music in dental office, garages, shopping malls, and even many types of restaurants is just that - background. The primary activity of going to the dentist or other such places is not to listen to the music. Royalties should be paid if the primary activity of a place is to listen to the music - say retro night at the dance club - not for getting your teeth drilled or your car fixed. (It's things like this that sometimes makes me think it's a 'money grab' - and to fix it there should be a cap on how much a song is actually allowed to earn before profits above and beyond go into an artist development fund).
9. International marketplace for movies. Many of us travel, or order things from overseas - such as documentaries or television shows from the UK's BBC. But when the BBC show arrives here in Canada, your Canadian DVD player can't play it because of copyright protection. I was allowed to buy it, let me play it. Likewise, when my friends in Australia and the UK order a show from the CBC, they can't play it there - so why buy Canadian? It's time to catch up with the changing marketplace and consumer demands. By not keeping-up ends up encouraging people to download shows, etc.
10. Too many collectives. Need I say more? And, to whom are they accountable? Who monitors them, and is it done effectively? Who should really make up a collective?
FoxyScribe [2009-09-10 17:53] Nº du commentaire : 2415 Reply to: 2342
While I agree with a large part of your thesis, I have a comment about the following:
"6. Internet usage levies. The Internet is a unique beast in that it is like a vast library available from homes, schools, libraries and cafes. Anyone who puts up a website or creates a blog is aware that the content becomes a part of this vast, international library. If people do not want certain material available to all, there are very simple technologies that allow for things such as password protected areas."
I'm author of six commercially produced novels. Lately, I've been finding my books online on various obscure (to me) websites. The process appears to be thus: 1) I have to register with the website, 2) then I have to find my books, 3) then I have to "claim" my books - my OWN BOOKS!!! 4) then I have to find some human to connect with to correct the many fallacies in the copy associated with my books. One of those sites, where I've managed to connect with an actual human being, tells me they get their copy from a "feed". Where said "feed" originates is a mystery. In fact, to correct the mistakes in the "feed" about my own books, I need to take out a paid membership with that website.
In order to "find" websites that have my books, I need to spend hours scanning search engines.
Further to this, I've also found digital copies of my books - my ENTIRE novel - online, being given away FREE to downloaders as a "sample".
Here's another irony - in order to download my own work in e-book format from one of these give-away sites, I needed to register with the site and, not being an American citizen, nor having a US IP address, I'm not even allowed to download the digital copy of my work which they're giving away as a freebie.
Understand, I'm not talking about my blogs (of which I've had many) nor my personal websites (of which I also have a few). When I create a blog or website, or contribute to a forum, I know I'm putting it into a global virtual collective database and accept that there is no true way to copyright those words. I do not consider that sacred property in any way.
I've also found a farily significant portion of my past work for print media online, with similar restrictions to me being able to access that work. Needing to pay for a site membership, and get the right to download my own work.
In theory, this should mean that I should be getting some sort of kick-back from those websites - since they're charging downloaders for my articles - shouldn't it? I, for one, have never seen penny-one from any of those sites.
It's more than a full-time job to track down every site where my work, resulting from 20 years working as a freelance journalist and professional author, is being made available either for free or for a fee.
And once I do find them, I have very little recourse, saving the pricey option of hiring a lawyer. WHO WOULD I SUE? It's never going to happen.
Welcome to the future.
meikipp [2009-09-13 21:46] Nº du commentaire : 2524 Reply to: 2415
A DMCA take down notice works in the US. And you can find templates to send to infringing sites on the web. As an academic I welcome non-commercial copying of my work, but I have sent out take down notices to sites using my work without my permission which require people to pay for accounts or share ad money with people who upload files (my work for example). I just had a file removed successfully last week and it only took one email.
Do you sell a good quality ebook at a reasonable price (cost of a paperback for instance) with no DRM attached? That would help ensure that legitimate customers don't turn to downloading from dubious sources.
On ne sait pas de quoi l'avenir sera fait. C'est pourquoi il est important de mettre en place une loi sur le droit d'auteur qui soit technologiquement neutre, qui assurera aux ayants droit des revenus quelle que soit la plateforme d'accès utilisée par le consommateur.
Je vie de ce métier et je vois dans les dernières années des baisse de ventes d'album de plusieurs milliers de dollars. Si les gens croient que la musique est gratuite et que celle-ci leur appartient, il est temps de mettre en vigueur des lois sévères contre ce piratage. L'industrie en souffre et l'avenir s'annonce mal pour les créateurs et créatrices d'arts. Il est écrit au début de chaque film et vidéo que la loi est très sévère pour ceux qui tenteraient de copier sans permissions le contenu de ces arts, j'aimerais savoir comment souvent cette loi à été mise en évidence et d'avoir accès à la liste des gens qui ont été accusés et trouver coupable du crime mentionné. Je ne crois pas que cette liste existe. Oû est l'organisme en place pour bien surveiller les infractions? Il est temps que le gouvernement se responsabilise et s'engage à la protection du droit d'auteur. Personne ne travaille pour rien et c'est dans l'attitude et dans le respect de nos politiciens que les changements peuvent prendre place.
