But how can you know that it is a "fact"? Where have you seen actual studies into blank CD usage? This "fact" could, for all we know, be similar to the "facts" that the recording companies regularly make up in order to bolster their arguments for unbalanced copyright laws.

you could look here, for example:

http://circum.com/index.cgi?en:doc:T058

but it's not even important if the majority of cds are used for illegal copying or what percentage it is. even the possibility of illegal copying (which nobody questions) warrants a levy, whether we are talking about cds, or flash cards which are estimated at less than 5% use of copyrighted material. these figures are the basis on which the levy is calculated.

if we knew that most cds are are used for illegal copying, the levy would be so high that you might as well buy the real thing. as such, the very low levy is a concession to the computer only user, but an acknowlegement that music copying is a fact.

Before I start, you've misconstrued and misrepresented my original point to where it's unrecognizable in your reply.

I never once said that content creators (no pun intended) shouldn't get paid, or that it was right to take from them, so while I appreciate you speaking passionately about your concern, please do not ascribe such accusations to my post.

My point was not whether I would steal a cup of coffee or not, but rather the frustration at hearing that because I have to pay for it, it's categorically better than what I could make at home.

I could make a living by playing piano and singing. It wouldn't be as good a living as I make now, and it would be a heck of a lot harder, but I could do it. But simply because I choose not to, does not make my playing or talent inferior to those who do.

My entire original premise came from the perceived notion, through the Toronto Town Hall and reading some of the comments here, that monetized artistic talent in Canada was somehow the last bastion of Canadian culture. Also, I object to the idea that a looser copyright system threatens culture.
As much as I hope you become a billionaire at whatever you do and whatever I do, I have no doubt just by sheer probability that many others out there can do what we do both do far better than us. And that's not because I think we're bad, but that I have faith in the hidden talents of a populace like ours.

Culture is not a definable product of monetized efforts. It is an amorphous variable that includes some of those efforts, but also reaches through the skew perpetrated by them and coalesces the rest.

Did you ASK PERMISSION of the above author to post THEIR words on YOUR blog @ http://lovehatethings.com -?

Did you TELL them that you were THEN going to 'blow your own horn' on twitter to draw attention to THEIR post?

I most sincerely doubt it.

And why didn't you?
Afraid they'd say "NO, I do not give you permission to use my words on your blog"-?

By what RIGHT do you think you are ENTITLED to USE their words without THEIR permission?

This is a clear case of 'copyright infringement'.

Until you UNDERSTAND that THEIR Rights are 'as important' as YOURS, none will ever take your superficial erudition seriously.

SHAME!

I directly quoted words from a Government of Canada website, without edit, for the purpose of sharing the content of a taxpayer fully-subsidized platform. I direct linked back to the thread. I looked for any copyright indicators on the site, and, where I expected to find none (as it is a government site) I found none. If the government wishes to issue me a takedown notice, I'll be expecting an email or letter from Tony Clement. I am not the first, or I'm sure last to quote from this site. I did not break the privacy policy requirements of the site by divulging anyone's personal information. In fact it would be almost impossible to divulge privacy because few people use their real name when posting accusations, innuendo, facts or research.

If she had posted it on a private website, I certainly would have excerpted at best with a linkback for context. Do you know the copyright regulations of this forum? You don't cite them. If someone writes an opinion letter to editor of newspaper, I may need the newspaper's permission to quote a passage from that letter depending on their copyright claim, but I don't need to go back and ask the original author. A government forum is about as public as one can get. The content herein has been quoted on blogs and newspapers across the country. It is a matter of PUBLIC record.

On my blog, which I make no revenue from, and contains no advertising except unpaid links to other blogs, I explore pop culture and express opinions on things current and historic. These deliberations could prove to be historic to Canadians.

The only context I give for the passage, under the title "Recent Comments on Canadian Copyright Reform (Part 2)" is the following:

"As a follow-up to my recent post on a response, my reply to a comment made on a statement I made on the copyright.econsultation.ca website about a week ago, I present the next response from someone else who misread my original post and my subsequent reply. All comments are presented unedited.

