See above post.

Yes, a fine and difficult balance has to be established. This task is up to all the stakeholders in this complicated world of creativity to hammer out the necessary legal structure, one that will serve all the stakeholders' interests.
The digital world is revolutionizing global communications and the dissemination of information as well as the ability of many people to steal and/or alter information and content of all kinds that does not belong to them. Solutions will not be easy to come by. But, this should not stop our legislators from trying to put into place solutions, ones that I am sure will not be perfect and will need constant amendments to keep up with the rapid changes taking place.

I am of the opinion that our legislators should never sign away a negative right for the sake of a positive right.

Reasonable modification of copyright law is fine, but the moment they outlaw my access to my private property or my ability to speak about / publish the results of my investigation into my private property, they have gone too far. I can't just forgive them because "they tried hard".

I'm extremely wary of the notion that the government should do something, anything, in order to stop file sharing, especially when current studies show that the harm the content industries claim is being done is hugely exaggerated. Stopping commercial piracy is a good idea, but the law already criminalises this so no further laws are really necessary.

The ability to make use of copyrighted material without the permission of the creator is essential to scholarship, education and any number of other venues. The key here is that you can't distribute the entire work or publish a derivative work for profit without permission. You can, however, critique, review, cite, and copy portions for your own private use without permission.

As the entire idea of what constitutes a consumer's rights is at stake here, everyone in the country is a stakeholder. Language like that seems to be intended to exclude those who do not own, or receive license to distribute, intellectual property. I am only incidentally an originator of IP, but as a consumer (and frequently a paying one) and I completely refuse to be excluded from this discussion.

The reality of the situation is that a door has been opened and will *never* be shut again. Any suggestion that the ability to copy digital media without limitation will somehow "die off" is laughably unrealistic. All any government can do is haemorrhage money into the legal system to try to reduce the ease and volume (and not by very much), and hope to recoup those costs by bankrupting those they catch.

If your works are anything like those of the majority of the copied music, a sizeable proportion would never have paid for it in the first place, had it not been available for free. That is the current reality. People have thousands of works available to them where their parents had dozens.

Isn't it far more sensible to work on methods of remunerating authors and artists? Wouldn't this money be better placed in Heritage Minutes, mandatory school ethics courses, PSAs and other culture- and mind-engaging ways of enforcing the idea that creators of things we value must be rewarded and fostered?

What about a government funded site which allows "donations" to authors and artists from those who have (in any capacity) benefited from their work?

If this is all about saying "Well if you won't pay, you can't have it at all!", in the face of the reality that THAT scenario has been dead for years, you look like a red faced child stomping your feet. What about those with insufficient income? Must they save up, scrimp or scrounge?

In this world of plentiful ideas, it is the internet and the advance of technology itself that is devaluing your ideas and creations, not the way people are using them. Instantaneous, dirt cheap access to millions and millions of works dilutes their value just like any glut in a market. If creators continue to artificially overvalue their work, out of pride or selfishness, they will be ripped off by an increasingly unsympathetic planet.

Never seen someone lay the whole copyright issue to the bare bones like this…well said.

MatthewS - "In this world of plentiful ideas, it is the internet and the advance of technology itself that is devaluing your ideas and creations, not the way people are using them. Instantaneous, dirt cheap access to millions and millions of works dilutes their value just like any glut in a market. If creators continue to artificially overvalue their work, out of pride or selfishness, they will be ripped off by an increasingly unsympathetic planet."

There is no balance to be had in DRM / digital locks. By their nature, they only work as closed systems, closing off huge areas of innovation and turning competitive markets into monopolies.

But is the status quo really so bad? Shutting down large-scale infringers seems to work for the music industry as a way to limit the damage, and educate the public about the rights of creators at the same time.

It's not perfect, so we should consider new solutions - but we should also recognize that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

I will try to paint this picture again.

The ONLY way you are able to read this message of mine at this moment is thru the internet. The 'hidden' language that allows/permits this communication is HTML.

I have, as you say, the choice not to post my work or words. True, yet, it is clear that the general thrust of education & commerce, heavily influenced by the 'digital economy', is to eliminate that choice. Soon, very soon, it will become mandatory, if not essential, to 'post'.

As an example, libraries, the largest repositories of book published works, are aggressively 'digitizing' their inventory for the web. They were doing this long BEFORE publishers, let alone authors, the actual creators of these works, 'gave their permission'.

