Thanks for your insight. I agree with most of your points. The only clarification I would make is that I would define "Payment for use" as meaning per person/household. If you want to lend a book to a friend (as I often do), that's fine. Or even if you want to resell the original, I have no problem. But I object to people who make a copy of the work and then give it away or sell it without license. That's theft, plain and simple.

Selling a copy without a license is theft and the law protects you from that - and protects you at the cost of us, tax payers, who finance this privilege. Sharing something for no profit is not theft, let's be clear on that. What is being stolen and where is the money being made? It is a replication of some binary data, ones and zeros, between two individuals and unless you are one of those two parties, frankly speaking, it's none of your business.

Other than using some goodwill on the side of the person sharing the material - any sharing involves cost on the side of the person sharing it, such as paying for Internet connection - there is nothing wrong about the information sharing process. There may be extreme cases, where something is posted on the Web (different than say P2P networks) for open download by the entire world, but there are plenty of legal injunctive measures in place to prevent such extreme cases from operating and seriously impacting either the creator or distributor.

What media syndicates want (namely music and movie industries), and they keep including it on their yearly agendas for their lobbyists, is setup of an absolute monopoly with great power and control. They want to control our access to information so they can tailor any information distribution channel to their choosing and set any price, as extraordinary as it may be. And on top of it, they want us, the tax payers, to pay for the protection of their monopoly. We have outlawed monopolies in many different industries but monopoly in this area for some reason we tolerate. Why?

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your assertion that binary data is without value. It is today entirely possible to reduce all human knowledge to binary data, and so you would have us believe that there is no value to any content. What would you say to the people who worked for years to create that content? Their work has no value? In that case, you will quickly kill the urge to create. That's not to say that the creation of content only happens for money, but again, we all have to eat, and we all need a roof over our heads.

If you can take my creation, then give it way to 6 billion people without any recompense to me, how is that fair? And then who will spend days, weeks and years trying to create a new masterpiece? You are advocating socialism to the utmost degreee (i.e. state-sponsored theft of all private property), an act that is sure to kill personal initiative and creativity.

Sorry, but the country you describe is not Canada, and for that I am very thankful.

First, do not misquote me as I have not misquoted you. Second, using generalizations such as "the country you describe is not Canada" is symptomatic of political propaganda, like Fox News or TownHall.com, and that should not be part of the debate in our country, where we exercise critical thinking. Actually, what you are proposing (possibly unknowingly due to ignorance) is a backwards society of the past, such as some that existed in Europe in the last century, where the state administers total control over their citizens. Sir, we live in democracy and we would like to keep it that way.

Sharing something for no profit is NOT theft - it may be wrong in certain circumstances, as I have described above, but you have conveniently ignored that. And as I have clearly stipulated, nobody is suggesting that we forget the rights of creators and their ability to get paid. The argument here is that they should get compensated through levies on distribution channels so they get compensated for EVERY potential copy and not only for some.

Very funny. Sarcasm will get you nowhere.

That wasn't sarcasm. It was naive.

Every single thing related to the 'digital economy' is ultimately a 'for-profit' business. Google is a BUSINESS, not a charity. Apple, Microsoft are BUSINESSES. Their AIM is to PROFIT off the digital obsessions of 'test rats'. We be the 'rats in the maze' that business continues to build to BIND us …

The 'lure' for the hitherto 'silent' public is 'self-expression' & 'collaboration with friends'. "Share!!! Be FREE!!!" The 'bait' is "YOU can now be an artist aka 'creator' too!!!" Thus, we push multiple buttons and DELUDE ourselves into thinking that we're actually MAKING something of VALUE. We use COMPLEX SOFTWARE & SOPHISTICATED HARDWARE that OTHERS have DESIGNED & MADE (as businesses) to 'make it ultra easy' and 'super simple' for us. Meanwhile, we just keep banging away at the buttons bewitched & bedazzled by the blinking bright lights & the heady buzz of 'beat' … We be rats.

Buffett once asked Gates why he was giving away software to China for 'free'. Gates replied, 'Because in 10 years time they'll all be addicted'.

Know your Masters.
You are their slave.

Thanks for the brutal clarification. You are indeed correct about business existing solely to make a profit. That's a reality. If someone can't cope with that concept, I suggest they move someplace where everything (including food/shelter) is free. Can't think of such a place? It's called "Utopia".

Seriously, this issue isn't only about the digital economy. We're also talking about books (yes, paper ones), cd's and movies (people still go to the theatre, the last time I checked). No creator who has invested significant effort in his/her work would be happy to see another person take the fruits of their labour and give it away for all to use. That's why unauthorized copying (other than for personal use) is and should continue to be illegal. I resent all the comments from the few people who are all too willing to claim that all creative product belongs to the masses, and should be available to anyone for free. What they are really saying, it would seem, is that they resent having to pay for someone else's hard work. They would rather steal it. The last time I checked, that was wrong (oh, yes, and illegal).

