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 »
By having clear, readable copyright laws, one fosters an understanding on limits. Having fair limitations that err more to the side of content creators, and being able to use material for fair use, fosters creativity and innovation. This brings talent to Canada, as artists will have the freedom to create and express themselves.
There should be 3 seperate ways which creative works should be legally utilized. Commercial usage (For Profit), Public or Creative use (Not for profit) and Private use (Not for Profit or public display). This distinction is really quite simple.
Commercial usage: If money changes hands, or the user receives money through advertisements, etc… a license needs to be obtained.
Public/creative use would be where a person will be using a work publicly, such as Youth groups having a free movie night, or for usage by non-profit groups and charities. Purchase of license should be required. The creative part of this classification would also cover mashup artists, and musicians who distribute their music for free (Hobbyist musicians). credit to Original content providers would need to be required, and special license must be granted if an agreement for bypassing the limitations of the law is used (ie: if a legal sample has a time limit, but special rights were granted to allow more than the legal sample size).
Personal use is exactly that - Personal. Anyone can do whatever they want so long as they don't make it public. File sharing should be included here, because there is no money changing hands. If an unlicensed work is performed in public, that is the violation of copyright. No public displays of the work.
This will allow content consumers to have free reign in their personal business, as any law that would prevent a private user from copying files in this day and age, would be unenforceable.
This will also allow content creators to receive royalty off the public use of their music. By requiring public broadcast to pay for such fees, combined with a blank media levy 9fairly distributed unlike it is now) to compensate for personal use, One would create a progressive environment where we could lure the most creative artists and feed our economy with Canadian talent.
FairUseInCanada [2009-09-05 14:05] Nº du commentaire : 2247 Répondre à : 1531
Great post! I second this motion.
File sharing is a tiny aspect of the copyright legislation that is given great attention without adequate reason. If no money changes hand when something is shared and if the item being shared is for personal use only, that should not be of anyone's concern except for those parties sharing the files/data. Anything beyond that is unjustifiable control on part of media conglomerates and their monopolistic tendencies.
Do we really want to setup and protect a digital media monopoly that will stifle innovation and create a society of fear in Canada? I know we don't but that is exactly what media syndicates want (namely music and movie industries), and they keep including it on their yearly agendas for their lobbyists. They want to setup 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 this monopoly.
Monopolies stifle competition, discourage investment, and are a great obstacle to innovation and progress. We have outlawed monopolies in many different industries but monopoly in this area for some reason we tolerate, and through this copyright reform, we may give it even more rights.
News Corp announced last week that it will charge fees for all its news websites. It is getting out of the free information business. Rupert Murdoch predicted that all major media would shortly follow suit. I agree.
The next day, the Financial Times announced a similar policy.
Free, ad-supported content does not generate revenues over costs and will therefore shut down.
Canada should be leading the way in strengthening copyright protections for online content. This will make Canada attractive to cultural industries.
For example, Vancouver is emerging an a global cluster of innovation and excellence in New Media. This emergence in undermined by Canada's weak anti-piracy legislation.
Iron-clad copyright legislation in Canada will drive investment and innovation in our country.
meikipp [2009-08-10 13:08] Nº du commentaire : 1474 Répondre à : 1467
Where's the evidence that ad-supported content doesn't work? Many companies are using the ad-supported approach.
Canada should be leading the way in supporting balanced copyright legislation, such as our current copyright law which already includes anti-piracy legislation.
dbrett [2009-08-10 13:58] Nº du commentaire : 1476 Répondre à : 1474
Mei, the evidence is everywhere. The newspaper business is in crisis. The Boston Globe just announced they are looking at user pay models. The idea that traffic to a web site = $ is a pipe dream.
For a good analysis of this topic, check out what Mark Cuban has to say about News Corp's latest user-pay moves:
meikipp [2009-08-10 21:14] Nº du commentaire : 1487 Répondre à : 1476
The Boston Globe is of course free to charge anything they want for access to their website, or to use ads and the rest of us are free to decide if we care enough to pay for the content… I'm not sure that these examples show that the entire industry is in crisis though, and if there is a crisis I'm not sure exactly how this relates to copyright. It sounds like it's more of an issue of not offering what the advertisers or potential subscribers want.
dbrett [2009-08-11 18:52] Nº du commentaire : 1528 Répondre à : 1487
It is not a question of offering what subscribers want. It is a question of changing business models from free-ad-supported to user-pay subscription plus advertising, or some combination of the two. People want the content. They just aren't paying for it.
Copyright is central to the debate because many (such as Lawrence Lessig) are arguing for the abolition of copyright, or a wholesale revamping of it.
meikipp [2009-08-11 20:51] Nº du commentaire : 1533 Répondre à : 1528
Actually, I agree with you that it's not about offering what people want, which is exactly the problem. Companies generally make more money offering what people want.
The newspaper issue is debatable. I don't think all newspapers will switch to user-pay models because I don't think ad-supported models are obsolete.
The connection I see to copyright is that this is yet another case where a company isn't happy that people might be using their work without paying for every single use or that they might be able to make more money somehow, if only they could control every aspect of how people use their work.
Lessig isn't arguing for abolishing copyright (he's actually a very strong proponent of copyright) but he is against continuous attempts to extend the length of copyright terms and the number of things governed by copyright. A wholesale revamping is exactly what Bill C-61 would have done, people like Lessig and Geist want to see the balance of copyright between user and creator maintained.
dbrett [2009-08-12 16:48] Nº du commentaire : 1571 Répondre à : 1533
Lessig on the Colbert Report:
meikipp [2009-08-13 12:14] Nº du commentaire : 1607 Répondre à : 1571
The Colbert report is a satirical program. I'm not sure it's really a good example to support your theory. However, I have read Remix (which I purchased by the way even though I could have downloaded it for free) and Lessig is simply stating what he's already stated… that copyright needs to balance between the harms done to society when copyright law is too strong and gives too many rights to the creator and the need for creators to be paid for their work. As a society we've already decided that certain uses are outside the scope of copyright. Most of us here are arguing that the balance between creator and user has to remain and that the government has to protect our fair dealing rights. Bil C-61 would have gutted fair dealing in an electronic environment.
Corporations always have recourse. They can create a better and more interesting product that people will want to pay for or they can supplement with ads.
FairUseInCanada [2009-08-10 21:25] Nº du commentaire : 1489 Répondre à : 1467
It is odd that you would mention News Corp as a "leading example" in this debate, where one of their products, Fox News, is clear propaganda with with very political motives and with absolutely no intention to report any news. I would not seriously consider any example set by this organization.
There is no weak anti-piracy legislation in Canada; on the contrary, copyright privileges that we give to content creators and distributors in Canada are wide and very well protected. There is resistance of our Government to support creation of media monopolies, who want to dictate how Canadians will access their own data and create a society of fear, where innovation and creativity will be hindered.
This debate is about us showing to our legislators that we as Canadians support them in their effort to stand up to various special interest groups and their one-sided interests.
sjbrown [2009-08-11 01:44] Nº du commentaire : 1502 Répondre à : 1467
I assume by "Canada's weak anti-piracy legislation" you mean "Canada's copyright law"?
If so, what specifically is weak about it?
I also think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that Vancouver's New Media growth is slowed by current copyright law. It's like saying "Look, my puppy is growing at 4kg per month! If only I had been feeding him Alpo instead of Iams, then he wouldn't have grown so slowly!"