The Google Book Settlement was a 'back-handed' gesture to appease the indignant over this obvious trespass. Google in conjunction with many prominent libraries were LONG UNDERWAY with digital conversion by the time publishers & authors CAUGHT UP …

Thus, to 'publish' with 'traditional' book-binding publishers will become increasingly anachronistic, and a bit of a mugs game, because, ONCE the words are 'digitized' (with software), and then 'synchronized' with HTML (software), distribution & dissemination (thru Google et al) is a synch. The web awaits.

So, yes, my written words, are increasingly beholden to the technological gatekeepers of the web.

How to make any money out of it is the question. Cuz, for sure, Copyright 'Protection' seems kind of quaint on the web.

Traditional publishers, let alone the entire print industry, are trying to figure this one out, as are 'traditional' authors.

It appears that the REAL 'money makers', the one's who will SURVIVE this 'transition', are NOT the 'content providers' (formerly known as authors) but rather those who do 'control' the flow - the software/app developers. They are the 'new' middlemen, the 'new' publishers of the digital age …

See?

Ok, technical errors aside, I agree with your main point,

"my written words, are increasingly beholden to the technological gatekeepers of the web."

But you as an authour are in basically the same position as 20 years ago when your written words were beholden to the technological gatekeepers of bookbinding.

I don't think copyright protection is now moot. It holds the same force when you're talking about internet distribution. Digitizing and distribution via the internet changes only one important thing: copying and sharing copies is easier. So let's examine that.

1. If your work is copied and distributed commercially, it will be very easy to go after the distributors for infringement. Sic a lawyer on them.

2. If your work is copied and shared in a casual, personal network, some of those people will pay you for it. Some of those people who enjoy your work will *not* pay for it, the Jerks and Cheapskates. I don't think your target market is Jerks and Cheapskates anyway. So I don't think you will have lost any money.

Secondly, as for your assertion that the real money makers will be software / application developers, well I guess it depends what you mean. Most software that underlies internet servers is Free / Open Source. If you mean software developers such as Google, MS and Amazon, I think you're right. But they don't make money by being part of the W3C. They make money by building big networks.

Re: your points.

1. Have YOU ever personally TRIED to 'police' those who copy & sell your work illegally via the internet? I have. It's a chumps game. If the 'theft' occured outside of your national jurisdiction, which is very easy to do, you're pretty well out of luck. I've been 'chasing' one illegal vendor based out of Germany for over 20 years. Whenever I THINK I've succeeded in 'blocking' their illegal distribution, they just 'pop up' somewhere else thru some other UNINFORMED 'third party' distributor. They CONTINUE to 'license' MY work - without notice or compensation to me.

So, unless you are a BIG WIG corporation, like Apple or Google, an individual 'author/artist' aka 'content provider' has very little 'clout'. And that, especially NOW, has got to change.

2. I warrant there will always be 'jerks' and 'cheapskates'. It's a fact of life. The PROBLEM with the net is the illusion that 'ALL is FREE.' The mantra to 'just google it' - is now the NORM. The former moral imperative to 'do the right thing' and just NOT COPY the work of someone else for FREE is diminishing daily, cuz, again, the net gives the 'illusion' that EVERYTHING available on it - IS free. Ergo, WHY NOT just take what you want? everyone else does …

In actual FACT though, NOTHING is 'free'. These new 'distributors', ie. Google & other search engines, are making money. Make no mistake. 'Jerks' & 'cheapskates' can download all they want and Google won't do anything about it. Why? Cuz their MANDATE is to ENCOURAGE all 'users' to USE their 'service'.

By so doing, they get more eyeballs for their advertising 'partners', and/or themselves.

'Content providers', as such, are just gullible hacks that unknowingly UNDERWRITE the MAIN BUSINESS of the 'digital economy', the software designers and application developers. These dudes ALSO get 'start up' & 'continued' financing thru the markets. Collectively,they are all looking for the next 'Google' motherlode.

It is kinda naive for 'content providers' to think otherwise. THEY think that somehow they too can get on the 'gravy train'. That's wishful thinking at best. Why? Cuz the whole thing is designed to FACILATE & GRATIFY the 'searchers' - not the 'creators'.

