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 »
What Canada needs are stronger protections for original creators, and for enhanced collective licensing schemes. We need to put real economic value around the pale nod to Authors' Rights found in our Act (i.e. Moral Rights). We need to make some rights non-transferable, insert specific additions to deal with very real gaps in the Act (ex: time/format shifting, e-classroom issues, digital delivery), and ratify WIPO.
Canada does not need is a general expansion of exceptions to the Act. Nor do we need the imposition of one economic model (open source/"free") on all of us. The current Act already contains a good balance between users' rights and owners' rights. More "free" is not needed. Strengthened protection of original creators is the way to go.
sjbrown [2009-07-30 16:13] Nº du commentaire : 1162 Reply to: 1069
CFU, did you know that under bill C-61, time/format shifting rights would get clobbered by new anti-circumvention laws?
rakey2_anotherlawyer [2009-08-04 19:18] Nº du commentaire : 1307 Reply to: 1069
We need more exceptions to explicitly allow circumventing of "digital locks". Locksmiths can circumvent a lock on a car/house that I own so I can get in and change the door. A Mechanic can "circumvent" the funny screws car companies put on some parts. Why should I not have the right to break a DRM scheme that a company chooses to no longer support?
Why should we support monopolies so that an Itunes song only works on Apple hardware? We don't require Ford tires on a Ford car?
We should not have to "rent" art forever, we should be able to own it and do many things for personal use including time shift, format change and backup for personal use.
pneves [2009-08-09 03:00] Nº du commentaire : 1438 Reply to: 1069
I'd like to counter this statement by saying that Canada also doesn't need the imposition of Closed source commercial software either. Who are you to suggest that people who want to give away their work are not allowed to do it under certain terms?
CFU [2009-08-09 05:53] Nº du commentaire : 1442 Reply to: 1438
Huh? Where in my comment does it say people can't give away their work? Just the opposite. Creators must have the right to control how their work is used. If that means giving it away, then great! If that means licensing it for specific uses, that's great too.
It is those who are making the "everything must be free" argument, which are dictating terms. I want choice.
pneves [2009-08-09 19:59] Nº du commentaire : 1452 Reply to: 1442
I was talking about you saying that we don't need to impose one kind of economic model. Open Source / Free. I was making the argument that if someone wants to give away their work they should have the right to. The Open Source movement does do that on the Internet. They should have the right to do so if they want.
I agree that writers should be allowed to keep the rights to their work. It is their work and they should be allowed to do with it what they please. However, the arguments I've posted on this website is that due to digital technology such work will be very difficult to protect if not impossible. There is no technical solution to such a problem. And the legal system really has very little power to stop it. I don't think new laws will change that. Computers are basically designed to manipulate information. And once movies and music goes digital then those works are nothing more then digital information. Anti circumvention provisions are useless. The DMCA in the United states has very powerful anti circumvention provisions and it has failed to curb piracy. Any solution must enlist the cooperation of the citizens of the country. It can't be done any other way. The people must be convinced that such laws are fair and that they should be followed for the betterment of everyone. Personally I don't think the government has the moral clout to do it.
rsmits [2009-08-09 14:07] Nº du commentaire : 1446 Reply to: 1069
To the contrary, what we need are clearly defined rights for both creators and users of content, not stronger protections for creators.
I'd certainly agree with authors who resent being forced to give away all rights in every possible format to a publisher to get paid at all for an article. I also agree that consumers should not be forced to pay again and again for the same content that's in a different format, or who do not want to be disallowed from time or format shifting material they have already purchased.
Copyright is not just there for the benefit of creators, it's there for all of society. One of the things that weakens the benefits of copyright are the excessive terms presently enjoyed by creators. Copyright was intended to be a limited monopoly for the creators, not a lifelong source of revenue.
The original term of copyright in the UK was 14 years, and was intended to spur writers and creators by giving them a limited time window in which they had exclusive rights to exploit the material, after which it became public domain.
Now we're up to 50 years plus the life of the author, for gosh sakes. By the time that has passed, no one will even remember the work. It's certainly far too long. Something closer to the length of time a patent lasts - 20 years is probably about right.
We also need to make clear that when you purchase a CD (and support an artist and a recording company) that you have the right to download the material to your IPod or MP3 player, without having to pay for it again! What you don't have is the right to sell copies of that CD to someone else.
Professional writers in Canada already face many economic challenges because this is such a small market. Reducing copyright protection will make it even more difficult to make a living. Creators need copyright protection.
misterhay [2009-08-02 16:07] Nº du commentaire : 1268 Reply to: 1067
I would say that obscurity is more of an issue than fans reading their work without paying for it. More copyright protection will likely result in more obscurity.
rsmits [2009-08-09 14:13] Nº du commentaire : 1447 Reply to: 1067
I agree with you about the challenges facing professional writers, but the answer is not increasing or reducing copyright protections, it's striking a fair balance.
I'd like to see creators not forced to give away all the rights for a book to a publisher, including movie rights, publication outside the country, and so on just to get them published.
I'd also like to see the term of copyright reduced to something much closer to the original length - like 20 years or so, like patents. It's long enough to protect creators and short enough to allow others to remix, adapt and re-create it.
Encourager l'utilisation de licenses libres du type Creative Commons, favorisant ainsi la collaboration la plus large possible à l'échelle mondiale.
Donner plus de visibilité aux oeuvres réalisées par des Canadiennes et des Canadiens en facilitant leur diffusion, sur Internet ou ailleurs. Si le Canada peut être compétitif au niveau mondial, c'est en encourageant les contacts avec le reste du monde et non en tentant de protéger le marché interne.
Cesser d'encourager les modè les d'affaires obsolè tes des entreprises qui refusent d'accepter les réalités actuelles. Si l'entreprise privée est soumise à la loi du marché, le gouvernement a-t-il comme responsabilité de protéger les institutions commerciales qui ont refusé de prendre le Â«virage technologiqueÂ»?
Ētablir une distinction nette entre l'exploitation commerciale illégitime du droit d'auteur (le piratage, proprement dit) et les diverses activités liées à l'utilisation raisonnée d'oeuvres couvertes par le droit d'auteur. Trouver les moyens nécessaires pour empêcher le piratage par des entités commerciales tout en encourageant l'utilisation raisonnées des oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur. En d'autres termes: trouver les vrais coupables.