Her reply after reading my original post, the first commenter, and my reply back (all of which can be read by clicking the above link)"

How is this considered "blowing my own horn?"

My blog is set up to auto-publish to Twitter upon each new post. I did note that someone Retweeted my original auto-tweet and added the #copycon hashtag - which was not included in my original. [Gee, maybe I should sue them!]

How is promoting a dialectic between opposing sides in an argument over a matter of public debate anything but helpful to the debate? For all I know, more people may have agreed with her than with me. By being a citizen and taxpayer of Canada, she has now had a whopping 171 more people read her unedited ideas than previously.

Committee hansards are a matter of public record and available to all Canadians. I don't see how the contributions to this website are any different. If provided with a takedown notice, I will gladly comply. I'm quite willing to follow the rules that exist. You, unfortunately, want me to follow rules that don't exist or, at the very least, are not clearly spelled out.

That you would deny other citizens of Canada the right to read open debate in a public forum is shameful.

If you'll excuse me, I have a new post for my blog, and if you'd like to prove your theory, have the site owners here order me to take your, or my own, comments down. I'll be the first to congratulate you.

wow … way to miss the point …

Let's try this again shall we. A simple question, with a simple answer.

Did you ASK her PERMISSION to post HER words on YOUR 'private' blog? 'Yes' or 'No' - ?

Have you READ the Terms of Service for Posterous, your blog 'host'? Are you AWARE that any material you post is available to them to do with as they see fit WITHIN THE STRUCTURE of THEIR business?

" … by submitting material to Posterous you grant Posterous the irrevocable, fully transferable rights to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, transmit, prepare derivative works of, display and produce the material in connection with Posterous and Posterous's business, …"

Are you aware that YOUR blog is a part of THEIR 'business'?

Do you understand that YOUR 'blog material' - and by association any OTHER material you post on YOUR blog that is NOT yours, meaning, you did not WRITE it OR DRAW it or MAKE it or ORIGINATE it - falls under THEIR Terms of Service, not YOURS, and is thus 'available to them' to use WITHIN the structure of their BUSINESS as stated above - but that they are not 'liable' in any way for 'copyright infringement' because YOU are SUPPOSED to be the 'original poster' and/or have 'permission to post' content that is NOT your own-?

Do you care about any of that - ?
Obviously not.

Your blog site hosts, aka 'owners', have jurisdiction OVER your site, regardless of any 'Creative Commons' attribution you might apply.

Oh, and about that, don't you think it might have been, at the very least, POLITE to ASK the aforementioned poster - (who you seem to so like to publically 'love & hate' on your 'private blog')- if you could POST their WORDS on YOUR blog- especially now that you have 'privately' given others the 'public' Right thru your 'Creative Commons attribution' to FREELY use YOUR material on YOUR blog EVEN THOUGH it's clearly NOT YOURS to 'give'-?

Geesh.
Are you getting this yet?

Simple answer: No.
Rationale: Stating the opinion here makes it a matter of public record.

I understand you believe you're correct. I understand you have a model in your head that I would agree, can exist for private blogs. This is not a private blog, nor is there copyright language noted.

If you disagree with that concept, so be it. I have yet to see a takedown notice. Until you can provide me with a copyright policy for this consultation site, I am considering the content therein to be treated as ANY hansard of a public government consultation, which does NOT require permission of the original author to quote.

The Posterous TOS states, as two of its qualifiers for content, that I cannot:

"Post content you do not have the right to transmit.
Post content that infringes on trademarks or copyrights."

I maintain that considering the source of the words as a submission to a Government of Canada website, I have the right to retransmit. I also maintain I am not infringing on a copyright since this forum is public and gives no indication of copyright restriction.

I am willing to be proven wrong, but your say so, quite frankly, doesn't cut it.

Did you try to take on Michael Geist when he posted two complete paragraphs of a submission by an IP lawyer on August 14th? - http://copyright.michaelgeist.ca/mpaa-serious-about-enforcing-its-copyrights-canada

I didn't see any indication that he'd sought permission to repost content without even a link back on his blog. I trust his tendency and knowledge far more than yours.