I am a student, still unable to vote, yet with sufficient time to do extensive research on topics, and I'd like to present my views. I hope you will consider them calmly, without freaking out.
I don't think we need copyright. I've seen a massive number of things flourish without it. I run GNU/Linux. It has an estimated value of billions, but is completely free. I've read several free (like speech) textbooks which have put me beyond my peers. I listen to most of my music on jamendo, where music is not copyrighted. I get my knowledge often from wikipedia - and admit it, you do too. Wikipedia is without copyright. In short, as they say, 'sharing is caring', and I believe the most humane and natural thing a human can do.
When the Americans (US) considered whether or not their country should have copyright, there was no digital infrastructure, and the barrier for entry to all arts was much higher. Now, as anyone can do it only with a computer (Even at a Library!) I think there is so much content and enough producers we need no longer such a massive incentive. Instead of copyright adding value, I believe it is taking it away.
But I recognize there's never been a large modern society without IP, so I think it would mess things up even more than the recession has. So I don't want Canada to just give up all copyright. No, I recommend a single-digit copyright duration - preferably 7 years, both for luck and because it is half the original duration of copyright in the USA. I've yet to meet an artist who has made significant money from a work that old anyway - it is always with recent works that they get their money from. I know this will mess things up royally with the WTO, but I also believe developing countries like China & India would take this as a great time to loosen their copyright as well. And then we could have more trade with them, and less with the USA, seeing how badly that turned out.
Now, if things go well in the future we could look further into loosening copyright further, should it have gone well.
It's just an embarrassing fact the current state of copyright. I mean, DRM? If I gave you a book and told you you had to come see me and prove you still had the book every time you wanted to read it, you'd send me to jail. Only a fraction so small of works generate revenue in the last decade of their copyright that only the insane wouldn't round it to 0%. I mean, that's how copyright hurts us all - and it hurts us bad. If I ever wanted to remix a song without paying a massive fee, I had better outlive the artist by a half-century.
So, there we go. That's how existing laws should be modernized. I've spend the time to research this. I know authors (Like my sister) and am a musician. If we don't modernize copyright now, I believe we'll lose a considerable part of our past culture, as no one will be allowed to archive it without paying. The dangers are great - and now is the time to take action!
Thanks for taking the time to consider my humble opinion.
PS:If any party adopts this policy, I bet they'll be elected :)
En tant que consommatrice de biens culturels et historiques, je demande une modification à la loi canadienne sur le droit d'auteur, afin d'y inclure le droit d'accès aux documents d'archives, sans égard à la technologie utilisée, ce qui permettrait aux services d'archives de rendre leurs fonds et collections accessibles au public grâce aux technologies numériques, incluant l'Internet.
Les archivistes protègent, préservent et rendent accessible le patrimoine documentaire du Canada et de ses citoyens à l'intention des générations actuelles et futures.
Traditionnellement, les chercheurs devaient se rendre sur place, dans les centres d'archives, pour consulter les documents. Dans un environnement numérique, les archives peuvent maintenant se rendre aux chercheurs; ceux-ci n'ont plus l'obligation de se déplacer.
Je suis convaincue que tout le monde a intérêt à ce que les documents d'archives ne dorment pas sur les tablettes parce que le public n'a aucun moyen de savoir qu'ils sont disponibles ou aucun moyen de se rendre dans un centre d'archives pour les consulter sur place.
Le gouvernement doit s'engager fermement concernant les millions de documents qui racontent l'histoire de notre pays et de ses citoyens, et qui restent cachés dans les centres d'archives parce qu'ils ne peuvent être reproduits ou diffusés à des fins de recherche sur les sites Web archivistiques en raison de restrictions liées au droit d'auteur.
Pour moi, les droits d'auteur sont principalement des droits de distribution. Je n'ai pas le droit de faire 50 copies et de les vendre ou distribuer gratuitement à mes voisins parce que je n'en suis pas l'auteur. Mais j'ai le droit de faire 50 copies, de les enterrer dans mon jardin ou de les enfermer dans mon coffret à la banque puisqu'il n'y a pas distribution.
Je suis en informatique. Je télécharge des megs et des gigs à chaque mois de logiciels libres, de mise à jour de code source et je regarde des cours magistraux régulièrement pour me tenir à jour dans mon domaine. A cause du coût et du temps perdu en chargement, ces données me sont précieuses et nécessitent une copie de sécurité. Je dois donc payer sans raison des redevances.
