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 »
Il faut que le gouvernement canadien nous aide à trouver et à mettre en place des outils efficaces pour contrôler l'exploitation des droits, pour les faire respecter.C'est son rôle et son devoir d'adapter les lois au rythme du XXI ième siècle.
En tant que compositeur et parolier, ainsi que comme consommateur de musique, il m'est plus qu'évident que le gouvernement canadien doit nous aider à trouver et à mettre en place des outils efficaces pour contrôler l'exploitation des droits, pour les faire respecter; les fournisseurs d'accès Internet (FAI) devront faire partie de la solution comme tous les autres maillons de la chaîne. Ils doivent être mis à contribution tant financièrement que par une implication directe dans la lutte à mener contre le téléchargement illégal de musique.
Aussi, puisque 70% des copies sont désormais effectuées sur des enregistreurs audionumériques qui ne génèrent présentement pas de redevances pour la copie privée-et que les ayants droits de la musique ne reçoivent pas un sous pour cette quantité phénoménales de copies qui ne sont pas couvertes par le régime de la copie privée-il est impératif d'amender la loi afin que les nouveaux supports tels que les iPods et les autres MP3, y soient assujettis.
Merci de donner suite sans tarder.
Je suis auteur-compositeur-interprète. Depuis quelques années, j'ai signé de nombreux textes de chansons pour différents interprètes. Une année où les redevances sont intéressantes me permet de diminuer les heures que je consacre à un gagne-pain autre que la création. Dans mon cas, redevances = création. C'est un lien direct. La grande majorité de mes amis sont des artistes. Plusieurs d'entre eux sont considérés comme des artistes "reconnus", "populaires", ayant un "grand succès d'estime"… Et pourtant, comme moi, la plupart d'entre eux travaillent encore, à temps plus ou moins partiels, dans un autre domaine ou domaine connexe, pour subvenir à leurs besoins. C'est dramatique. Bientôt, ce sera la culture de tout un peuple qui souffrira du fait que ces gens n'aient pu aller plus loin dans leur démarche artistique. Tuer la redevance = tuer notre héritage culturel. De quel droit? Quelle entreprise pharmaceutique accepterait qu'on abolisse sont brevet, ou de continuer ses recherches gratuitement, "pour le bien commun"? Aucune. Pourquoi? Parce qu'elle le ferait avec quel argent? C'est ridicule.
Puisqu'il est pratiquement impossible d'empêcher le piratage et le téléchargement de nos oeuvres, j'abonde dans le sens du commentaire émis par Jipé Dalpé. Comment pouvons-nous continuer à créer sans recevoir e qui nous est dû?
I'm not against copyright. Intellectual properties should be protected.
However, I am upset about the fact that I have to pay 29 cents for every single blank CD that I purchase. I am also I'm 100 per cent opposed to the idea to pay extra money for every single iPod or other MP3 player.
The reason is simple: I don't use blank CDs to copy music. I also don't copy music to my MP3 player. However, I use blank CDs to backup my data. (With my high resolution digital camera, I need 1 CD for every 50-60 photos I made.) I use my MP3 player for books and podcasts. I am paying $15 per months for books I download from Audible. I am also paying $20 per month for music I download (and keep for 3 months) from Zune store.
Why should I pay levy at the top of that?
It must be a better way.
stefan [2009-09-06 07:20] Nº du commentaire : 2269 Reply to: 2210
yes it's a drag to pay a fee for cd's when all you are doing is to copy your own photos. but it's a fact that making copies of music is what the average blank cd is used for. the only way around that would be more 'standards' - special cd's for this, others for that… and how likely - or convenient - would that be?! also remember that creator's are receiving only a small percentage of the levy you are paying.
smparadox [2009-09-11 08:50] Nº du commentaire : 2446 Reply to: 2269
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.
stefan [2009-09-11 17:14] Nº du commentaire : 2466 Reply to: 2446
you could look here, for example:
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.
Ā titre de réalisateur et de musicien, je travaille sans cesse avec des gens qui doivent faire des efforts incroyables pour survivre dans leur métier de créateur. Je pense que la moindre des choses est qu'ils soient respectés et rémunérés lorsqu'on utilise leurs créations. Il faut à tout prix trouver une façon de garantir un revenu à partir des nouvelles technologies sinon l'offre de nouvelles créations va diminuer en qualité, en quantité et en diversité.