Blip.TV signs deal with You Tube …
READ those 'THIRD PARTY' distribution clauses verrrry carefully people. Find out your 'percentage', make SURE you 'SEE THE BOOKS'. Think how this will/won't benefit YOU as a 'contributor'.
And for all those 'pirates' out there, understand that the monies to develop this DEAL were raised thru venture capitalists, NOT the artists.
In fact, the 'artists' were FODDER for the DISTRIBUTORS to 'swing the deal'. Within the digital 'economy' artists are increasingly squished into the role of 'content producer'. It is their 'numbers on a balance sheet' not their ACTUAL content that YouTube WANTS.
… sigh, doesn't anyone else UNDERSTAND what is happening here? It is the DISTRIBUTORS not the artists who FINANCIALLY benefit.
canadada [2009-07-28 10:46] Nº du commentaire : 1044 Reply to: 1043
p.s. Part of the REASON artists joined Blip in the first place was to attain greater CONTROL over their own content and distribution. If they wanted to join YouTube they would have done so in the first place. Now, through this DISTRIBUTION deal, Blip users are being 'driven'/'encouraged'/'bullied' into something they didn't sign on for in the first place … Get it?
The Deal is between the 'distributors' thru 'third party' licensing deals NOT the artists.
The best way to protect a digital economy is to get a sense of the reality of the situation we are faced with. We have 2 sides of this debate and consultation that are either copy-right meaning they believe law and enforcement will create sustainable business models, and copy-left which believe copyright law is too harmful to society, innovation, and consumer rights.
The reality is that that either way this swings, it will be virtually impossible for law to be implemented or enforced on a grand scale with respect to the general population. We are in sort of like a cold war with neither side gaining ground, this is a stalemate. No matter what laws are put in place to protect creative groups, there will be equal counter measures to ensure the option of breaking those protections with the expectation of anonymity. What I think we should do is to monetize the networks. Each of us pay's a certain amount of money extra on our internet bills, or the ISP's are forced to contribute money without raising broadband prices. The payment scheme would be similar to cable TV. For media, remuneration will work as it does in Radio through SOCAN week, and with respect to cable TV ratings were 1 day or week out of every quarter content consumption over the networks "the air waves of the internet" is looked at and overseen by a watchdog to ensure consumer privacy.
That and combine the fact there are already newer ad models and business models currently in the production line that are tried tested and true for internet content that will pick up the slack. Apps for the Iphone through music is one such innovation, for TV and film:
Allow the remuneration and innovation to occur through fair and professional law. Meaning let there be room for amateur content and innovation free of charge to allow to experiment, or allow a grace period on copyright for amateurs who are innovating and experimenting on newer business models for at least 2 years or up to a certain level of income that will become professional eventually, in which the monetization of the networks would pay for this to spark innovation. It is inadvisable for the government to be holding consultations on "copyright" laws that will largely be irrelevant and unenforceable when the legislation is introduced, because it doesn't accurately reflect what's going on in the digital economy, nor move on from this "cold war".
We not only need remuneration to be built into the networks, but we also need industry to be forced into new business and advertising models that work, and allow them time to experiment with them and prefect them. The monetization of the networks will allow them time to do this. It's a win/win. Other industry will follow eventually. We need a forum where data is treated as a commodity, in order to prepare for the very near future:
Apply this quote from the above video to this consultation: "Everybody is focused on compliance, and nobody is thinking about innovation and how to drive change"
fixerdave [2009-07-28 01:20] Nº du commentaire : 1030 Reply to: 1026
I agree with how you start out, but you need to go one step farther…
Your concept of what amounts to paying a central tax that then get disbursed to creators is still locked into the "pay for consumption" model. The result: your system just winds up getting really, really complicated with governing bodies, and sampling rates, and renumeration for this and that…
This complexity shows that you've not stepped far enough back to see the whole picture. We don't need a centralised system that allows copying followed by remuneration based on tracking… we need a system where copies, and how they are used, becomes irrelevant. To do this, we need a "pay for production" system, not pay for consumption.
Simply put, the creators of digital work need to make their money before they release the content. After that, the content can be used for any non-profit use. If someone makes a profit from using the content, then the original creator is granted a share. And, if necessary, the original creator can sue to get it (and, presumably, the people being sued have made a profit and thus have money to get.)
See? Take another step back and the whole problem simply becomes: how can artists get paid before releasing content. And, honestly, that's not a legal issue, that's a new business model waiting to be created. That's a new opportunity.
Jkobo [2009-07-28 02:47] Nº du commentaire : 1034 Reply to: 1030
It's not complicated at all, it is the system used by our current traditional media. Every time you turn on the TV and pay your cable bill you are paying for a centralized system that is based on remuneration and tracking. It's just taking those principles and applying them to the Internet.
"Simply put, the creators of digital work need to make their money before they release the content."
And how do you perceive one would do that? The traditional system is built around signing the creators rights over to the label or publisher which funds the production, and then the return on the investment for the publisher or label is what is made on the copyright.
You need capital to get started in any business. If you are the greatest musician that ever lived, you need things before you can ask people to support you, like drums, a mic, mixing equipment, a computer, recording software, production software, etc..to get the music out there to be supported by fans, and to compete.
You can't just pop online and say "Hi I'm Joe, and I need money to start making music". You'll be lucky to get 2 bucks.
So you have to understand industry's point of view, and how much investment on older works pre-internet they have put into and stand to lose quite a lot of that investment because copyright isn't being collected.
You said: "And, honestly, that's not a legal issue, that's a new business model waiting to be created."
That's part of the problem, and I want to explain something. I'm a DJ and Promoter. I work within the new and emerging business model, where artists and labels due use P2P as a way of promoting talent and making money. The problem is that these are new models we are experimenting with. Yes there has been successful models like with what Radio Head and others have done, but we're in the process of just learning on those successes and how we can apply those to different artists that are not as well known as radio head, and how to promote using P2P to effectively build a fan base where that model and others we are working on can be sustainable, and applied to older works. All of these newer models are only 2 years old, so they are still very new and we only have trial and error to work things through right now. It does take time.