Lastly, I am quite willing to respect the wishes of any of the commenters on my thread. If any of them simply ASKS me to take their content down, I will do it. No one, to this point has done so. Acknowledging this, however, should not indicate I agree they have a right to ask me to take down any words posted on a Government of Canada website which I help to pay for.

You seem right pissed off. I'm not. My reposting of content for this forum is not meant to antagonize or profit, but to share ideas and provide a proper context for the answers that I've crafted. In your innumerable contributions to this site, which is supposed to be a dialogue leading to some sort of education on all sides of all arguments, I find it curious that you a) found it necessary to start SHOUTING in your initial post to me, and b) your approach was more meant to intimidate than educate.

A little bit of tact goes a long way, and while you may not like my "superficial erudition", I can tell you that your blustery, brash approach doesn't serve your needs well in this instance.

The FACT remains you did NOT have the courtesy to ask her permission to use her words on your private blog. Rather, you just used them.

You attempt to justify this by 'claiming' THIS is a 'public blog' (paid for by your taxes) therefore all comments therein are 'public' and can be used in private blogs. You've also stated you can't find any 'copyright policy' on this site, so you are ASSUMING that it's ok. Plus, according to your way of thinking, if Geist can do it, so can you. Therefore, all is 'right' and 'true'.

Amazing, Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating the 'rationalizing' nature of 'herd mentality'. Obviously the simple FACT as stated above - YOU DID NOT ASK HER PERMISSION - does not even remotely upset your ethical equilibrium.

Posperous's TOS states: "You agree that you will not submit material that is or contains the intellectual property of a third party that you do not have permission to use."

Their policy is clear here. Yet, by your own admission you have not asked permission to use HER intellectual property, ie. HER words.

That she has engaged in a public forum of her own free will does not 'diminish' her Right to the content of her own mind. Yet, you seem to think it does.

You also side-stepped the issue that by your action of 'reposting' her words to your private blog you have now 'subjected' her words to the TOS of Posterous. You also IGNORE the FACT that she might not want this.

One wonders WHY you think so very little of the Rights of others.

In an 'open debate', two take opposing sides and argue. One either wins or loses, or there is a compromise. What I find 'interesting' is that you have deliberately REMOVED the debator from this 'public forum' and somewhat self-centredly amplified your personal p.o.v within the privacy of your blog - beyond the realm of THIS forum which she DID willingly engage in. She did NOT willingly write or engage with you on YOUR private blog. This point seem to be lost on you.

Would you have USED her words so cavalierly if you KNEW that she was Micheal Geist? Let's rephrase that - Would you USE Micheal Geist's words without first ASKING him? What is the difference between these two? Could it be that one has 'no profile' and the other has 'very high' profile? You've already admitted you 'respond' to HIGH PROFILE. Does that make it 'alright' to cavalierly USE the words of one who has 'no profile'?

Let's try this within another context. We'll use an example that's been getting so much airplay on THIS forum. Music. Let's say this site has 'recording' capacity, and I - a 'no-name musician' - SING my rebuttal to you. You then 'lift' that song and 'publish' it on your private blog under your 'Creative Commons' license, under the TOS of Posterous. Someone else HEARS my 'song' there and decides hey, that's whacked, let's post it on YouTube with some visuals, so they 'borrow' it from your site guilt free cuz of YOUR license. Meanwhile, Posterous also hears it and thinks, wow, great ditty, lets use that at our next round of venture cap fund-raising. Under THEIR terms, they are 'entitled' to do this. Once on YouTube an Advertising Agency sees it and things WOW, great song, let's use that in as a jingle to SELL turkey, so they lift the audio, strip it from the 'no-name' visual and use MY 'no-name' unattributed SONG on their 'product' making gazillions for their client & themselves. All because YOU had the temerity/gall/audacity to LIFT my SONG out of THIS forum and POST it to your PRIVATE blog … Now, let's flip it. I am 'Joni Mitchell'. You have just 'lifted', 'posted' and subjected my 'ditty' to your 'private blog'. By so doing, you have just 'publshed & released' an UNAUTHORIZED version of my song. Can you perhaps now SEE how 'Joni' aka 'no-name' aka 'no profile' might be a bit 'miffed' by the PRESUMPTIVE 'TRESPASSING' nature of your action-?