Filter_Box [2009-09-05 00:04] Nº du commentaire : 2230 Reply to: 2205
Est-il possible qu'aujourd'hui il y est trop de gens qui tente de vivre de la musique et que c'est cette contigence qui dilue le salaire des autres?
Aujourd'hui, on ne peut même plus compter le nombre d'artiste tellement il y en a. Est-ce que ce domaine devrait être différent des autres et permettre de subvenir aux besoins de tous et chacun?
Je respecte ton point de vue, mais lorsque je l'imagine appliqué à d'autres domaines, les bras m'en tombent.
Copyright affects me in many ways. It affected me as a student, it affected me as a researcher, it affects me as a software developer and it affects me as a consumer.
When I was a student, I noted that the books are too expensive and new editions do not really make any significant difference from the old ones, just re-shuffling problem numbers, books were also deliberately removed from the library reserves or were made available in very small quantities, all that to kill used book market and to force students purchase expensive books. After my first term I managed to keep my book budget to zero by using library reserves and downloading books for free (à la guerre comme à la guerre).
When I was involved in research activity, it was harder than usual to access needed materials and many things were not searchable in full text because of copyright restrictions. Also, because Digital Restriction Management measures do not understand what fair dealing is, it slowed down my work. I also understood that my research will not be visible to many people because instead of a wide circulation among peer researchers at other universities it will end up in some proprietary database behind a paywall, so that a publisher can make a profit of it (a "very good" use of government grants paid by taxpayers, I guess).
I am developing embedded software for a company now, but copyright affects me and them to a lesser extent, because my company's model revolves around delivering custom hardware and software solutions, and software proprietary nature is less an issue.
I am also a taxpayer, and expect my taxes put to good use and benefit from the services I pay for in taxes. But while I can use US government works without restrictions (except restrictions on special logos like NASA logo), all Canadian government work is behind Crown copyright. Crown copyright looks like double-dipping of Canadians to me, first I am paying taxes, and second, I am paying crown copyright fees. And the most important, corporations are likely interested in getting government research works where problems are described and solving them to make our world better, but they are slowed down by crown copyright.
And the most important thing, I am now more responsible consumer, because of extreme copyright, because of continuous hostilities from those believing in supremacy of copyright just above everything else.
I avoid "commercial music product" and "commercial films" ("commercial" with a negative connotation here). Most of today's works are formulaic, have no soul, because their creators did not put energy in them. If I did pay for this "corporate formulaic product", my money would go to the pockets of accountants, lawyers and lobbyists working for the entertainment cartels, which then would be used to initiate lawsuits and have laws passed with intent to persecute millions of people who share culture (culture is meant to be shared and enjoyed together), even if there were no proven damages and one download has not been proven one sale lost. Most music made today deserves one-time radio-style sampling and most movies deserve only to be viewed once, I can't simply imagine putting them as physical product on my shelf.
When I am choosing an electronic device, I will choose a device that belongs to me, a device where I can compile and run my own software. I take into account whether a company chooses to restrict my freedom because of its own arrogance (Apple with its walled garden app store on locked down iPhone) or submission to the entertainment cartels ("Hd disk format wars are over - The Inquirer" http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1043337/hd-disk-format-wars). So, I will skip iPhone and those music players and other hardware that "plays for su-u-u-re".
Speaking of "playing for sure", digital domain normally gives eternity to works that merit it; works outlive their formats, and I expect to be able to transfer the works I have chosen to purchase in electronic format to one of my many devices or do format upgrade myself. Files obtained for free from file sharing networks are eternal, and so should be works I choose to buy from online stores. But the so-called "authorized" online music and video stores are selling C.R.A.P. (Cancellation, Restriction and Punishment), and many uninformed customers learned it the hard way, when the license servers for the products they purchased were turned off and their music and movies became unplayable random junk (Major League of Baseball, Yahoo Music, MSN Music and Walmart DRM are just some examples). I was not one of these customers.