Take away the profit motive, and everything stagnates. Just look at the Soviet Union. Case closed.

I agree …

… except for the part about the Soviet Union. It is hardly stagnant at the moment. Anymore then China or India is. But that's a whole OTHER discussion and seemingly not pertinent to this forum …

Ah, but that's a perfect illustration of my point. The Soviet Union no longer exists, because it stagnated itself to death. There was an old workers' joke in Soviet society that went something like "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work." Take away the profit motive, and nothing happens. See?

Capitalist Russia, on the other hand, is a completely different story…same with the (now) very capitalist China.

But you're right; political philosophy has no place in this discussion. Or does it???

…ah yes, now I see your point.

Political philosophy can be an explosive minefield and that won't build consensus. Perhaps a more neutral approach would assist … like 'culural anthropology' …

"No creator who has invested significant effort in his/her work would be happy to see another person take the fruits of their labour"

My operating system and all the programs I run on it are shared freely. That doesn't stop me from supporting the projects, yes I financially support these projects. And I am one of your hated "malcontent" that thinks the system is broken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software

I also support books by people like Lawrence Lessig that are releasing their works to be shared freely under creative commons.
http://creativecommons.ca/
http://www.lessig.org/

Google books, Amazon.com, the Kindle, Sony e-readers. Books are being affected by the digital economy. Neglecting these are a mistake.

You keep pointing to the lack of talk about books but you never say what the problem with books will be. How is the current copyright system failing books? How would the suggestions being made harm the book publishers or authors? We can't respond to this if we don't know what we are responding to.

Thanks for "coming clean" as someone who steals content. But do you honestly think that Big Brother is going to spend billions of dollars to track you down and throw you in jail? Sorry, but you're not really that important in the grand scheme of things.

One of the benefits of age is the wisdom that comes with experience. Nobody is going to spend much time or money going after the individual law breaker who steals for his own private use. But if you start a business selling stolen content, you might attract a bit more attention.

But I'm more interested to know why you would limit copyright protection to two years. If your name were William Shakespeare or J.S. Bach, wouldn't you think twice about such a position? And why shouldn't they (or more accurately, their heirs) benefit from the genius of their forbears? I own books that were written many years ago, that I continue to read. If they were lost or stolen, I would replace them. Yes, it's impossible to police the resale of content. That's a given.

I think that some people in this forum are only considering the electronic file medium, and are not giving adequate thought to the good old fashioned kind of content that you can hold in your hand. Books will be around for at least another hundred years, I should think (and hope). Consider a longer term view…

Your assumption that I steal content is misguided. I seek out and support FOSS and creative commons content to support the ideals of sharing.

The assumption that I am young and naive is also misguided and disrespectful. I stand by my point that groups that want systems where the ISPs monitor everyone's internet connection hurt privacy and create very valuable targets for truly malicious people. It is these system that will cost huge sums of money and massive privacy concerns. And what is wrong with the current laws against commercial copyright infringement?

For the heirs of Shakespeare or JS Bach there would be an attraction to want to be paid, but does it make sense? Is there not an argument to be made for society to own it's culture at some point? And is the purpose of copyright not to provide an opportunity to seek remuneration for the effort? The origins of Copyright in the anglo-saxon legal tradition are rooted in British law, these origins were about breaking monopolies and acknowledging that at some point society must have free (libre) access to their culture. Copyright needs to be properly limited, these are government backed monopolies after all. If they are not properly limited then there is a complicated argument about why it is "ok" for monopolies in the content industry but not in other businesses like banking and telecoms.

Two years was not a suggestion for the length of copyright it was to show the discrepancy between the commercial life of most copyright materials and the actual length of copyright. Please respect what I say and don't just set me up as a straw-man.

I too enjoy my books, there is still no good replacement for a soft cover book. I buy dozens of new and used every year. But nothing I have said jeopardizes the book industry. As with any other creative work the vast majority only see a handful of print runs that end after a few years. So why then should we lock up all creative works with copyrights for 50 years (or more) when so few will be commercially distributed beyond the first few years?

I couldn't have put it better myself. The biggest problem is people and organisations screaming that the copyright system is broken just because they aren't making as much money as they think they should be.

@mhstevens "But do you honestly think that Big Brother is going to spend billions of dollars to track you down and throw you in jail? Sorry, but you're not really that important in the grand scheme of things."

Careful! The law should not be about whether

I am aware it takes more than 5 years to write a book. Let me clarify 5 years from the release of a book. What I mean by let the free market decide.