Pushing through with monetizing the networks will help us in driving these new models forward, give us the time to fine tune them, and move forward to a direct relationship with fans funding their artists. Labels have a very much different roll now, and those playing that roll are starting to see their artists and profits rise. But we need more time to learn, and this is still in a very small portion of the industry.
I will be the first person to say that the members of the CRIA have done a wonderful job in pissing down a lot of careers because the way they have acted, but it's also important to note that it's not them asking for this. In fact they don't want this to happen. They are too busy trying to piss everyone off with respect to their belief system around P2P, to really push forward and learn with us.
It's the artists that are not with the major labels that want to move on with newer business models that want this to help mature those models. We want to show just how much Universal, EMI, Warner, Sony/BMG has decimated it's contracts to our peers, and we want to give artists signed with them an option to a new and profitable business model, that doesn't including taking up arms against their main source of income and fans. After that is established, let these labels burn. They won't have any talent left.
As for other industries, they will have to work on their own models that can be applied to this, and I know the software industry has quite a few very good and workable solutions already in play. It's a service industry..They might not need this type of compensation since the future of that industry is in the cloud. Ad models are already being put into video gamesâ€¦look at all the ads already in place on any EA sports game recently.
fixerdave [2009-07-28 23:23] Nº du commentaire : 1084 Reply to: 1034
While I pretty much agree with most things you've written, I don't agree that an ISP-level tariff is a good ideal.
"It's not complicated at all, it is the system used by our current traditional media…"
Actually, it is rather complicated, and while applying this model to profit-making websites that are in the business of delivering content makes a whole lot of sense, fairly applying it to all ISP traffic would be orders of magnitude more complicated. In the end, it would degenerate into a tax much like the media levy, which is unfair.
I'll use myself as an example… I have paid this levy on hundreds and hundreds of CDs, but, discounting a few direct copies of audio CDs that I own, such that I didn't have to worry about them being stolen from my car, I've burned, maybe, 3 or 4 audio CDs. And, I can guarantee that no one involved with the production of this music saw any of the levy that I paid for the media. The levy is, in effect, a general-revenue tax with a small promise of government support for popular Canadian artists. Any ISP levy would amount to the same thing. Personally, if we're going to fund Canadian artists through a tax, I'd rather fund the less-popular ones through income tax and be done with it.
Regarding a pay-for-production business model:
"And how do you perceive one would do that?"
"You need capital to get started in any business."
"You can't just pop online and say "Hi I'm Joe, and I need money to start making music". You'll be lucky to get 2 bucks."
Again, I'll use myself as an example. I am exactly in the place you describe. I have developed a web-system that is designed to solve this problem, Keliso, but I don't have the resources to make it work, and, like your Joe, I'd be lucky to get 2-bucks by just going online and asking for it. It's not just musicians that are in this situation, it's all creators of digital content, authors to programmers, photographers, journalists… everyone. Right now, just like a struggling musician trying to catch the ear of a producer, the only option I have is to wait for the right business person to come along. Just like the musicians that need money to buy gear to record music to prove that they deserve to be given money…, I need a system like the one I've designed in order to raise interest to build the system. So, yeah, I know what you're talking about.
But, as you point out, there are lots of new systems coming online and, sooner or later, my system or somebody else's, there will be a viable pay-for-production system. A system that will allow musicians, and people like me, to go online, say "Hey… I need money to…" and reasonably expect to get more than 2 bucks. The reality is that if people want the creative output of artists, they will find new ways to fund their work. It has to happen because the old pay-for-consumption systems are destined to fail.
"So you have to understand industry's point of view, and how much investment on older works pre-internet they have put into and stand to lose quite a lot of that investment because copyright isn't being collected."
Actually, once a viable pay-for-production model is in place, the holders of popular media rights will stand to make a killing through having communities of people fund the "release" of this content. Eventually, all media will be available under a free-for-personal-use system. Even media being held by people that refuse to move to the new system will eventually drop out of copyright, eventually. It will be in the rights-holder's best interest to "release" before then.
I also agree that the way forward is to connect the creators and consumers of content as closely as possible. The tighter the connection, the more support there will be. And, yes, the previous generation of media corporations have pretty well committed suicide through their failure to do so.
Other than that, it would seem that our only other difference of opinion is that you have a desire to smooth the transition from the old system to the new, where as I don't see that happening. I certainly don't want to pay for it. I expect, having a vested interest in providing an alternative, I'm a little biased in this regard.
Jkobo [2009-07-29 01:16] Nº du commentaire : 1089 Reply to: 1084
"fairly applying it to all ISP traffic would be orders of magnitude more complicated. In the end, it would degenerate into a tax much like the media levy, which is unfair."
Actually the technology is already installed at the ISP wholesale level, and with the major ISP's is already in place to track this, and in some cases as with Bell Sympatico it currently is being applied with respect to tracking. The same technology used to "throttle" the internet known as Deep Packet Inspection can also track content and media flowing through P2P, and can be modified to track other sources as well. Remuneration has to take place in order for the more consumer friendly new business models to emerge undamaged. What would be more unfair are laws that are put into place that continue down the path of self destruction and in a lot of cases "warring" it out through law and destroying or severely delaying a lot of potential income for artists, and moving forward in this debate. Canadians agreed on a huge increase on their cable bills to "save local TV" that was based purely on the mismanagement of these stations by the networks which I think is unfair, when we would be looking for a very small amount maybe a buck or 2 on Internet bills to help foster in a new era of media that is consumer friendly and to everyone's benefit, not a cash grab like what we will be experiencing on our cable bills due to CTV which was a bail out. The money made here would go directly into helping foster new innovation and business models, not for paying down company debt.
This wouldn't be based on the levy system we have for CD's. That was purely meant for compensating the artists and labels, and will not be a part of the next bill I can 100% guarantee this. It's going to be removed, the entire music industry hates it, and how it's been administered. No one has seen money from it, so that in effect will leave Canadians wide open for lawsuits which is what a lot of those in the new industry don't want to see happening, because it will affect our experimenting with newer business models and innovation. Even though the CRIA says it won't do that, do you trust them enough to bank your house, your college funds, or your wages on it? It will be up to you guys to either support new innovation and business models, or prepare for what's happening in the US. Your choice, and that's why this consultation is hugely important right now, and why I've dedicated 2 years of my life in helping fight for the chance to give Canadians that choice to voice their concerns and be included in the consultation process on copyright legislation. At the beginning as you see with C-61 they did not want to listen to you guys at all. A lot of us had to fight very hard to give you guys the chance to speak out. Let's make this count!