Malgré tout, je tolère cette pénalité. Je comprends que certains vont donner un DC contenant des oeuvres protégées et qu'il est plus simple de gérer les droits d'auteur de cette manière. Mais jamais au grand jamais quelqu'un donnerait un iPod ou autre disque inamovible.
Et c'est pour cette raison que je considère ridicule l'imposition d'une redevance à ces appareils. Et que je considère criminellement irresponsable d'imposer plusieurs centaines de dollars de redevance à un iPod de 80 gigs, comme la SCPCP a proposé il y a quelques années.
S'il m'était possible de nommer à chaque année les ayants droit pour mes redevances (avec factures à l'appui), je serais pleinement satisfait de pouvoir faire ce don à mes artistes préférés. Mais je n'aime pas voir mon argent disparaître dans les méandres d'une industrie qui ne fait rien pour moi.
Depuis quelques années, les moyens, d'acheter, distribuer et partager la musique ont évolué. Les lois, elles, sont restées sensiblement les mêmes.
Pour le bien de la culture (et de la vie humaine donc), les lois devraient être actualisées. Je pense notamment que les lois devraient inclure des mesures de rétribution pour les créateurs d'oeuvres distribuées sur le net. Par exemple, offrir des royautés au compositeur de musique de jeux (programmé en) Flash distribués exclusivement sur le net.
Aussi, les créateurs de musique sous toutes ses formes (Mp3, Flac, etc.) et sur tous ses supports (lecteur Mp3, tél. cellulaire, film, film en "streaming", etc.) devraient être rémunéré pour leur travail. C'est une évidence. Faisons l'exercice de l'analogie; transposons notre situation du côté de l'essence. Si du jour au lendemain les citoyens volaient le carburant, les producteurs de pétrole et le gouvernement perdraient de gros montant d'argent. S'en plaindraient-ils? Créeraient-ils des lois pour se protéger? Poser la question…
Dans un autre ordre d'idée, il semble évident que les fournisseurs d'accès internet (FAI) se "graissent les pattes" sur le dos des artistes. Les FAI offrent des quantités limitées de téléchargements (10 go) pour un montant astronomique (60.95$). Ici, il y a au moins deux problèmes. Tout d'abord, curieusement, ces FAI ne sont pas propriétaires de contenu qu'ils "permettent" à leurs utilisateurs de télécharger. Ensuite, à ma connaissance, ils ne remettent aucun argent aux ayant-droits. En somme, ces FAI se font beaucoup d'argent à contrôler la circulation du traffic sur la vague d'un contenu qui ne leur appartient pas. Tout ça me semble inadmissible et pour les créateurs de contenu et pour les consommateurs.
As a lifelong collector of music - on LP and CD - as well as a music retailer and a performing musician, I've had a chance to witness the way the industry works and frankly, I don't think it's worth saving.
Folks like CRIA are representing an industry that, for most of the last century, has run on theft, bribes, price-fixing and crying wolf at every attempt to curtail their criminal business practices.
Even while the record companies were gorging themselves at the teat of overpriced CD reissues (and remasters, and vinyl-replica-sleeves, and anniversary versions) of the same music they'd already stolen from the artists, they'd sown the seeds of their own destruction by embracing the new digital format known as CDs.
The fact is that the playing field has now levelled. Traditional radio, or even video TV stations no longer hold absolute marketing sway over what the public listens to. Digitization means that anyone with a computer and a microphone is a recording artist and has control over how they choose to sell or share the content they create. The indentured servitude model of the record companies is no longer relevant for many artists, and the fact that it is difficult, as it has always been, to make a living as a musician has not staunched the flow of music into the marketplace on iota - in fact the opposite is true - there is more product to choose from than ever before, as well as the opportunity for consumers to cast their vote in the marketplace by paying for - or not - content that they value - or not.
Like it or not, the internet is the cyberspace equivalent of the wild west - there are few enforceable laws - and we are entering a new era where rules cannot be written because there is no consensus on the value of digital content and how it should be delivered. As one of the dinosaurs who think CDs suck (an anachronistic standard developed in the era of Commdore 64s) and MP3s are a joke, I welcome the development of a digital standard that is worth paying for - like perhaps DVD audio (why is EMI remastering The Beatles for CD now, when the CD era is clearly ending?).
So - the industry screams for handouts like the blank CD levy - but have failed to deliver quality of content and format to consumers who quite rightfully have rebelled - and I say this with all the ironic glee of someone whose business has suffered as a result but as a consumer of music first am sick of being ripped off.