I work in IT. I write manuals and software. My employer retains all rights. I do not expect any compensation for what I did last year yet alone 40 years after I die.

I deal with the "theft" of my work by selling my expertise through configuring, maintaining and supporting my work as well as other software I have learnt throughout my career. I have made a succeessful career not by suing people but through allowing people to borrow and use my work and I charge for helping them implement and support. This way everyone wins. I make a living and people get my creations to use as they please.

Authors need to do something similar as do musicians. For example nobody can copy a live preformace. This is where the business needs to go.

My day-job is writing technical documentation so I know exactly what you're talking about; it's called "pay for hire" wherein you make $x/hour for your time and efforts and the company retains the copyright. That has NOTHING to do with creative works written for the public market with the artist selling specific rights to publishers to produce a packaged product in trade for royalties.

If you write a standalone novel you might still be making some royalties after 5 years (if you're lucky) and if you write a series of novels based in the same world or using the same characters, as many mysteries, SF, fantasy, and other genre works do, then your "5 year limit" on copyright would create serious and on-going problems if somebody decided that 5 years after your first "detective X" story, they wanted to take advantage of the characters and world you created (whether you are finished creating new stories in that series or not). That's ridiculous, and frankly, offensive.

And what would you suggest that writers do to mimic the ways that musicians have found to earn money in live performance? It's fine for you to say "go do something" but what? I write, that's what I do. Are you going to pay money to come to a theatre and listen to me read an excerpt from my novel? Not likely.

How do you monetize your creations in the digital economy? Self-promotion. Put out a web site to connect with your audience. Publish excerpts of your works in progress. Start a blog and let your audience peek behind the scenes of your creative process. Twitter some of your notes. Get a Facebook group going. Sell your work directly. Embrace the Creative Commons. Maybe someone takes your written work and makes a graphical novel about your characters, with attribution back to you under a Creative Commons license. Possibly this opens up a whole new audience for your creative efforts. Granted I am not a writer but if I had a writer friend it is what I would suggest. Did you know that someone managed to get a book deal from their writing efforts on Twitter, weird huh?

Hopefully there will be some enterprising 'software developers' that you can 'pay for hire' to develop these scenarios. They will probably not even ask for any residuals or rights, just a flat fee.

"Hopefully there will be some enterprising 'software developers' that you can 'pay for hire' to develop these scenarios."

There are tons of them out there, and your comment is actually the reality for many. The problem is for creators, this type of promotions and coding needed comes at a huge out of pocket expense for creators themselves.

Publishers and Recording labels do not cover the costs associated with what's needed for online promotion, and to get an in house junior developer at these labels or publishers would cost what $13 - $14/hour? Hiring a consultant to do this is costing close to 10 times the amount for the actual work involved.

On top of this, once the money is footed by the creative talent themselves for this, content is often brought down by the distributors, and labels through DMCA laws due to disputes these corporations have with the site admins, eg. Youtube, even Myspace! So even though you spend thousands on your profiles to be coded and presented professionally, there is a very real risk of that content being taken down, and money spent for nothing. Which sucks, and has to be corrected.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/008.nsf/eng/00364.html

Kicking Raven…"Maybe someone takes your written work and makes a graphical novel about your characters, with…"

THAT is exactly the issue. They are MY characters and I should have the right to decide if they are used and how they are used in a comic book or any other form!!!!! Copyright means you can't TAKE the characters, you have to ASK PERMISSION first!

In terms of promotions, many authors do use websites, blogs, twitter, etc., to help market their books -- they still have to be able to sell the books (not give them away).

Creative Commons is great and useful for many things; a lot of people license audio productions of short stories and novels for download, often for free (again as a promotional tool to support other work or to establish a fan base). But it's the author's choice to set that up, and every single one I've seen with the exception of Cory Doctorow, is "non-commercial, no derivatives" NOT the share-alike license.

Try this one for an example:

http://www.opensourcecinema.org/project/rip2.0

Let's look at it from another perspective. You spent 3-5 years writing the next harry potter novel. You have a best seller and worked hard. All of a sudden you receive a notice in the mail that someone wrote a book about a wizard at a school and you infringed their 1945 copyright. They sold maybe 200 copies and it wasn't widely known. The author died in 1950 but their grandchild has the copyright. What do you do as an author

1. Settle, even though you had no clue or means to fight their lawyers

2. Hire your own lawyer and fight them knowing in the end it will be a judge who decides

3. Ignore it and wish it goes away - doubt that will work

4. Come to some sort of compromise

This is the problem with lengthy copyrights and how they can infringe on your self expression. You see, you have to fight to prove what is yours is indeed yours and your someone who contributed absolutely nothing accuses you of doing something you did not. You don't have any recourse. The grandkid did nothing but claim a right to prior art and you used characters in the likeness. With the current system it's up to you the author to prove this did not occur.
The only ones who win in the end are the lawyers.