"The reality is that if people want the creative output of artists, they will find new ways to fund their work. It has to happen because the old pay-for-consumption systems are destined to fail."
But in order for that to happen on the opportunities we are presented with at present and too experiment with those opportunities, we need to shut the old industry up, and protect the systems we currently have in place from damage, or we'll be back at square 1 "again" when these turnips at the CRIA, and other industry lobby groups decide to move forward. It's already been a decade, and they've decided to decimate a lot of creative careers. How much longer do those in the creative industry have to go through this? A lot of us don't have any control over the lobby groups, we're not asking for anything close to what they are. They want to sue you, and restrict your access to information, we want to work with you and want you to enjoy our works, but are you willing to work with us to help all IP industries move forward? The choice is for Canadians to make, and I hope all of you chose wisely, not in spite of a few rouge entities that have acted like they would in a grade 2 classroom and don't represent the majority of talent in this country. It's also important as well for Canadians to rise above the grade 2 mentality industry has displayed, and realize there has to be compromises made on all ends of the bargain. Where those compromises will be and in what direction is entirely up to you. A few bucks is a small price to pay to protect the future.
fixerdave [2009-07-29 03:22] Nº du commentaire : 1092 Reply to: 1089
Okay, the basic idea is a levy at the ISP that is disbursed based on inspecting traffic. Now, best-case for your system, we all agree to allow this tracking (deciding to not encrypt/hide all traffic) and actually give the artists the ability to watermark the content to ease tracking. Everyone is on-board and saying "sure, let's make this easy to track."
Your problem is that you are taking an existing system that is based on top-down distribution channels through established corporations, corporations that can be sued if they toy with the system. You're then applying this system to a distributed network of individuals, some of which will toy just for the fun of it and others that will have a vested interest in skewing the results.
Right of the top of my head, I can think of several ways to game this system: At the most basic level, I could just ask all my friends to up the traffic, downloading my stuff 50 or 100 times each. The next level up, I could take my watermark and embed it in other traffic, thus getting money for traffic that isn't even mine. If asked, it wasn't me, I didn't do that… try to prove it. Next level, I could pay someone running a botnet to have his 1000/5000/10,000 computers download my watermarked work over, and over, and over… Again, if asked, it wasn't me… try to prove it.
And, that's off the top of my head, with no personal gain involved. Given the real possibility of gaining real money, I'm sure there are really smart people out there that would come up with much more innovative mechanisms, mechanisms that your system would have to contend with. It would be yet another digital arms race, and your system will lose.
Okay, now your system will need an Arbitration Board to weed out the obvious fraud, and an appeals mechanism, and legal recourse… But even if you do prove fraud, and do win the lawsuit, how much money are you going to get from the individual? An individual that's probably some kind of punk that just pawned his guitar amp to pay the back-rent. There's no money to gain, it's right back to RIAA suing the downloaders.
Like I said, orders of magnitude more complicated.
Your levy will end up being like the media levy, disbursed to people willing to play the political game.
Personally, I'd rather pay more income tax and then use the money to expand something like the Factor grants, or whatever existing art-supporting system you chose. Have grants for people that are trying alternative distribution channels, trying to get away from the pay-for-consumption model. That way, you'd get the money out there in at least a somewhat efficient system. It would sure beat building some new level of bureaucracy that feeds off a new tax that just wastes the money away into some vat of political crud.
Sorry to be so pessimistic, and I can see you are quite passionate about it, but I don't think your levy will work as intended.
Jkobo [2009-07-29 04:52] Nº du commentaire : 1094 Reply to: 1092
I think you're over analyzing hypothetical situations with respect to this issue, and talking about a system of watermarking that is not where I am at nor talking about here. You are talking about a different system of watermarking through DRM which was abandoned on large due to the failure of DRM. The tracking mechanisms would not be built into the file being shared, it would be through direct consumption. The watermarking displayed in those video's with respect to TV would be visual ads only as they are with TV. There has been an argument that this wouldn't be effective because people would replace these ad's or cover them up with something. That's currently not in play with respect to content already being shared, and if the content wasn't directly from the distributors official "scene release group" through P2P, other uploaders would be labeled as fakes or frauds and not downloaded. People on the P2P networks will download from a source they know and trust. How many times has AXXO being copied and those doing that identified as scum. If distributors started directly servicing P2P, the same loyalty can be built through them as with release groups currently in the "scene".
The system I'm talking about here would be in large part monitored through direct consumption at the gatekeeper level within Canadian borders, with registered ISPs who sign up for this and very similar to the rating systems we have in place for Cable TV which are fool proof. You would have to be running bot nets at the ISP to fool the system. What would be looked at is what's directly in the pipe from the ISP to your computer. Remunerations could be also cross checked and if necessary flagged upon any question of abuse, which would be fairly easy to see coming from a system admins point of view. I used to work at an ISP, even though bot nets wouldn't be an issue here, they are quite easy to spot out, thus nullify.
FYI the same system as what I am describing here is basically already in play. ISP's are currently using this system to direct market you, those that currently don't will in the near future. That came out of the CRTC new media hearings. There is not evidence of abuse within side the current system where money is being made. We would just be taking the information they already collect and throw it into a renumeration scheme. So the system we need for renumeration is already in play and tested as successful for extracting this type of information currently used for marketing purposes.
Now as far as a system where people let down their guard and participate, that can be on a voluntary basis as is with "nelson families" in the US. You should have the right to choose to opt out, or participate. It is possible to still renumarate based on the "nelson" voluntary style system which is effective in the US, and people should have the right to choose. I think a substantial amount of people will if it's administered and communicated properly.