I will also voluntarily skip Blu-Ray and HD-DVD or anything else that was screwed up by the entertainment cartels. I know that even film creators are REQUIRED to pay the copy protection mafia thousands of dollars just to put their movies on Blu-Ray, even if they DO NOT WANT to screw up their customers with copy protection and they KNOW that copy protection will NOT work ("ASCII by Jason Scott / Another Blu-Ray Strike" http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1462 ). No way, I don't want to put my money in the pockets of the copy protection mafia either. And I thought DVDs with their unskippable advertisements and "viewer is presumed to be a criminal" copyright notices were bad…
It is important to remember that industries depend on their consumers, not the other way around. Even if consumers are their most important income source, I do not see consumers mentioned in submissions written by accountants and lawyers claiming to represent creative industries (http://iconoclaste.ca/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&postId=389). I just see whining about how those pesky downloaders prevent them from getting money to which they are entitled. Are they thinking that writing a music album must result in materializing yet another mansion on a private island? And who said that every inhabitant of the planet has to buy music? We have more forms of entertainment today while in the seventies only books and records were available. But the budget of an average family for entertainment did not change, so, it is very logical that music gets less attention and money (See: Dmitry Silnitsky. "Big Music Beat-to-Bit" on p2pnet.net http://www.p2pnet.net/story/27344 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/27258 )
So, I am a responsible consumer who has a will to boycott those who are arrogant towards me. And the entertainment cartels know that I am not the only one, but they tend to blame "freeloaders" and not their own arrogant behaviour and illusions they are living in.
As a future parent, I am concerned that my children will be brainwashed in school by one-sided copyright propaganda favouring corporations, like Captain Copyright or the new "Promoting Respect of Intellectual Property Rights" initiative being developed DURING this consultation (and likely to be passed as The Answer). This means that either I will need to home-school my children or in other ways have to undo what the school will teach my children so that they have all sides of the story.
As for the changes, I will provide my answers in other questions.
Rai [2009-09-04 14:39] Nº du commentaire : 2209 Reply to: 2194
I feel the same way for many of the things you mentioned and take many similar actions as you (such as rarely buying movies).
The more time I spend on this website, the more absurd these companies (that are trying to control copyright) sound.
As a Canadian writer and songwriter, I have to ask is why this very public forum is taking place at all? Why is the value of my remuneration up for public debate? Do we debate the salary paid to any other public servant? No.
Doctors, nurses, teachers, politicians, firefighters and police officers…the list is long. I could easily put a dollar value on the services rendered by any of those professionals based on my personal needs, desires and biases, but it would not likely reflect what they feel they deserve. Now, for some reason, content creators' salaries are subject to public debate, and everyone seems to have an uninformed opinion about what that compensation should be.
PeterJones [2009-09-04 02:38] Nº du commentaire : 2201 Reply to: 2189
"As a Canadian writer and songwriter, I have to ask is why this very public forum is taking place at all?"
Because copyright is a monopoly privilege used by corporations to lock up culture, and screw up their customers in other ways. Total disrespect for copyright is a reaction to that, and, unfortunately, open source software developers are at the crossfire, because pirate parties around the world are for reduction of copyright terms and developers need copyright in order to enforce their GPL and other licenses that prohibit others parties from taking your freedom away. And with a shorter copyright term, proprietary shops like Microsoft can take open source software after a short copyright term without the need to respect the license and just use it.
"Do we debate the salary paid to any other public servant? No. "
Yes, we do. Just look at citizens' reaction when there is a strike.
Jordan [2009-09-04 14:37] Nº du commentaire : 2208 Reply to: 2189
I have a problem classifying you (a Canadian writer and songwriter) as public servant.
More important, we are not discussing your remuneration but our taxes and levies.
sjbrown [2009-09-04 16:15] Nº du commentaire : 2211 Reply to: 2189
The forum likely exists because when bill C-61 was proposed, there was an outcry from citizens. The bill would have made tinkering with your property illegal, would allow unfair financial penalties against non-commercial infringers, and did nothing to reduce Crown Copyright or to enshrine Fair Use.
Whether the discussion in this forum will actually be read or considered by lawmakers is in question.
davidmm [2009-09-04 16:30] Nº du commentaire : 2212 Reply to: 2189
When I buy a textbook, money does not go to the teacher. When I do pay a teacher for services given the knowledge can be considered permemanent. I can even take notes if I choose, and if I do so what I choose to do with those notes is my choice.