Given the large amount of work in print this occurs more often than not. Large publishing houses won't go against each other because they each have tons of work that can be pitted against each other. You as a single author do not. A short copyright strips these claims away completely and allows you to gain from your work.

I am increasingly of the opinion that 'software developers' and their brethren who are COMPLETELY computer dependent - as mechanics are to a car - NEED something other then 'copyright' to 'register' their work. Perhaps ALL should fall under 'patent' and they can duke it with corporate lawyers …

Software development is, by definition, collaborative. It's a completely different 'construct' then someone labouring over a book of 'ideas' that is ABOUT software or computers …

One rule can not fit all.
It's clearly not working.

Well the problem with patents is that two people could independently create similar works and the first one to "publish" could then use patent law to shut the other guy down.

Patents aside, It may be useful to have different levels of protection based on how harmful the monopoly is, for example:
computer program - 10 years
musical score - 20 years
poetry - 20 years
technical / instructional prose - 10 years
entertainment prose - 50 years
sculpture - 5 years
The problem is who gets to draw the line and who decides the level of protection? I think you're in for a prolonged, near-intractable debate.
PS. Factual correction - there exist many independent creators of software, it is not necessarily collaborative.

At least we're talking … and it's now an 'idea' that's 'out there'.

And yes, there will always be 'exceptions to the rule'. No-one is ever going to agree entirely. I think the plan should be to aim for a 'general consensus'.

Can't say I get why you suggest sculpture should only be 5 years … how come? Just curious.

whoops. "sculpture - 5 years" was a mistake.

I do support this for patent laws. Just take a look at what happened between NTP and blackberry. There is a whole new industry of patent trolls who create nothing but buy patents and sue individuals who create new ideas. A 5 year limitation would essentially put these out of business. Yes corporations do get lots of help from the government so I say this is all the more reason to put innovation in the public domain for all to use as a starting point for new innovation without the worry of breaking some 70 year old obscure patent or copyright.

Excuse me, but I must comment on this.

The original poster's 'comparative analogy' between a chair and a book was inaccurate & inapplicable.

I designed, produced and sold Canadian fine furniture for over 15 years. I LEARNED & apprenticed this craft from my father, an 'old world cabinetmaker' for nearly 20. I worked with SKILLED artisans who had equally spent DECADES learning their wood shaping techniques.

I worked 'on commission', doing custom ONE OFF's for clients.

Good commissions - those that demanded TALENT - could easily take 4-8 months to complete using all the resources we learned over DECADES of work & study. A 14 foot table, as example, hand-carved with marquetry inlay, with 16 'identical' chairs, turned on lathes and french polished by hand, were all singularly hand-crafted.

The 'illusion' of manufacturing is that it's all done by machine now. It isn't, (though to be sure the LEVEL of skill has diminished profoundly in North America, and MOST furniture of any enduring quality these days is produced off-shore by skilled labourers who work for peanuts…)

I reiterate, the original poster's 'comparative analogy' was inaccurate & inapplicable.

… You shouldn't have taken the bait …

I am glad you pointed this out. You spent years perfecting woodworking skills, a lot of talented people worked with you. The same happens when a book or song is created. You the carpenter have no say what someone does with your creation once it has been sold. The purchaser will give it, sell it and if they have the carpentry skills even build a similar chair or improve on it. In the case of the author or musician there is a sense of endless entitlement for something that was created once. They expect to pass the work (not the skill, talent or work used to create it) to their grandkids. They want to license and put restrictions on what people who purchase their material can and cannot do with it. An analogy would be if you rented your furniture vs selling it and insisted that it is only used by certain people at certain times and that under no circumstances do they own the chair. You pass this right to your kids and their kids who may not even know how to use a hammer. When someone gets a book or a chair or a cd the producer sells access to that work the person who purchased should be free to do as they please without any restrictions to property they paid for. This applies in most industries however when it comes to media, creating an improvement is against the law, inviting a few friends over is a public performance and is against the law. Scanning a few pages from a book is against the law. This is wrong. After giving much thought it's all about greed. If an author or musician feels they cannot live with a free market they must find another way to make money rather than complain. It's almost like saying " I would love to sit on a beach and get paid. I woked for 5 years once - maybe they should pass a law to ensure I get compensated for what my passion is. " Yes creators should be paid for work they do - Should they be entitled to dictate what gets done from the date of sale - this is what it's all about. In the end find ways to make a living off your passion. Don't expect the government to do this for you. Don't expect the average Canadian to lose their charter rights such as free speech or ownership rights to ensure you are "compensated for your passion".

Are you a creator?

… 'flea in the ear' principle …

You heard me.
It's a start.