Jkobo [2009-07-29 05:32] Nº du commentaire : 1095 Reply to: 1094
Another option to ensure file integrity, is also to start making deals with the system admins of the P2P sites, to ensure something that is legitimately released through their site, is not re-released under other release groups, on their site. Currently mininova offers up even to host legit files on their servers with the permission of the copyright owner for legal downloads to help with distribution and you get sort of like an "official" release status as "featured" content. Not everything on P2P is illegal.
Why doesn't the industry start paying these guys to help with distribution rather then sue them, which creates no money for the industry at all, and lost business opportunities for artistic talent considering we just need to throw a switch to monetize these networks. Everything to monetize is already in play for the most part.
fixerdave [2009-07-29 13:11] Nº du commentaire : 1103 Reply to: 1095
The problem is human, not technical.
"Remunerations could be also cross checked and if necessary flagged upon any question of abuse, which would be fairly easy to see coming from a system admins point of view."
Then what? You missed the primary point I was trying to make. If the money is going to corporations, then when you detect abuse, you have a reasonable target. If the money is going to individuals, you don't. Most corporations have a vested interest in staying legal; there are many, many individuals that have nothing to lose and money to gain.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if you're talking about building a system where our "Joe the Musician" can sign up and start getting a few cents per download, then you will have a system where individuals stand to profit from abusing it. The actual abuse mechanism is unimportant and I only tossed in a few to illustrate the point. If you deal with those 3, then another 3 will appear, and so on, and so on… That being the case, the whole thing will inevitably deteriorate into a digital arms race, and your system will lose. This is especially true when your "victories" involve RIAA-like lawsuits against penniless individuals that don't care.
Mechanisms that work perfectly well in dealing with corporations will not easily translate to dealing with individuals.
Jkobo [2009-07-29 15:01] Nº du commentaire : 1107 Reply to: 1103
Just as there are many ways to abuse the system there are as many ways to protect it. You can set up buffer zones, and check points with inside the system to catch abuse before payment is even issued.
As with any new system, including the internet back in the early days people came up with huge amounts of excuses not to move forward with change. People are scared of change.
Back in 1998, companies often treated the net as a non viable place to do business, stating "why would we need a webpage.". Now it's essential to have a website to service the market, just as it is essential to service the P2P networks now for media. That's where the market is.
A large majority of people in Canada use online banking and e-commerce, where there is a lot more money in play then what we are talking about here, and there are ways to detect and protect from widespread abuse in those systems.
Any human developed system will not be perfect, but providing a buffer to catch abuse would be the best way to learn and adapt where needed.
fixerdave [2009-07-29 17:58] Nº du commentaire : 1119 Reply to: 1107
In 2008, US merchants expected to lose $4 billion to online fraud (source available if you want it) I can't find the numbers for actual bank fraud in Canada, as the banks seem reluctant to give this information up… odd thing that. Suffice to say that their multi-million (if not billion) dollar systems are successfully targeted on a regular basis. And, this is transactions that are straightforward, whereas your levy system would include collecting tax from everyone into a general revenue pool and then disbursing it based on consumer usage. This is a system that disconnects consumers from producers, which will just increase the fraud opportunities and make it harder to track down those abusing the system.
And, on top of all this, we're talking about a government that can't even make a gun registry work, something that has to track a few million records at most and where all input comes from civil servants and police. You want them to make a distributed system that tracks user behaviour through deep-packet analysis and then deals with fraud while disbursing money?
Yeah, I'm cynical… way, way cynical. Given the Canadian government's track record, they would probably have to collect an extra $100 per month per ISP connection and take years of development before any artist saw a dime.
I'm sorry, but I think your levy system will not work, is way too complicated, and is pointless. All we need is a pay-for-creation system and we'll no longer need to worry about tracking usage and disbursing consumption-based funds. Yes, the transition will be messy, but revolutions ofter are.
I'm not afraid of change; I'm saying you're not changing enough. You need to step back and see that pay-for-consumption is finished and not worth supporting anymore. A pay-for-production system is the future; band-aiding the old system with a levy is not the answer, at least not one I would support.
Jkobo [2009-07-29 18:26] Nº du commentaire : 1121 Reply to: 1119
Not reliant, nor applicable to the renumeration system I'm speaking about. Let me throw this back to you another way. How can you defraud the current and traditional means of remuneration within media, such as Radio and TV ratings, with instances and proof behind it, or better yet why are so many ISP's putting in place the systems that can track renumeration for marketing purposes if they are not proven technology which is creating value.
What we would be doing is taking what's proven to work, and apply it to what we already know how to do in the new media market to this technology. That's all. It's not over complicated. Its very simple based on a system that is in play, proven and works.
You're starting to get into hypothetical and generalized situations that may not apply to this, and objecting to it. For every action there is always an opposite and equal re-action, and we can be afraid of the future, or we can deal with it as it comes.
The exact same objections you are giving me with respect to security and fraud are the exact same concerns many of my clients had in the early days of the interenet who were left behind when their competition started setting up e-business solutions to service their customers. Some of those clients who refused to change are no longer in business today.
You can exploit fear to delay change, but you can't stop it. The more this approach is delayed the more money is lost at the expense of creative groups.
Jkobo [2009-07-29 19:11] Nº du commentaire : 1123 Reply to: 1119
Just to put forth some other things that the public and creative groups especially need to be aware of. In submissions in both the Net Neturiality hearings and New Media hearings at the CRTC, all ISP's have confirmed the collection of marketing and renumeration data, and how that would apply to their own business models.
The ISP's will also try and debunk this method of renumeration as well, because they have plans to sell this the information collected to the highest bidder, which brings in huge competition concerns within the creative community. So in a sense this renumeration through ISP tracking is going to happen anyway, it's who's in control of that information, and what it can be used for to stop out smaller labels, distributors etc that will not be able to afford this data.
Laws need to be put into place to ensure that the collection of future renumeration data remain in the public domain to service all that need access to it as with our rating systems in traditional media.
Evidence of that this could take place is all over the written submissions through the hearings that took place at the CRTC over the past year especially in the New Media hearings, and Rogers written submissions.
Canada would be best positioned by changes that recognize that digital culture is essentially fluid. The digital landscape is a constantly changing one, one where creative works are synthesized, rebuilt, refined and lead the way to others on a near-daily basis.