I don't have a tidy solution to this, but I urge the deep-thinkers who are contemplating legislation in this area NOT TO GIVE THE RECORD COMPANIES ANYTHING THEY ASK FOR. They deserve the fate they have sown for themselves long ago.
stefan [2009-09-07 19:51] Nº du commentaire : 2298 Reply to: 2295
absolutely brilliant. the major record companies may die, and with them their hypocrisy that they want to help musicians make a living. perhaps a positive aspect of all this is that it sinks into public awareness that so many talented writers have been ripped off by record companies. the same companies who feel so betrayed by people downloading mp3 content from somewhere.
ebrown-john [2009-09-11 00:41] Nº du commentaire : 2423 Reply to: 2295
The record companies had a business model that worked very well at the time that it was created.
It is a model that revolved around the mass-marketing and sale of hits and supergroups to a mass public who lacked the ability to create their own media, seek out alternatives to the mainstream or to pirate that which they had bought.
That environment no longer exists but the model persists.
In clinging to this model, the record companies continue to push mass-market content to a market that is increasingly fragmented. Smaller segments of people are demanding greater and greater choice.
The inevitable outcome of this is that sales of mass-market content are dropping. But what the record companies fail to notice or to mention is that the sales of niche content are rising as they become more available to people who now have the ability to seek them out. This is the long tail.
Instead of adapting to this new environment, the major record labels cling to the old model. They spend millions developing new DRM technologies that limit the rights of consumers and anger the people they are trying to sell to. They demand greater concessions from governments, longer copyright terms, greater levies, and the ability to sue infringers.
But none of this changes the fact that with the technologies that we have today, the old business model is not nearly as viable as it used to be. This is the era of the long tail. The record companies must either adapt or perish. It should not be our responsibility to compensate them or make concessions for their inability to react to market trends.
I am a writer. I have to persuade publishers that they can pay me, pay reproduce costs, sell my writing, and make a profit doing it. All of us in the business of writing, drawing, painting, creating software, recording music and so on follow much the same path. And yes, it's a business. Our product is intellectual property in the same way that the XYZ Car Company's product is a tangible product.
Nobody would argue that an XYZ car that rolls off the assembly line should be free to boost from the plant and "share" with others. That's theft and everybody knows it. If you bought that car, you could share it with your friends by lending it to them or giving it away. It would not be sharing if you started your own plant, made copies of the car, and sold them or even handed them out for free. That would infringe XYZ's rights. And everybody knows that too.
I cannot fathom why this is such hard concept to grasp: Just because it's easier to steal from the creator of intellectual property than from the XYZ Car Company, it doesn't change the fact that it's theft.
And no matter what form a product takes, it is not "sharing" to copy something and give it to another. Sharing by definition requires division and apportionment. I haven't shared anything if in the end I still have it whole all for myself. You can't pat yourself on the back for being a sharer if the act cost you nothing.
Lorimer S [2009-09-07 19:07] Nº du commentaire : 2296 Reply to: 2293
Further: It's not just Mega Business you're screwing when you steal something, including illegally downloaded music or writing. We, the creators, don't get paid unless our publishers/producers/distributors get paid. Do you thing XYZ Cars would keep hiring shift workers if all their cars disappeared from the plant? I deserve to be paid a whole lot more than the freeloader deserves something for nothing.
Caleb.B [2009-09-08 18:20] Nº du commentaire : 2336 Reply to: 2293
"And no matter what form a product takes, it is not "sharing" to copy something and give it to another. Sharing by definition requires division and apportionment. I haven't shared anything if in the end I still have it whole all for myself. You can't pat yourself on the back for being a sharer if the act cost you nothing. "
You totally misunderstand it all. Your 'definition' of sharing is simply untrue. Actually, I found this definition:"refers to joint or alternating use of an inherently finite good" Notice your mistake? Digital files are not considered to be finite anymore, thanks to bittorrent. If a good is no longer finite, it no longer requires division and apportionment.
When I share a movie with my friends (At my house) it costs nothing. (essentially) To say that to share must cost is to be gravely ignorant.
Your comparison of physical goods to the intangible is a real flop - what you have suggested would be like stealing the CD, a tangible good covered by property rights. The real comparison would be if I bought a chair, showed it to my carpenter friend, and he made a duplicate for himself.
Your new comparison about cars should be:"If someone copied XYZ's cars, they would have a competitor." Your last line about "deserving" things totally misunderstands the market. For creating something, you don't deserve anything. If it is valuable, you can sell it. If you create something the market says has no worth, you'll get nothing - which exactly what you deserve.
But your whole post is irrelevant to this topic - it's just a rant at file sharers. I am sorry you feel such resentment. For the record, I do not wish for an outright removal of copyright. But I am curious, so I'll ask this: do you still make any money from any work you've made over 28 years ago? If no, then please understand how insane life+50 years is - how damaging it is to culture, and what a great promotional tool shorter copyright could be.