3. Totally disagree. Re-read my first post. The main reason the consortium formed was to create an INTEGRATED 'industry standard'. They NEEDED a cross-board 'language' to 'harness' the real (& potential ) 'traffic' of the web. Collusion creates conformity. Free/Open Source etc is FINE as long as it doesn't DISRUPT the FUNDAMENTAL 'channel' of distribution, HTML, the cornerstone of the W3 Consortium …

1. Yes, fonts are going to be harder to police than textually-identifiable works such as prose and songs. While the internet makes infringement easier, it may also make it easier to find international infringers.

Indeed, German copyright law sounds like it has problems.

How specifically do you want Canadian copyright law to change to give you more "clout"?

2. I don't witness growth of an attitude of "[why not] just take what you want? everyone else does". I have instead seen sharing inspire an attitude of "how can I buy more / participate / contribute". This probably speaks more of our own social environment and biases than it is a useful fact for the purpose of debating copyright.

3. I appreciate your cursory research into the history of HTML. You should do more research, I think you will find that it is a very benign technology with the sole purpose of enabling computers to send information to each other in a standard and error-free way.

I think you would be better able to support your points if you kept aim at the players in the market who truly oppose creators. Those being distributors such as Google, MS, Apple, Amazon, etc. These US corporations own the important distribution networks. They are the ones who creators are going to have to negotiate with in order to have their works visible to the consumer market. If gatekeepers emerge, they'll be among these giants.

"Aim at the players in the market who truly oppose creators. Those being distributors such as Google, MS, Apple, Amazon, etc. These US corporations own the important distribution networks. They are the ones who creators are going to have to negotiate with in order to have their works visible to the consumer market. If gatekeepers emerge, they'll be among these giants."

… My point exactly - with no 'ifs'.

p.s. Alexa's stats on the 10 top sites in the world as of August 12th, 2009 …

No.1. Google
No.2. Yahoo
No.3. Facebook
No.4. YouTube
No.5. Windows Live
No.5. Microsoft Network
No.7. Blogger
No.8. Wikipedia
No.9 Baidu (China's search engine)
No.10 yahoo - (China 2nd search engine)
…

Food for thought.

We already have gatekeepers who profit greatly while creators gain very little from their works. Those gatekeepers aren't Apple's iTunes store, or Google, or Amazon. They're book publishers and record companies.

Just as most of the money from televised hockey, football, or baseball games goes to team owners and the league, not the players, record companies make much more money from the latest hit song than the performer and composer. This isn't even as unfair as it seems, because there are lots of people who can sing as well, but don't have a recording contract… just as there are lots of people who can play baseball just about as well, but play in an AA or AAA team instead of the major leagues.

The public listens to the major singing stars who got airplay and publicity, the one's they've heard about, the ones who are famous. Access to the public and visibility make the difference.

Protecting the monetary value of copyrighted content more fiercely helps enrich the gatekeepers of access, the record companies and publishers, far more than it does the artists and creators. But that's not necessarily an argument against copyright.

We don't really want an alternative arrangement, where, for example, radio stations are only permitted to play 10% of their music from artists who live out of town - never mind Canadian Content. Maybe it's better to protect copyright fiercely so that the crumbs from the table to the artists become bigger, than to adopt socialism for the music industry. But that's how far the debate would have to reach to address the real issues.

Please note: Copyright resides with the 'creator of the work'. Licenses to DISTRIBUTE that copyright are what the 'middlemen' use, regardless of the 'product' they manufacture, ie. CD, DVD, t-shirt or book.

With the net supplanting much of the former traditional distribution vehicles, you're right that the former 'middlemen' are scrambling as they try to protect their LICENSES.

Ah, 'the standard'. You mean the gatekeepers who are now DETERMINING the EVOLUTION of the net.

Have you ever tried to use Google's Picasa Photo software with a Microsoft operating system? They ABSOLUTELY do not 'speak' to each other. Every 'function' done with Picasa is not 'recognized' by Microsoft. It's a 'closed system'. Why? Cuz it's two 'proprietory' BUSINESSES butting heads. They are BOTH trying to 'corner the market' to ESTABLISH the 'technological operating standard'. And that is very much a 'copyright issue', ie. IP & patents.

The 'winner' will be the one we monkey 'content providers' grab most often … Will it be 'this' software or 'that' one … Who will 'fail' and who will 'flourish'? Who will LEAD and thus, SET the STANDARD?