Part of that does involve recognizing the need for artists' rights, but they also must recognize the need for consumers' rights. With the tools available nowadays, today's consumer is tomorrow's artist. Choking off their access to the works that will inspire them, and forbidding them to break down and "mash up" the works that did influence them that would be a tragic mistake.
We need to push Canada ahead, not pull it behind.
'The Pirate Bay' is about to be 're-packaged' into a 'legit' company. Global pirates are scrambling to 'share' the existing archives using this mirror app:
And, as is rightly stated, it is near impossible to prevent this kind of p2p/copying, especially when there is such an aggressive community that supports 'creative theft'.
I do not. I post the above link for people in this forum to UNDERSTAND how malignant this cancer is.
Every download for 'personal use' (blah!-such pigspeak!-) is a slap in the face to the original artist, regardless of all the 'yah, but, ya know, let's SHARE, why not' "Righteous Rebels" out there who so vehemently oppose 'Copyright'.
'Rip off' artists are bullying slime. They are equal to the "vampire squid" that are slithering thru the corporate world who are also trying make 'a back-hand buck' off this reprehensible behaviour.
Come on people.
Time to vote 'em off the island.
Protect, encourage, and support artists.
Jkobo [2009-07-27 17:30] Nº du commentaire : 986 Reply to: 984
Beside on what you may think, there currently is a levy in place that compensates downloading for personal use, and that not all artists share your views with respect to P2P and copying.
There is a growing number of artistic talent including the majority of our top talent in Canada along with our Canadian song writers that want to see this monetized, not banned, nor do they think downloading is theft or ripping them off:
Furthermore there is not evidence to prove your assertions of ripping off artists. The industry has yet to prove anything other then using P2P as a convenient excuse when record sales are down.
While your views are welcomed, the best way to protect our Canadian music artists is to stand side by side with them in calling for the monetization of the P2P networks, rather then demonizing their main source of income for their perceived problems.
rinzertanz [2009-07-27 22:26] Nº du commentaire : 1017 Reply to: 986
No problem with that.
You want to get paid.
I totally agree. You should.
What's disturbing is that it seems increasingly the norm to 'submit' to the belligerent behaviour and bullying tactics of thieves.
Jkobo [2009-07-27 22:48] Nº du commentaire : 1019 Reply to: 1017
Many in the music industry are using P2P and making money through it. The music industry has always relied on the sharing of free music to further interest in artists. How many times do radio stations offer up free tickets, and CD's in contests? Those CD's and tickets are not paid for they are given out to the stations as promo by their respected labels to generate interest within the talent being promoted and the stations itself. P2P is based on the same principle, and many are using it in that way successfully.
Regardless of the outcome, those using P2P will continue to use it, and it will get harder and harder to track..so why not make money off it instead by monetizing it. Everybody wins.
fixerdave [2009-07-28 00:15] Nº du commentaire : 1027 Reply to: 984
As a nonSequitur cartoon once put it… The World Ended, You're Just in Denial…
I am neither qualified nor have any interest in representing "the file-sharing community." Nor will I waste any effort on ethical arguments, because they're all pointless. They don't matter.
They don't matter because there are millions, if not hundreds of millions of people (and if not hundreds of millions yet, there soon will be) sharing files over the Internet. These people either don't believe or simply don't care that there is anything ethically wrong with what they're doing. The most perfectly-crafted and philosophically sound arguments will not change this. We're talking about millions and millions and millions of people.
The reality of the situation is that pretty well all available digital content will be freely copied, no matter the ethical arguments, no matter the digital rights management, no matter the laws built to prevent it. That's reality.
The amount of content that is freely available now is staggering, and growing by the day. It's absurd to think that taking down one site, like the Pirate Bay, will make the slightest difference. There is no need for people to be "scrambling" to move the content because it's already everywhere else. Everywhere. The Pirate Bay is/was one little storefront into a massive decentralised data warehouse. There are more of these storefronts than any one person could know.
Millions and millions and millions of people are not going to be voted off the island, as you'd like to see. These people are your future. They're not bullying you, there just moving on by while you're failing to keep up.
The creators of digital content will realise, sooner or later, that selling copies of something that can be copied for free is a really, really dumb idea. They need a new business model. It's not hard to do, even I've come up with a viable model. It won't be long before artists can make money alongside the file sharing community; if people want the content that artists create, there will be away.
It's not an ethical or legal argument, it's just reality. There's no point living in denial.
canadada [2009-07-28 07:17] Nº du commentaire : 1037 Reply to: 1027
A talented musician plays an instrument, or sings a song with perfect pitch. A techie TRANSFORMS that original work into 'digitial data', and moves it into the music industry for SALE.
A mindful author writes a compelling fiction or non-fiction book. It is TRANSFORMED into 'digital data', and moves into the publishing industry for SALE.
A painter paints using oils or acrylics, a sculptor shapes a new object, they are TRANSFORMED into photographs that become 'digital data' that moves onto the internet for promotional purposes with the HOPE of sales.
A photographer shoots images that are TRANSFORMED into 'digital data', (increasingly at source). THey too are moved onto the internet for promotion and SALE.
The 'creators of digital data' are NOT artists, they are techies who are feeding the replicating beast.
Techies who feed off the input of other techies to synthesize and re-arrange existing 'data' are just manipulators of 'data'. They are NOT the Original Artists.
That's the 'reality'.
fixerdave [2009-07-28 23:55] Nº du commentaire : 1086 Reply to: 1037
We live in the Information Age - where are you living?
We live in an age where stories are written, distributed, and consumed entirely within the virtual space, never being printed in physical form. The same can be said for music, for photography, and many other arts. Often, the original artists are the ones creating, digitising, and attempting to profit from their work. The Information Age allows them to cut out the middlemen.
Honestly, your argument makes no sense. What has "digital" got to do with what you're saying? Is a book that is typed on an old manual typewriter, printed on a press, delivered by truck, and sold in a bookstore somehow more pure than a digital one existing in a virtual space? Is it somehow less art? Is an old-school publisher any different than a modern one exploring digital distribution?
It sounds like you're complaining that art is commercialised, sold. If so, then your problem is with the Industrial Revolution, not the Information Age.