Lorimer S [2009-09-09 15:06] Nº du commentaire : 2375 Reply to: 2336
Wow. I ranted? I'm resentful?
I'll resist the urge to post an essay on the nature of definitions, truth, analogy, and discussion.
Instead, re markets: Clearly, something is only worth what people will pay for it. Of course, that's the problem. If a novel, for example, is published and people decide to buy it, the author is rewarded for having created something of worth in the market. If that novel is then posted online for free download, it becomes worthless. In fact, the more popular the novel is, the more likely it is to be turned into a freebie. Should the author's right to continue collecting royalties be dismissed in favour of someone else's right to get something for nothing? Who is more deserving?
This is relevant in a discussion about copyright. An argument is being made for reducing the duration of copyright protection. At what point should there be free access to copyrighted material? If a novel I wrote 28 years ago were still drawing an audience, still pursuading people to pay to read it, still having value in the market, are you saying I should no longer have ownership of it because it isn't new anymore?
And since this is a discussion and not a rant, I am interested to hear how the life+50 year copyright "damages" culture. And what do you mean by "promotional tool"?
Il est clair que les métiers d'auteur et de compositeur de chanson ou de musique instrumentale sont considérablement dévalués du fait d'une rémunération inéquitable pour les créateurs. Une infime poignée ont et auront la capacité de vivre de leur art et d'avoir une qualité de vie normale et appréciable (un à cinq pourcent?).
Les autres (95%?) sont-ils censés créer des chansons mémorables et inoubliables, investir dans les arrangements et dans leur enregistrement, et distribuer gratuitement les chansons, et avec le sourire à part ça?! Ça n'est pas réaliste de demander ça aux créateurs de chansons, et je trouve ça profondément inéquitable, voire anti-démocratique. La qualité générale de la culture musicale et chansonnière ne peut qu'en souffrir. Pour certains consommateurs qui ne voient pas plus loin que leur fond de poche, il semble que la gratuité aille de soi sur Internet. C'est un peu le principe d'aller chez Wal-Mart; on fait des économies, mais elles se font sur le dos de qui en réalité? Comment assurer un "développement (culturel) durable" et de qualité dans de telles conditions?
Le support, peu importe qu'il soit désuet (cassette), actuel (Ipod, mp3) ou futuriste (une éventuelle puce quelconque greffée à la peau?), doit pouvoir assurer une rémunération acceptable au premier "fournisseur" de contenu, c'est-à -dire le créateur dudit contenu. Si le fournisseur de l'accès (FAI) peut en tirer de juteux profits, il doit alors devenir partie de la solution et retourner la part qui revient aux créateurs indépendants.
S'il n'y a pas de relève indépendante des conglomérats qui puisse fleurir à l'ombre de ceux-ci, je crains une profonde aseptisation culturelle d'ici une génération. Qui veut encore (et voudra) embrasser le métier de parolier librement dans ces conditions? Poser la question, c'est y répondre.
Bien d'accord avec la proposition ci-dessous de Jean-Robert Bisaillon.
Je m'inscris pour l'élaboration d'une Licence numérique : Afin d'assurer une compensation pour leur travail, aux créateurs d'oeuvres intellectuelles numérisées et échangées gratuitement; Afin d'arrimer la législation canadienne aux traités de l'OMPI en matière de Mesures techniques de protection et de Mise à disposition; Afin de reconstruire une économie de l'enregistrement sonore canadien,
Je propose les réformes suivantes :
La loi sur le droit d'auteur canadienne instaure une Licence numérique pour mise à disposition non-commerciale - à inclure aux contrats d'accès aux réseaux et à l'achat de forfaits ou de médiums de stockage informatiques.
Les consommateurs qui souhaitent s'exclure de la mesure peuvent le faire en exerçant un droit de retrait volontaire au moment de signer tel contrat et garantissant qu'il ne font pas usage de leur réseau pour accéder à des oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur.
Le tarif déterminé par la Commission du droit d'auteur est assumé par le fournisseur d'accès et le consommateur - cette responsabilité conjointe est régie par le CRTC.
La portion du consommateur fluctue et est déterminée par une mesure de son utilisation de bande passante.
Le tarif doit être abordable.
La perception et la répartition des montants générés par la Licence numérique sont assumées par un collectif regroupant l'ensemble des associations d'ayants droit.
Les ayants droit qui souhaitent s'exclure de la mesure peuvent le faire en exerçant un droit de retrait volontaire au moment d'adhérer à leur association.
La répartition n'est pas basée sur la mesure d'une autre activité économique du secteur telles les ventes physiques ou les passages radios - il faut créer une mesure spécifique pour cette activité par une observation des flux et l'utilisation d'une technologie de marquage.