And yes, I've used a somewhat 'extreme' example to make the point. That example ought not diminish the central issue, ie. the ETHICS of using other's Intellectual Property - be they 'no-name' or 'big name' - whatever their 'product' - be it words or music - WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.

Unless you enjoy firing multi-paragraph long dialectic at each other, which I am apt to do at the best of times, I'm going to try a sum up positions so we don't need to make the same arguments back and forth for the next two weeks.

YOU:
I was, at best, discourteous in not asking for permission to repost, and, at worst, engaging in an illegal activity by said action.

ME:
The nature of the venue for these comments renders them as public domain, equivalent to any committee hansard at Parliament Hill. I do not require permission to report, quote, or repost them.

If you REALLY want me to engage in answering all of your assertions above, in what I'm sure will be a dissatisfying manner to you, I will. If you would like to end this discussion quickly and resolutely, educate me by proving your point with action and not rhetoric. If issued a takedown, I will comply. If asked by any of the people I've quoted to remove their words, I will, out of respect, but not legal obligation. If you feel you can initiate a request by the government, ordering takedown, I will have learned a valuable lesson.

Lastly, in as much as I disagree with your premise, I appreciate the effort you've made in this latest post to engage in discussion instead of angry accusation.

What is clear is that we do not hold the same moral or ethical ground on this issue.

And what is more telling, to me, is that you apparently do not SENSE, let alone ADMIT, that this very central 'issue' of USING OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF without their PERMISSION is a moral or ethical one.

Rather, you 'slip in' a 'legal' argumentative 'tactic' and try to 'force a capitulation' with a 'do this or shut up' threat.

Well, poo, I'm not biting, and I'm not playing.

The overall POINT of this 'dialectical' Copy Right exercise was - and remains - the QUESTION of the existing - and the up-coming - legal Canadian framework that does, or does not, PROTECT the RIGHTS of Canadian Intellectual Property OWNERS, ie. 'the creators'.

Until such time that those Rights are actually RECOGNIZED - regardless of WHO or WHAT it is - I fear this forum will have failed to serve what ought to be it's primary defining purpose … imho.

Good day to you.

My original comment was misconstrued in the sense that the point was about the presumption that copyrighted/industry music was being presented as the hallmark or Canadian culture. The secondary assertion was that art will always exist (even without monetization), and that to imply "professional" artists are necessarily better (or produce better work) than the "amateur" up the street is arrogant.

From those ideas, the first commenter implied that I was somehow all for stealing copyrighted work, that I was implying he should get ripped off, and that I said it was "easy to make a living writing or singing". I never said ANY of those things. That the original commenter and yourself are bringing those suppositions to argument is at once, telling, and, I suppose, not unexpected considering the venue.

I spent years playing in various bands across Ontario for little to no money and never would imply that the effort or drive in monetizing artistic talent is anything less than exasperating. It's the reason I chose to not do it for a living. But don't, for a second, try and make a logic leap that by not choosing to monetize my music anymore, I'm somehow less passionate or talented than anyone else. Not having a passion for business does not preclude abandoning passion for the art.

Choosing to spend money on recording, promoting, and touring is an investment you're making in a life YOU choose to follow. You're banking on your ability to sell your talent like a commodity and are taking the same risks as someone who pours money into research for an invention or buys a stock. You're letting the consumer market decide your monetary reward. And while I hope that you make millions, if no one wants to listen, your bottom line will be less impacted by copyright thieves than your ability to market yourself. Your music may be brilliant. And while you have a right to sell and buy your product as demand dictates, and protect your copyright to boot, you have NO right to expect to make a living from it and NO recourse if you're just simply decades ahead of your time or increasingly derivative and mundane.