Now, if what you're trying to say is that there is a great yet completely decentralised effort underway to digitise and share all the creative works possible, then I agree. But, even then, you error by this SALE, SALE, SALE, attitude. In the information age, like it or not, it's FREE, FREE, FREE.
What, exactly, are you complaining about?
canadada [2009-07-31 12:15] Nº du commentaire : 1181 Reply to: 1086
I'm 'complaining' about the Double-Speak from people such as your self.
You 'herald' the elimination of the middle men and claim that now artists can "profit" on line.
Yet you end by saying "In the information age, like it or not, it's FREE, FREE, FREE."
So which is it? FREE or Not? Which SIDE are you on? Should artist be ALLOWED to DIRECTLY make money from their efforts ONLINE, or not? How can they if you, and those like you, keep demanding - it's all 'FREE, FREE, FREE'?
What YOU seem unable to SEE is that all this so-called 'FREE, FREE, FREE' biz is just an old-fashioned send-up to momentarily divert eyeballs before wallets are opened to PURCHASE something.
The internet may well be the greatest 'FREE' bulletin board since television, but, just like t.v or any other MEDIA you consume for 'FREE', it is SUBSIDIZED and unwrit by advertisers (self promo included) who are TRYING desperately to SELL you something.
You are delusional if you think that this FREE gravy train is going to last forever. It won't. If advertisers (investors) cannot get the revenue, or if artists can't generate the revenue, they'll WALK and go to OTHER venues that DO underwrite their art making endeavours.
What I am 'complaining' about is the artifice of people like you thinking, believing and promoting that 'content producers' (- lordy, how I 'HATE' that phrase- )(AKA 'artists/authors' )are, and should, do it all for FREE. They aren't, and they won't.
My bet is YOU, who are NOT an artist, see how YOU can somehow 'benefit' from SOMEONE ELSE'S creative effort and that's why you and your kind keep squEEEEEEEling for FREEEEEEEE!
fixerdave [2009-07-31 12:54] Nº du commentaire : 1187 Reply to: 1181
FREE to Consume, not produce.
The current pay-for-consumption system has FAILED, and no laws will change that. What we need is pay-for-production. Laws won't make that, but new business models will.
Artists/creators need to get paid for their work just like everyone else, up front. This idea that they can get money for copies of their work is dumb, dumb because their work can be copied for free.
I'm not saying that people should work for free, just that they should be paid differently. The current system will not work anymore, it can't work, and we need a new system.
We WILL get this new system, it is inevitable. As you say, the creators of content can't be expected to keep on going and going without getting any money back. If people want new content then they will find a way to keep the creators working. A system that does this is not hard to build… I've designed a system, Keliso, and either it or something else will be available soon. Then, this whole "how are artists suppose to earn a living argument" will be a moot point. They will get their money up front, before there is anything for the "copy techs" to copy. It has to be that way.
rinzertanz [2009-07-31 15:15] Nº du commentaire : 1199 Reply to: 1187
Keep us posted.
KELISO. Can I google that for FREE?
Sounds to me like a 'restricted access' and or a 'subscription' model, ie. consumers will PAY for content … close?
And, just out of curiosity, how is your new 'system' currently protected? Patent?
fixerdave [2009-07-31 16:35] Nº du commentaire : 1208 Reply to: 1199
"KELISO. Can I google that for FREE?"
Yes… You might want to narrow down your search a little though.
"Sounds to me like a 'restricted access' and or a 'subscription' model, ie. consumers will PAY for content … close?"
Nope, nowhere near close - opposite in fact. It's a donation-based pay-for-production model. Once a production is paid for and released, it is free for anyone to consume. (For-profit distribution would, of course, require more remuneration to the creator).
"And, just out of curiosity, how is your new 'system' currently protected? Patent?"
It's not, and that's why I've not "released" it. I'm not going to release it until I get paid. This is what I'm talking about… pay for production, not consumption. Now, if someone wanted to buy the idea before it gets released, then they may try to protect it… not my problem at that point. Obviously, I have low expectations when it comes to protecting ideas.
Of course, I'm not exactly getting any money donated to the release of this idea… but that's because there's not yet a viable pay-for-production model in place (read the "Expectations" entry for more on this). But, there will eventually be a system in place, mine or another's (probably both, and more). The creators of digital content will have viable options for getting paid before they publish their work. After that, the number of times it gets copied is a bonus, not a problem.
Oh, and once the new business model is in place, the current "owners" of content will be able to make money through releasing all of it, over time. Eventually, all content will be legally free for personal use. All of it.
Right now, we're just stuck in the transition forced on us by the Information Revolution. Revolutions are often messy. Eventually, we'll be laughing at these copyright laws the way we do about the old anti-car laws.
rinzertanz [2009-07-31 23:24] Nº du commentaire : 1236 Reply to: 1208
I agree that we are in the midst of some kind of 'transitional' revolution, one that has been cumulatively engendered by computer & software designers. The digital economy is 'taking over'. Like it or not.
Unhappily I can't quite SEE the execution of the 'pay for production' model you suggest. The only way to garner sufficient funds 'up front' is if that product is deemed of sufficient value & interest to the buyer. Not every buyer will have the same interest. That spells 'disaster' to me. How can one buyer PAY MORE, while another PAYS LESS, and yet they have the same 'product'? That will never fly on a consistent basis.
Also, I've worked 'on commission' before. It's very different then working 'on spec'. The BETTER work comes from 'the spec' endeavours because that's when I have the greatest liberty to create/produce what I want. I worry about 'selliing' whatever it is after it's done.
I'm still not convinced by your argument that all will be 'free' and that we'll be 'laughing' at copyright laws any time soon. But thanks for your opinion.
In the meantime, I still have to make a living, selling my art.
fixerdave [2009-07-31 23:46] Nº du commentaire : 1237 Reply to: 1236
"How can one buyer PAY MORE, while another PAYS LESS, and yet they have the same 'product'?"
Because, people aren't paying for digital content, they are paying for something else. This is going to be hard to explain without "releasing" the mechanism behind why I think Keliso will work… But, I'll try my best; sorry if it just ends up confusing.