Le fait de légaliser et de baliser la pratique de la mise à disposition non-commerciale marginalisera le nombre d'usagers prêts à entraver les mesures de marquage et d'observation des flux.
La mise à disposition commerciale demeure sujette à des licences générales spécifiques et l'entrave aux mesures de marquage devient illégale.
Finalement, je donne mon appui à la PROPOSITION DES AUTEURS ET INTERPRàˆTES D'ENREGISTREMENTS SONORES CANADIENS POUR UN MODàˆLE DE MONÉTISATION DES PARTAGES DE FICHIERS MUSICAUX NUMÉRIQUES de la Songwriters Association of Canada
Merci de votre attention. Jean-Robert Bisaillon http://www.youyou.ca
Copyright realy only protects those who can Afford an Expencive Lawyer which for the ost part big Media companies or Huge artists. the chance of small artists or composers benifiting from your laws and r revenue sharing from blank media is less than the costs you impose on us to create our work with our blank media
stefan [2009-09-07 20:01] Nº du commentaire : 2299 Reply to: 2286
your statement is only true if you are doing live gigs and just burn a few cds to sell at shows which you sell for less than 50 cents.
Les fournisseurs d'accès Internet (FAI),qui sont maintenant les diffuseurs font d'immenses profits en offrant toute une gamme de services dont la possibilité de télécharger des musiques, des films, etc. Ils font partie de la solution devant être apportée aux pertes de revenus découlant des actes de téléchargement illégaux. Ils doivent être mis à contribution tant financièrement que par une implication directe dans la lutte à mener contre ces pratiques illégales.
Il est faux de dire que la musique est gratuite sur Internet : les consommateurs se l'approprient en payant leur facture d'Internet et pas un sou ne revient à ceux qui créent cette musique.
Martin M Tétreault
Jean-Robert Bisaillon [2009-09-07 16:48] Nº du commentaire : 2292 Reply to: 2283
Hello Martin, voici ce que je proposes. Un appui peut-être?
En tant que créatrice et qu'éditrice musicale en devenir, il me semble primordial que le gouvernement canadien mette à jour la loi sur le droit d'auteur de façon à ce qu'elle tienne compte de la numérisation des contenus musicaux et des nouveaux modes de consommation de la musique qu'elle entraîne.
Avec la numérisation, les fondements mêmes du droit d'auteur sont ébranlés. Internet véhicule une culture de la gratuité qui, couplée à la facilité sans précédent de se procurer, d'échanger et de reproduire des fichiers musicaux de façon quasi-instantanée, font perdre aux yeux des consommateurs la valeur associée aux actes que sont la diffusion et la reproduction de la musique. C'est pourtant de cette valeur que sont tirés les revenus des ayants droits des oeuvres musicales.
Dans les paramètres actuels de la loi, il est impossible de tirer les revenus de droits d'auteur liés à certaines exploitations des oeuvres musicales, dont la copie pour usage privé que font les consommateurs des oeuvres musicales et des enregistrements sonores sur leurs enregistreurs audionumériques (lecteurs MP3).
Il faut donc une réforme de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur qui arrive à faire valoir fidèlement les droits des auteurs en fonction de tous les changements qui ont eu lieu dans les dernières années et qui soit conçue avec suffisamment d'ouverture pour prévoir les changements à venir. Comme le mentionne Éric Lemieux dans un commentaire ci-dessous, une loi "technologiquement neutre" qui assurera aux ayants droits une rémunération pour l'exploitation de leurs oeuvres, peu importe la forme ou le mode de cette exploitation.
'Twitter Wit', published by Harper Collins, (All Rights Reserved) has been 'edited' by Nick Douglas, with foreword by Biz Stone, Co-Founder of Twitter, retails for $16.99. (Cdn)
Puts a whole new 'spin' on 'monetizing' content users words on the web.
ie. now it's apparently 'legal' to appropriate OTHERS words FOR PROFIT.
Some may argue that 'contributors' to 'Twitter Wit' contributed 'freely' just 'for the fun of it'. Or, gee, maybe they contributed to assuage their egos … or did it to 'gain' publicity … with the very long-shot they'd get a few 'followers' or even longer shot that they might someday somewhere somehow actually get PAID for their pirouett-ical 'witticisms' … or not.
Could be they are just twitterers who don't - or can't - make a living by writing, but find the very IDEA twitillating that their one liner got PUBLISHED, cuz then they are now, you know, like, FINALLY PUBLISHED in a real live BOOK.
DREAM ON suckers.
The ONLY ones who'll 'benefit' from this are the three mentioned: - the 'publisher' , Harper Collins, 'writer' Nick Douglas, (this is his first 'compendium of others tweets' aka 'book' btw), and 'techie' Biz Stone who UNDERSTANDS that 'profile' IS business. This is the first 'BOOK' to come out with 'Twitter' content and thus now EXTENDS Twitter's REACH into that tired & old but still surprisingly CRAVED ENCLAVE of the 'print industry' …
See link to 'browse inside' book & view COPYRIGHT page.
