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 »
Continue to allow freedom and privacy online. More restrictive copyright will stifle innovation and erode our rights. Current copyright law is balanced and respects citizens' privacy.
Currently, I pay (a lot) for bandwidth and hardware. If copyright holders need more support, do this through increased gov't support through grants, etc. Perhaps a surcharge on hardware could be implemented, like the surcharge on recordable media.
"Canadians pay an additional tax on all blank media and at a point paid a tax per GB on ipods and hard drives. A 50 pack of CD-r's (50) will run you at least $20+ for cheaper brands and a lot more for the better ones just because of it.
Even if you never burn a single music CD or download a single MP3, that tax is still being charged on any blank media you might use for pictures and everything else. What they want is to be able to keep the levies and still be able to bust your door down and cry a river."
That's what I am afraid of what copy right law is going to become.
Chris Thomas [2009-08-20 11:59] Nº du commentaire : 1900 Répondre à : 1617
I can remember not so long ago when 20
CD's cost $50.00! No one complained, because many people realized great "savings" by not paying for "content" (mostly music). The blank media surtax was an effort to acknowlege this very real and pervasive practice of trying to get something for nothing!
For young people who've grown up on the web, many pretend to believe, everything should be free. It's become very easy to "borrow, steal or appropriate" from absent, faceless victims (content creators). Such a model is not sustainable… nothing in a sustainable system can be "FREE" …the best model is "FAIR".
Unfortunately, for some people, things will never be cheap enough! A few cents on a pack of CD's doesn't break anybody's bank. Even if one doesn't steal copyrighted material themselves, they're still the benificiaries of a healthy creative environment, when you watch TV or listen to the radio… for example.
Those who want everthing for nothing are "spoiled children" who haven't begun to consider the bigger picture… they'll also be the first to complain when artists are given "cultural welfare" because they can't feed their kids!
If you don't think art is important… imagine your world without movies, music, dance, literature and imagery…
Can we have just a little respect, please?
jrm [2009-08-20 13:59] Nº du commentaire : 1906 Répondre à : 1900
The blank media levy treats anyone who purchases blank media for any reason as a "pirate". Even if you buy the media to share family photos or copy music that you legally purchased, you pay.
This is disrespectful to consumers. Can consumers have a little respect, too?
Chris Thomas [2009-08-20 23:37] Nº du commentaire : 1920 Répondre à : 1906
I disagree that it is "disrespectful to comsumers". Everyone is being treated equally and nobody is saying you're a pirate.
Are you saying there is no problem?
There are many, much more severe consequences "on the books" for real "pirates."
But they're hard to enforce. Thus, this imperfect solution that at least acknowledges there's a problem that need some action.
I agree the Media levy may not be perfect, but it speads the "social responsibility" very thin… to only a few cents/disc over all consumers. Do we have a collective social responsibility to victims of intellectual property theft?
I think we do.
Is this really too high a price to pay to avoid intrusive technologies that might rifle through your commuter, track and report your every move and report your tiniest infractions, with mandated co-operation from your ISP? Such technologies already exist… It's not going to be your local musician or writer that will send lobbyist to push legislation in this direction. It will be the Microsofts, Macromedias, and Hollywoods of the world who could use inaction as a justification for such measures.
It's very disheartening to hear people say that artists aren't worth a couple of cents on a media purchase… when almost everyone's life would be grossly degraded without the stream of quality content, we've all come to take for granted.
jrm [2009-08-21 11:21] Nº du commentaire : 1934 Répondre à : 1920
There is no reason that we will automatically get invasive technologies in our ISPs, computers and devices if we get rid of the black media levy. Unfortunately there are powerful players lobbying for all kinds of invasive measures despite the levy. The media conglomerates will keep pushing for these kinds of things no matter what.