Song writers are being paid when I buy blank media. Every time I get a new media playing device I must buy the song again making the permancy in modern digital culture convoluted. When I place the media on my computer the DRM under the control of others is on my computer.
Your analagy is not at all apt. This deserves a public forum.
meikipp [2009-09-04 19:52] Nº du commentaire : 2214 Reply to: 2189
This forum exists because the debate over copyright is not a debate over whether you should be paid or not. The debate is over whether some corporate entity should be allowed to control your use of devices like cameras, video recorders, PVRs, computers and so on for uses which would ordinarily be considered fair dealing.
stefan [2009-09-06 07:25] Nº du commentaire : 2270 Reply to: 2189
the debate is probably taking place because changing laws are involved and a because creators do no have a lobby. also, we are not discussing dollars and cents, only principles and at most percentages. the information on how much money is paid for broadcast performances (for example) is publicly availble already anyway, if you really want to dig it out. so i think you are missing the point. we are having this discussion to protect YOUR rights as a creator, not to perform a financial striptease.
smparadox [2009-09-11 08:57] Nº du commentaire : 2447 Reply to: 2189
I haven't seen any discussion of remuneration to content creators - only debate about how much power to give impersonal corporations over the private property of Canadians and how much profit they should be allowed to derive from paperwork 'shell games' played with the creations of writers and songwriters such as yourself.
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 font cette musique. Il faut que le gouvernement canadien mette en place une loi sur les droits d'auteur qui assurera aux créateurs les revenus qu'ils sont en droit d'obtenir sur leurs créations.
Filter_Box [2009-09-05 00:09] Nº du commentaire : 2231 Reply to: 2186
Une redevance sur les frais d'accès internet?
Sais-tu, je crois que je serais tout à fait prêt à payer un léger montant en supplément tout en étant assuré que nous n'entrerons pas dans l'ère de Big Brother ou Echelon.
Même s'il ne s'agit que de quelques dollars par mois, vu la quantité d'abonnés, ce serait plus que payant.
Par contre, cela ouvrirait la porte à deux questions au moins qui me vienne à l'instant, soit:
1- Si je paie un droit, alors télécharger ne serait plus illégal?
2- Qui toucherait de cette redevance? Comment serait-elle distribuée équitablement?
Je te dis sincèrement que c'est la meilleur idée que j'ai entendu pour contrer (voir légaliser) le piratage sur internet. Bravo pour cette idée.
I hope the implication behind many of these comments and responses is not that the only way to have "the arts" in one's life are for them to be monetized. There will ALWAYS be, exponentially, way more free art than commercially-crafted artistic products. Any assertion that even echoes a tone of quantitative value for "the arts" over art makes my skin crawl.
Art will always exist whether monetized or not. Music existed well before ceramic cylinders and oral tradition existed well before summer blockbusters. In both cases performers traveled and made money playing songs and relaying stories passed through generations.
I heard much of this arrogance at the Toronto Town Hall where there was an echoing sentiment that relaxing copyright would destroy "the arts". You know what, "the arts" can take a flying leap off the CN Tower and hope its sense of entitlement will save it - ART will endure.
And before you claim this is somehow too tertiary to the copyright conversation going on here, consider that "the arts" is about persistent PR myth that people who get paid to write or perform are doing something no one else can do. Art does not demand copyright. "The Arts" does.
Are some professional writers better than your neighbour at writing? Maybe.
Are some professional singers better than your cousin at singing? Maybe.
But for most of my life, there's only been one thing that's divided "the arts" from art - marketing.
And marketing is just not worth THAT much to me.
contentcreator [2009-09-04 01:37] Nº du commentaire : 2191 Reply to: 2184
Are the staff at your local coffee shop better at making coffee than your neighbour? Maybe.
Could your cousin make you a cup of coffee for free? Maybe.
Would you walk into a coffee shop and leave without paying for your coffee? Not without being arrested.
The difference between coffee made at home and coffee made in a restaurant is debatable, but paying for it is not. Yes, you pay for the marketing there too, but it doesn't change the fact that we pay for the goods, services and intellectual copyrights created by others in this wonderful country called Canada.