(Note there is now no 'olbigatory' third party CHARITY mentioned, nothing is 'FREE' here … meaning, all three principals of this title GET that MONEY is MONEY. That's WHY 'All Rights are Reserved'. THEY own the 'Copyright', not those thousands of hapless 'wannabe' contributors who regularly sent in their 'wittery'.)
One sighs for the suckers.
Laws that ensure copyright is properly protected are necessary, with an eye to the fact that this can or is someone's livelihood and so fair and just compensation is needed. This protection of copyright in all areas is important not just for artists and businesses, for in many ways it benefits all Canadians and the Canadian economy as it enhances our identity or view of ourselves collectively. Saying this, we currently see the sale of materials subsidized by Canadians being sold off with seemingly little benefit to us other than as some footnote saying where it was first created. This discussion requires a larger frame and needs to be explored in light of the individual or group needs and within the context of what is ultimately good for our society. We all benefit from each others contributions regardless of the field, but we too are supported in many ways by our society that allows us the health, time, energy and opportunity to create and think freely or not if we choose.
Because of the greed factor some argue that rights for copyright should cease after the death of the creator. If this creation, intellectual property… is the gift that is passed on down to one's progeny as their inheritance, is it any less their right than the cottage, stock portfolios, trust funds, mementos or other items that are bequeathed to them. Many Canadians who create do so because they love what they do and receive little recognition or renumeration for their efforts within the course of their lives. Denying these rights perpetuates this and allows others to benefit more greatly than those to whom there is a deep connection.
Just copyright says we value the contribution made by these people.
It tells us that to work hard and sacrifice one's time energy and resources to create what we imagine, perceive, hear or believe is worth at least this protection.
It doesn't always ensure big pay cheques for most creators live in obscurity.
It does provide the opportunity for proper compensation when the public begins to recognize the efforts of the individual or group and the body of work that they have contributed to the fabric of Canada and the world.
It does not permit the exploitation of this work so that others benefit before the one(s) who toiled to create it whether living or deceased.
meikipp [2009-09-07 14:28] Nº du commentaire : 2289 Reply to: 2275
If creators want to pass on a legacy why can't they just buy RSPs or put money in the bank like everyone else?
gene k [2009-09-07 20:03] Nº du commentaire : 2300 Reply to: 2289
I suppose if the one who is not recognized for their work or creation " the starving artist" as it has been so aptly put, could do this they might. But if it is all they have to give and it has been made public because of self publication or performance why should they lose that right? Why should it fall into the hands of others who might exploit it for their gain and there be no recompense for the estate or beneficiary of the one who created the work. Seems absurd to me, but then again maybe it is the simple view I take of a person's efforts that may not have been recognized and turned into cold hard cash.
meikipp [2009-09-10 17:05] Nº du commentaire : 2410 Reply to: 2300
The problem is that creative works are important for two reasons. One reason is that it is creative work and it enriches culture and society. So copyright expires after a limited period in order to allow others to build on this creative work without having to ask for permission, pay huge licensing fees or give up on their derivative work idea altogether. The second reason is that it's possible for a creator to support themselves by selling creative works. You seem to be arguing that the second issue is the most important. I think the first is equally or possible more important in the long run.
obviously creators are dependent on their intellectual property rights to make a living. so as a creator copyright laws directly affects me.
it feels a bit strange that so many people want to discuss my rights away. if creators like myself don't receive fair compensation for their work, it will be only a matter of time until high quality work will have disappeared. not that fair compensation guarantees high quality work, but no or too low compensation guarantees low quality work.
fair compensation is a matter of course for just about every other profession, but for creators it seems to be debatable. why? if you want to buy groceries, you must pay for them. if you want a new car, you have to pay for it. if you want to buy a cd player, you have to pay for it. if you want to listen to music, you must also pay for it. simple.
fair copyright laws that ensure creators receive fair compensation are indispensible for canadian content creators and their fellow creators all over the world.
meikipp [2009-09-07 14:21] Nº du commentaire : 2288 Reply to: 2274
The difference is that I don't have to keep paying you over and over again for the groceries, the chair, or the CD player that I buy.