Let's take a limited edition print for example. The photographer signs and sells only 100 of them for a high price but, to gain interest, basically gives the actual print away on the net. Anyone can download the print and enjoy it for free, but if they want something more, the exclusivity of the signed limited-edition print, they have to pay for it. Take the limited-edition print and copy it, and it's worth exactly what the free print is worth - nothing. You're not selling the print, you're selling something else… the "limited" part.
Now, this is not how Keliso works, but it is a crude analogy. On Keliso, the people donating money aren't really paying for the content, they are paying for something else. Funding the content is just a byproduct of the system.
You could make the same argument for the iTunes store… they're really not selling the music, they're selling a convenient hassle-free download service. Apple then just tosses some money to the original artists so they can continue using the content, to sell the service.
I'm sorry, but this is the way it's going to have to be. When content can be copied for free, and anything digital can, monetising is all about value-added. What we need is a way for Artists to do that monitising directly, and I think Keliso will do it. If not Keliso, then something else. It has to happen - the alternative is a world without professional artists.
rinzertanz [2009-08-01 00:09] Nº du commentaire : 1240 Reply to: 1237
Good luck with that.
Can't say I see it working, but again, hope it works out for you.
'Value-added' is a pretty common 'sales technique' as is a 'freebie giveaway' to solicit 'potential' sales.
Don't go spill the beans now and tell us how it REALLY works, cuz FOR SURE you'll never get paid for it with THIS crowd!
DenisT [2009-08-30 21:29] Nº du commentaire : 2139 Reply to: 1037
Then why are telephone books worthy of a copyright?
hkhkhk [2009-09-11 01:25] Nº du commentaire : 2425 Reply to: 1027
Good comment. I think you underestimate the potential of technology to be used in a fascist manner by a corporate police state. We might be entering a period of unheard of freedom or we may be entering into a period of unheard of control and police monitoring. It is entirely possible that every move we make online may one day be monitored and policed by government agencies. It really depends on how apathetic people are when it comes to their freedoms. I personally don't have a lot of optimism when it comes to that or our government's benevolent preservation of our freedoms. I forget who said it, but there is a quote that goes something like 'freedoms not cherished and protected are soon lost.'
fixerdave [2009-09-11 01:54] Nº du commentaire : 2427 Reply to: 2425
Yes… and no…
It is a double-edged sword, but think of it this way. Yes, the ability to monitor, and make sense of vast arrays of data, is becoming increasingly easy. But, so are the ways that we can monitor them, that we can communicate their transgressions. What good is monitoring everyone if taking action on what you see results in a firestorm by enraged citizens. Who has more to fear, one average person among millions or some politician? Who really has to worry about minor legal infractions? We can still vote, at least for now.
Yes, privacy is dead. But, if you look at the youth, they seem not to care. They publish intimate details about themselves and yet become upset when that information is used against them. While this attitude may seem weird to old-timers like me, it is justifiable in our new reality. You can't keep things secret, but you can complain about the people using this information against you. I suspect this is the way the future will work: Granted privacy through manners rather than real privacy.
Times change, privacy is gone, communities are virtual, new manners take hold to replace the obsolete ones. And, in an abysmal attempt at bringing this slightly back on topic, I don't give the idea of using copyright law to protect distribution that much longer to live either. The next generation will laugh about this like they laugh about our pathetic attempts at maintaining privacy.
Still, I look forward to the future…
La Loi sur le droit d'auteur édicte un régime oùle créateur détient des droits exclusifs pour l'exploitation commerciale de l'oeuvre. Ces droits peuvent êtres transférés à un tiers, comme un éditeur ou une compagnie de production. Ce régime est essentiel pour assurer un marché : le monopole économique permet l'émergence d'un effet de rareté en maintenant le contrôle sur l'exploitation ou la reproduction de l'oeuvre. Ce régime est efficace et il serait difficile de le remettre en question.
Par contre, si le monopole conféré au titulaire du droit d'auteur est absolu, il en résulte un scénario oùles titulaires peuvent invoquer des impératifs économiques pour bloquer toutes sortes d'utilisations, même si l'effet sur l'exploitation de l'oeuvre est douteux, voire inexistant. C'est pourquoi la loi édicte des droits d'utilisation équitable, exceptions au droit d'auteur.
Par exemple, n'est-il pas équitable qu'un enseignant, pour analyser une oeuvre d'art en classe, l'affiche dans une présentation via un projecteur numérique, voire de créer une page web qui affiche une image de cette oeuvre ainsi que sa critique, tout en indiquant la source de celle-ci ? Ou encore une adolescente qui puise dans sa collection familiale de DVDs afin de créer un petit clip humoristique grâce à quelques scè nes de films qu'elle partage avec des amies via Internet ?
Ou un chercheur qui reçoit une copie d'un article par voie électronique de sa bibliothè que, lorsque celui-ci est légitimement acquis ou obtenu d'une autre bibliothè que ?
Dans tous ces cas, ces individus ajoutent de la valeur à notre patrimoine commun soit en se perfectionnant, soit en assistant d'autres à se perfectionner. Dans l'économie numérique, il est important de reconnaître les droits des créateurs dans le contexte d'une exploitation raisonnable du monopole conféré par la loi. Par contre, les usagers ont également des droits, surtout considérant l'importance sociale de notre savoir et notre culture. Sans quoi, nous allons perdre la course aux octets en liant nous-même nos propres pieds !
La Cour Suprême a établit dans Théberge en 2002 qu' «on atteint le juste équilibre entre les objectifs de politique générale […] non seulement en reconnaissant les droits du créateur, mais aussi en accordant l'importance qu'il convient à la nature limitée de ces droits. D'un point de vue grossiè rement économique, il serait tout aussi inefficace de trop rétribuer les artistes et les auteurs pour le droit de reproduction qu'il serait nuisible de ne pas les rétribuer suffisamment.» (paragraphe 31). Retrouver cette balance, entre l'intérêt du créateur, l'impératif économique de l'industrie et les besoins des utilisateurs, est impérative dans la réforme de l'actuelle loi.
Il est clair que la meilleure façon de faire respecter le droit d'auteur est d'assurer une compréhension de son fonctionnement, pas de punir tous les usagers de bonne foi pour les crimes de certains. Les usagers et leurs institutions ont aussi des droits et la nouvelle mouture de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur doit le reconnaître.