Call it Art or The Arts, but I like to be paid for my work. And the idea of wandering around like a busker, hoping someone like you might toss a quarter into my open guitar case is repugnant to me.
If you think it is so easy to make a living writing or singing, why don't you quit your day job and see how long you can pay the bills based on the money you receive after your songs have been digitally transferred for free?
anthonymarco [2009-09-05 02:13] Nº du commentaire : 2232 Reply to: 2191
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.
rinzertanz [2009-09-08 17:21] Nº du commentaire : 2333 Reply to: 2232
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.
anthonymarco [2009-09-08 21:42] Nº du commentaire : 2346 Reply to: 2333
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.
rinzertanz [2009-09-08 23:02] Nº du commentaire : 2347 Reply to: 2346
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 - ?
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'-?
Are you getting this yet?
anthonymarco [2009-09-09 00:15] Nº du commentaire : 2350 Reply to: 2347
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.
rinzertanz [2009-09-09 09:47] Nº du commentaire : 2354 Reply to: 2350
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.
anthonymarco [2009-09-09 12:22] Nº du commentaire : 2368 Reply to: 2354
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.
I was, at best, discourteous in not asking for permission to repost, and, at worst, engaging in an illegal activity by said action.
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.
rinzertanz [2009-09-09 14:59] Nº du commentaire : 2374 Reply to: 2368
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.
sherrylee [2009-09-08 01:18] Nº du commentaire : 2306 Reply to: 2184
not really - I don't think contentcreator misconstrued. that's how I read it too. if we've misconstrued, by all means, clarify.
and if you think that the 'marketing' as it pertains to artists at the levels where this issue really matters - the ones who have to figure out 'how the F*&k do i try to make enough money to put music out- record a record, pay the studio & musicians and press the thing… even gas to get to the next gig- is separate from the music, then it would make sense as to why you think most musicians are no better than your neighbor or cousin- because you have spent very little time or energy considering your premise.
Insulting, and ignorant, in the classic sense of the word. the artists who are not already established (read- backed by corporate $$), do their own marketing and it's 75% of the work. Which is why your neighbor or cousin- whose talents you so dearly admire- aren't doing it. It takes a passion and dedication that defies logic… and money, for god's sake.
yeah, sure, art has always existed- but art always had it's patrons who helped finance the artist while they created. The wealthy gave money to artists (as opposed to making money off of artists) because it was the honorable, ethical thing to do and because if they didn't they'd appear crass and cheap.
even touring in Europe you find more generosity towards the artist- for example, after finding out you are a musician, they don't immediately ask you what your day job is. North America has cheapened it.
You're right though- art was always available to the masses- for free. but there were mechanisms in place to allow that to happen.
look at radio. free. but there are mechanisms that are respected and hold broadcasters accountable. If someone is making money off of art and that money is bypassing the artist, that's the only issue I see mattering.
it's just, who? the recordable media producers? the internet service providers? the advertisers who do their advertising because free content draws hits to the sites?
we send people to space, I'm sure there's a way to figure it out.
regardless, the rights of the creator has to be acknowledged- things are changing and writers and creators of all disciplines need to be protected.
man. how the hell do you expect us to eat? marketing is not worth that much to you… worth what?! what have you paid?
personally I think there are a lot of people making money off of 'free' content before it ever gets to the user and they are the ones who should pay… but before you start talking about 'entitlement' consider what you are saying you're entitled to… free access to art at the cost of the artist.
anthonymarco [2009-09-08 02:57] Nº du commentaire : 2312 Reply to: 2306
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.
rinzertanz [2009-09-08 17:07] Nº du commentaire : 2331 Reply to: 2306
… 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:
555 4th St #746
San Francisco, CA 94107
GOOD LUCK. Go for it.
You are 100% RIGHT to stand up for YOUR Rights.
Lorsque j'achète un album sur support physique ou numérique, il serait totalement innaceptable, illogique et abusif de vouloir faire payer l'oeuvre plus d'une fois pour pouvoir la copier sur mon baladeur, mes ordinateurs, des "compilations maison" ou autre à des fins personnelle.