Do we have a collective social responsibility to victims of intellectual property theft? I think the responsibility is with the infringers. If we all bear responsibility, then should we all feel ok about infringing? I know some Canadians feel that way but I don't. That is a backwards justification for "pirating" just like the blank media levy is a backwards way of enforcing the law.
Chris Thomas [2009-08-21 20:08] Nº du commentaire : 1982 Répondre à : 1934
What improvement do you have in mind?
We need "user pay" to support creative.
We need it… what could be fairer?
jrm [2009-08-22 21:21] Nº du commentaire : 2015 Répondre à : 1982
I'm not sure what argument is exactly. The only improvement I have in mind is to get rid of the levy.
Punish the infringers without punishing everyone who uses a tangentially-related technology and without invading everyone's privacy.
dendee [2009-09-08 01:20] Nº du commentaire : 2308 Répondre à : 1617
my brother has been a professional recording artist for 25 years. he told me that he has never seen a penny of revenue from this source (blank media levy). probably all eaten up by administration costs, posh lunches, executive bonuses etc. there should be a way to compensate artists, not executives.
Zac [2009-09-11 11:58] Nº du commentaire : 2450 Répondre à : 2308
The private copying levy on blank audio recording media, after the CPCC deducts its operating costs, is distributed thusly:
60.1%: SOCAN, SMRRA, and SODRAC.
22.6%: NRCC performers
17.3%: NRCC publishers ("makers")
So if your brother is a member of any of those societies or collectives, he should check with them to see if he is an "eligible". I couldn't find any language in the gazette defining who an eligible author is.
Maybe they've got an account full of cash for him!
Brad Mole [2009-09-12 13:20] Nº du commentaire : 2487 Répondre à : 2308
I have watched the CPCC birthed in the mid 90's as a Liberal bureaucracy with two people in a T.O. office to now, where they have just moved into the Shelia Copps building.
You get my meaning. The CPCC spends it's time looking for resources to grow it's administration. It is a classic burecratic excersize. Self profisizing, looking to grow it's infuence. The "artist" is an afterthought, a means to an end.
The CPCC is no model for any new legislation.
GGW [2009-09-12 14:23] Nº du commentaire : 2488 Répondre à : 1617
The levy system is not right. I make legitimate copies of my own original music to give to others and I resent that I have to pay a fee that goes to the highest earners. My activity would never pay back the exemption registration fee. I also do not agree with the idea forming around the levy, that "if I've paid the levy on a disk I am free to fill it with others copyrighted material". I don't agree to unauthorized copying of my music.
Basically, solve the problem and don't penalize the legitimate users. I still don't see why there is so much support for people being allowed to be anonymous on the internet.
Copyright law really needs to distinguish between several classes of uses of copyrighted material in order to foster innovation and creativity: commercial use, non-profit use and personal use. Commercial use obviously requires a licence from the copyright holder. Non-profit use probably also requires a licence unless the audience is small. Personal use really should be exempt from copyright law unless a person then decides to distribute the work or the derivative work, in which case it would be a case of non-profit use. Making these distinctions would make it more obvious when a person needs to seek permission of the copyright holder to use the work.
cjsf [2009-08-14 17:10] Nº du commentaire : 1661 Répondre à : 1609
I agree with your comments, meikipp. It's important to distinguish between uses of copyright based on a user's motive of gain.
One of the problems with the current copyright scheme is the multiplication of tariffs from different copyright collectives for different uses. It's important that when we are talking about licensing for non-profit use to remember that we are talking about organizations who are not trying to monetize their use of copyrighted works. As the number of tariffs increases, the ability of non-profits to use copyrighted works starts to move outside of their financial reach. Caps are needed to limit the cost of licenses.
Part of the problem is that the Copyright Board considers the validity of each new tariff in isolation from other tariffs. So while each individual tariff might seem valid, the sum of all tariffs in total can cause a significant financial burden. The Copyright Board needs to consider the entire copyright regime when it looks at tariffs, not individual tariffs in isolation.