This debate has very little to do with fair compensation for you. The debate is about whether it is reasonable to take away the fair dealing rights of millions of Canadians without any proof that removing these rights would actually benefit anyone. The large media companies would like us to believe that fair dealing is wrong, but as you can see on this forum many Canadians believe in balanced copyright.
stefan [2009-09-07 19:42] Nº du commentaire : 2297 Reply to: 2288
actually, the large media companies are the biggest problem in the debate because of their hypocrisy. their claim was to re-regulate copyright, but their lobbying has nothing to do with copyright at all. there's no copyright reform, there's only exploitation reform. by shifting the debate to copyright, they have well disguised their true purpose with their constant "please help starving musicians make a living" blabla.
i'm not sure what you mean by
"The difference is that I don't have to keep paying you over and over again for the groceries, the chair, or the CD player that I buy."
how do you pay me over and over again? if you buy my cd, you pay me once, not matter how many times you are listening to it. if you are running a commercial enterprise like a restaurant, and you think that playing my cd is important for your business, then it's a different ballgame. btw, i also think that people should be allowed to make copies for their car or whatever. the fact that this is not allowed or up for discussion again is an argument of the industry, not the creators. that's also why i do not believe that millions of illegally downloaded songs are ruining creators. that's nonsense, because people who illegally download hundreds or thousands of songs would have never purchased them anyway. people hop on a free ride, just because it's available.
lastly, you say many canadian believe in balanced copyright. of course they do. if you'd have a nation wide survey that evaluates if people would like to a)pay taxes or b)pay no taxes, i probably would check b, even though i secretly believe that taxes are necessary. i would guess that most people would check b. that's how most humans work and why regulations are put in place to begin with.
interesting discussion… please reply.
meikipp [2009-09-10 17:43] Nº du commentaire : 2413 Reply to: 2297
Agree completely with your first paragraph. The debate here is not about copyright, it's about control.
Actually, I didn't buy your CD, I listened to your song on the radio. My argument about the chair was aimed at people who think we should have to pay for the cassette, the CD, the DVD, and the MP3 of the same song. I guess if you want the liners you might.
As for balanced copyright, I think it depends on what this means for you. Large media companies think balanced copyright means they are losing money. Most of us believe that balanced copyright means the artist is compensated and we pay a reasonable fee to own the song for private use.
jamesb [2009-09-08 18:40] Nº du commentaire : 2338 Reply to: 2274
"but no or too low compensation guarantees low quality work." - That is entirely wrong. That is saying that anything not paid for is not worth having ( or low quality ). You do not have to look far to find flaws in that statement. Although we do need copyright laws, the ones proposed to far more harm then good. The more you look into what is proposed, the more damaging you will realize it is for issues that hardly involve IP at all.
stefan [2009-09-08 19:03] Nº du commentaire : 2339 Reply to: 2338
not entirely wrong, but ok, i qualify. i can put a lot of energy into something i want to do - no pay, still good quality. monetary compensation is a strong motivator for most people, however, in particular when it relates to their job. i certainly would work harder to keep a well paying job than for a job that does not pay well or does not pay at all. that's what i meant.
I agree that copyright should cease after the original creator's death, I don't agree with the whole financial gain (and quite massive after death, work more valuable) that happens today, it's just a big scheme to get rich people richer while the consumer keeps paying for it.
I also think that copyright should stay with the entity that produced the work originally and not be sold to a third party. Use agreements should be in place for anybody that wants to use the work on any basis (commercial or not).
Cowgirl [2009-09-06 02:39] Nº du commentaire : 2265 Reply to: 2263
Note: I should explain better that I'm talking about copyright sale rights that go on after the creator's death, big companies or individuals that make huge profits because the copyright still in place 40 years after death.
stefan [2009-09-06 07:17] Nº du commentaire : 2268 Reply to: 2263
when music becomes public domain after the creator's death, it doesn't mean that you will get it for free anywhere. it will cost you the same, only other people will receive the money. as a creator, it would be good to know that my family can benefit from my work (it's only for a limited time anyway) and not put all the royalties in other people's pocket. it's only a matter of redistribution.
meikipp [2009-09-13 21:37] Nº du commentaire : 2522 Reply to: 2268
It's actually not about "getting it for free" so much as about the ability to reinterpret it, remix it and so on without having to secure permission (which may not be granted). The public domain enriches culture… like the way Disney reinterpreted classic fairy tales and all the movies that have been made based on Shakespeare's plays…
MikeP [2009-09-07 00:26] Nº du commentaire : 2282 Reply to: 2263
I think its important for copyright to be held by the artist's "estate" for a period of time after their death. If merely because artists don't make a lot of money (I sure don't) and thus my family won't ever be wealthy and my kids won't be able to do some of the things that those of wealthier children can do.
Keeping copyright for a period after death ensures that my family has an outside chance of someday profiting from my work - even if its not while I'm alive.
stefan [2009-09-08 19:07] Nº du commentaire : 2340 Reply to: 2282
not only that, but if your work was successful while you were alive that would be what your children inherit. other people may pass on material goods, stocks, whatever. the creator passes on intellectual property which holds real value and are to be treated the same way as material goods.