En ce qui concerne les FAI, je suis tout à fait contre une surveillance constante des activités internet. Est-ce que quelqu'un a seulement pensé une seule seconde au fait que toutes les transactions bancaire, d'achat, mot de passe, numéro de carte de crédit et autres seraient à la porter de plusieurs employés du FAI? De plus, comme il serait impossible de faire du monitoring "live", les informations seraient conservés sur des serveurs et prêtes à être piratés par un hacker? Et encore plus, qui a vraiment envie que toute nos habitudes de surfing soit inspectées? Ā quand une puce électronique implantée dans le corps?
Finalement, ce débat n'a rien de nouveau:
- Apparitions des cassettes
- Paranoîa des copies pirates et on annonce déjà la fin du monde artistique
- Apparitions des CDs et PROMESSE que les prix des oeuvre vont baisser d'une 30aine de pourcent puisque les copies sont maintenant impossible
- 2 ou 3 ans plus tard, après plusieurs légère hausse (pour rentabiliser le nouveau format, bien sûr la belle excuse, les belles promesses de baisse de prix peuvent encore attendre), apparition des graveurs
- Reparanoîa des copies pirates et on annonce déjà la fin du monde artistique
- Apparition des formats numérique
- Reparanoîa des copies pirates et on annonce déjà la fin du monde artistique
La boucle sera sans fin, peut importe les lois.
Le piratage existera toujours, peut importe les lois. (Le plus vieux métier du monde n'a pas encore été contré et ce, dans aucun pays, non?)
Pourquoi le gouvernement devrait passer de nouvelles lois pour créer une "augmentation de salaire" artificielle à un secteur d'emploi donné? Si les conditions de travail ne vous plaisent plus, changez de domaine. Faites comme le petit peuple qui se lève à 6h00 pour aller se tapper le traffic et travailler à faire avancer la société. Si l'un de vous quitte, 3 autres viendront le remplacer et ce même si les lois ne changent pas.
Désolé pour les sauts de coq à l'âne, mais je n'ai plus de patience pour ce genre de plainte qui n'a rien à voir avec autre chose que de s'en mettre encore plus dans les poches, et encore une fois en détournant les faits et en parlant d'une vertue, ma foi, très questionnable.
Je n'ai rien contre les artistes, évidemment j'en aime plusieurs. Mais si j'en était un et que malgré mon talent, mon gérant, ma compagnie de promotion et etc ne me permettait pas d'en vivre, alors je changerais de métier.
Pourquoi certain ont réussi à en vivre?
Pourquoi certain sont devenus absolument riche alors que d'autres échoue?
Faudrait-il faire un nivellement pas le bas pour faire vivre les artistes qui ne le mérite pas?
Voudriez-vous que l'on procède de la même manière avec les docteurs qui ne sont pas aussi bon mais qui devraient avoir le droit de vivre de leur métier quand même, au risque de niveler par le bas la qualité des soins?
Nous payons déjà assez de redevances.. ça suffit.
nebulo [2009-09-04 00:57] Nº du commentaire : 2187 Reply to: 2183
Wow voila un exemple parfait de quelqu'un qui parle a travers son chapeau. Premièrement qui a dit qu'il était impossible de contrer le piratage? Péladeau? Bell? J'ai travaillé durant 10 chez Nortel come tech en télécom et je peux vous assurer que contrer le piratage sur internet n'est pas du tout compliqué. Ce n'est qu'un manque de volonté politique un point c'est tout. Donc, si pour toi c'est normal que les musiciens se fasse voler alors tu ne verra pas d'objection a ce que je pirate ton compte de banque, que je rentre chez toi pour te cambrioler non? Moi je suis musicien et pas voleur et encore moins pirate comme tous ceux qui s'octroient le droit d'écouter mes chansons sans payer. ET si tu es tanné de payer ebn arrête de payer pour internet pis va vite chez HMV pour payer tes cd au lieu de les pirater. Franchement tes arguments sont faciles et ridicules.
Filter_Box [2009-09-05 00:00] Nº du commentaire : 2229 Reply to: 2187
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.
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,
nebulo [2009-09-05 03:25] Nº du commentaire : 2233 Reply to: 2229
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.