With regard to your historical diatribe about patronage and "free art for the masses." Let me first preface by repeating (again) "I NEVER SAID I WANTED TO PIRATE COPYRIGHTED MUSIC OR TAKE MONEY FROM YOU!" Secondly, I'm thinking that the key divide between my original post and your interpretation is with regard to contending definitions of art. Art doesn't have to be "free to the masses" for it be art. Further, art can be locked up in a room for a hundred years and never see the light of day while still being art. The intrinsic value of art, for me, does not rely on the number of consumers ingesting it. While I understand that the entire mechanism around "The Arts" as a monetization industry does revolve around this concept, and that to monetize art does depend on consumers, I have no problem with Nickelback and Avril Lavigne making tens of millions of dollars around the world and in Canada. Can't stand the music, but I don't begrudge them making money nor do I plan on ever asking for it to be free.

Next, in considering a couple of your assertions…

Radio is NOT free or it would not exist as mass media. That I give up 10-20 minutes per hour listening to ads is perhaps the most expensive use of my time and the main reason I don't listen to most commercial radio. By the way, someone IS making money off of art that is bypassing the artist: The Record Companies - usually from 90-99% of it!

Where do I get free access to art? Not television, radio, or websites. Contending with ad-based promotion is not free for me. That a hundred thousand musicians choose to put their music up on MySpace and allow Rupert Murdoch to reap the benefits is not my fault or choice. If you can get money from him, be my guest, or take your music down from his site. If a musician puts music on MySpace it's for one of two reasons: 1) to share it without expectation, or 2) to use the service as a promotional tool - that's called a commercial and there's an expectation that goes along with it.

I'm curious to know what you consider to be the "rights of the creator" and what "protections" you expect (considering that's what these deliberations are truly about anyway). This discussion would be entirely ancillary to the current one however, as I never questioned creator's rights in my original post.

I have spent plenty of time considering the premises of my original post. Unfortunately you have either categorically disagreed (which is your right) or simply not taken the time to understand it. I'll simplify:

1) Art exists without money.
2) Everyone has artistic abilities to varying degrees.
3) To claim that monetized art, alone, is the core of our culture is at once shocking and repugnant. Marketing should not dictate culture.

Those were the ONLY key ideas from the original post. If you reread it without the hyperbole of the first commenter, you might be able to parse said meanings yourself.

Lastly, while I certainly engaged in a couple of exaggerated metaphors in my original post, I never had the gall to call anyone "ignorant" simply because they disagreed with me. If you note a sense of distaste in the above reply, it is returned in kind. You don't know me anywhere near well enough to call me ignorant, and you surely haven't formed a cogent argument behind your symbolized invectives and personal hard luck appeals to sway me from my aforementioned beliefs.

… you might be interested to know that your words above are now on anthonymarco's 'blog' …http://lovehatethings.com

According to his blogging host's Terms of Service, he was SUPPOSED to ask your permission before he USED your words.

Did he? I doubt it.

See: http://lovehatethings.com …for YOUR words, then got to Posterous to see their TOS.

Your only course of action now - vis a vis his blog - is to follow Posterous's Terms ie. - 'file a notice of infringement': -

"To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a formal communication (by regular mail or email) that includes the items specified below.

1. Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon. This means a link to the original work, or a description of what is being copied
2. Identify the material that is infringing on the work in item #1. This means the link to a Posterous site with the material on it
3. Provide your contact information, preferably email and phone number
4. Include the statement: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."
5. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

Send this information to:

DMCA Complaints
Posterous, Inc.
555 4th St #746
San Francisco, CA 94107
415.992.8039
help@posterous.com"

GOOD LUCK. Go for it.

You are 100% RIGHT to stand up for YOUR Rights.

Même si ton reply ne mérite aucune attention car tu n'argumentes pas, tu ignores le 9/10 du texte et tu tentes simplement de "flamer" mon opinion, je vais répondre à tes arguments faciles et ridicules car je souffre d'insomnie ce soir.

Je voudrais noter, avant de commencer, que si tu crois qu'un argument qui commence par "j'ai travaillé chez Nortel…" a encore une lueur de crédibilité, peut-être que tu devrais t'abstenir de futurs commentaires.

Maintenant,

Si la répression dont tu parles si tendrement fonctionnait, il n'y aurait plus de crime dans les pays où elle règne. Pourquoi quelqu'un va commetre un meutre chez nos voisins du sud dans un état où la peine capitale est encore en fonction? C'est pourtant difficile de faire plus dur comme loi, et pourtant, des gens continus…

Je ne souhaite pas que les musiciens se fassent voler, par contre je ne veux pas me faire voler par eux non plus. Si j'achète une chanson, je n'ai pas à la racheter pour la copier pour MON usage personnel sur un autre support. Je paie déjà les redevances sur les autres supports. Et est-ce que j'ai dis que je ne voulais pas payer? Oui, pas en triple, quadruple ou plus.

Si tu avais plus de facilité à lire et écrire, peut-être que tu pourrais proposer des arguments intéressant au lieu de tenter de discréditer quelqu'un. Tu ferais un bon politicien, tu devrais considérer le choix de carrière.

Et en passant, je ne répondrai plus à tes commentaires méprisants et vides de tout propos.

Avant que j'oublis, avant d'accuser quelqu'un de vol, assure toi donc que tu as des preuves avant de te faire taper une poursuite pour diffamation.

Bonne journée quand même,

J'ai travaillé sur des réseaux internet et je sais comment bloquer des liens ou adresses à des usagers. Il est donc possible pour tous les fournisseurs internet de bloquer tous les sites de piratage ce qui contriburait énormément à freiner le download illégal. Il y aura peut-etre toujours du piratage certes mais si on peut le rendre beaucoup plus difficile à faire alors ça ne peut pas nuire.
J'admet que je ne suis pas pour payer 2-3 fois les droits d'une oeuvre (par exemple payer pour copier un cd sur son Ipod) et je n'ai jamais eu ce discourt. Mais copier son cd sur les Ipod des autres, celui de son frère son chum etc… Là ça commence à etre un problème. Tu parlais de répression, et personne sur ce forum ne parles de répression. C'est un mot un peu fort qui devrait plutot etre remplacé par : contrôle. J'ai vu dans un marché aux puces un vendeur qui copiait impunément un cd que j'avais produit et le vendait à qui voulait bien acheter pour une somme de 5$. Je dois même dire que la copie avait l'air tellement vrai que je m'y suis presque fait prendre. Je peux aussi trouver certaines de mes chansons sur des sites de torrent, mais quand je regarde mes redevances il y en a pas plus. Les gens semblent croire que quand une de tes chansons passe à la radio tu deviens automatiquement millionaire… c'est tellement faux. Même certains artistes connus dont le vidéo passe à musique plus doivent quand même traviller à temps plein pour pouvoir payer leur vie. Alors contrairement à ce que certaines personnes disent, je ne suis pas prêt à baisser les bras et à dire que de toute façon on ne peut rien y faire. Il y a des centaines d'artistes avec un talent énorme seulement au Québec. Ces artistes ne peuvent plus réussir a vivre car les Labels ne prennent simplement plus de nouvel artiste. Ça coute trop cher à promouvoir et produire. Alors on use les vieux à la corde parce-qu'ils sont déja connus. Ça c'est comme consulter des médecins trop vieux et séniles. Et pour preuve, si on regarde les soundscan des dernières années, les cd se vendent de moins en moins. Alors c'est frustrant d'entendre des gens dire que les artistes qui n'arrivent pas à vivre dee leur art sont automatiquement pas assez bon et devraient changer de métier. C'est un peu simple comme argument car le contexte est énormément plus compliqué. La musique c'est 5% de talent et 95% d'effort et de discipline. J'aimerais te faire comprendre, et je ne sais pas si tu es artiste toi-même pour saisir notre piteuse situation, que dans cette bataille, ce n'est pas le simple consommateur qui est visé mais les grosses entreprises qui profite de nos années de travail et d'effort sans même reconnaitre que c'est nos chansons qui les font vivre aussi grassement.