And the reward for least applicable physical analogy goes to…

More like

"I'd like to tinker with my own car. Change the oil, stereo, spark plugs, new tires, etc without having to go to the "authorized" mechanic .

That's the analogy with cars. We have rights to tinker with our cars, why not the digital products we buy?

No "cracking DRM on a song" for fair use is equivalent to "no replacing your car's stereo with a better one", unless you pay the company that made the car to install a stereo they "support"…

The car companies still have profits and an entire industry exists today employing thousands customize and fix your car.

You don't see the car companies whining about us fixing/replacing and owning the car they sold us or suing car owners.

Art jobs will flourish if we keep consumer rights, not vanish just like automotive repair shops flourish when anyone can fix any car.

Lock down cars with DRM and make it illegal to "crack" and lots of people will be OUT OF WORK!

I'm talking about digital media which can be reproduced easily.

A fender, bumper, spark plug cannot be reproduced digitally to assist in a physical vehicle. It can be reproduced digitally in a copy in the form of a picture, blueprint and 3D model but how is THAT going to help your car?

Besides, a scratched up paint job does not prohibit the vehicle from actually functioning and getting you from place to place. It's an esthetic issue you're talking about.

When an optical disc is scratched it can render it unusable. When you purchase a movie, music or computer software on a disc you don't own the content. What you get is a license to watch/use that content. If the disc is not usable then you can't watch it. These is no point for the consumer to repeatedly purchase the same license over and over and over.

I understand what you are talking about …

I have a collection of vintage vinyl that cost a small fortune back in the 60's. I mean VINTAGE, classic, irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind, limited edition collector near PRICELESS stuff.

I have painstakingly transferred it to tape.
I then tenderly transferred it to CD.
I have gently uploaded it to my computer.
Downloaded a 'remix' to my ipod and mp3 player.
I've carefully made another back-up CD, 'just in case', you know, cuz it might get stolen from my scratched up car… I sure have spent alot of time & energy doing that. But it's been totally worth it.

All in all, I have exponentially expanded THE VALUE of my VINTAGE collection. For sure, I've got something NO ONE ELSE has got. I've got COPIES in multiple formats - AS WELL AS the Original !!! (- that I'll never play anymore, btw, to preserve it's increasingly priceless value …) … Most importantly, I have created ASSETS that weren't there before, and guess what, I didn't have to pay for it 6 times over.

Pretty smart, eh?
Dude.

So what is your point? That shifting formats for something that you own is wrong? If you did the transfer for commercial reasons, with intention to sell the music further in whatever format, you would be committing copyright infringement and I hope you are not doing that. If you are using the transfers personally or sharing them for no profit, then it is your prerogative, as you own the original records.

As for your analogy about scratched car, unlike the cost of a car, the cost of duplicating a CD/DVD is minimal and the fact that it is hard (or impossible) to get it replaced if it gets scratched is simple ignorance on the part of content producers. We purchase cars with warranties and add insurance to accommodate for the high cost of their replacement. The high markup on CD/DVD sales should accommodate replacement of damaged media and hopefully there will be a legal requirement for content distributers to provide media replacement in the future (e.g., for Blu-Ray/HD-DVD media, which is fairly sensitive to scratches).

Thank you for your reply. … sigh … I weary of this whole thing. I thought my previous reply was kinda self-evident, but perhaps gentle sarcasm is lost on the zealous.

In any case, I do not sell or make multiple copies, I make originals, from SCRATCH, without a computer.

Little of my WORK is DEPENDENT on being PLUGGED IN. Rather, I use my eyes, my mind, my hands, the entire composite of my mind & body to make NEW things, be they paintings, pinhole photographs, Canadian fine furniture, hand-drawn type designs, and/or written words that become books, songs or screenplays.

I MAKE things that have never existed in the universe before. And I CREATE these things to SELL, not giveaway, or have copied ad infinitum by others who will never pay I make these things HERE, in Canada, I sell these things HERE primarily to Canadians.

It is not my 'dream' nor 'desire' to go 'global' or run a multi-million dollar 'multi-national' enterprise. I just want to continue to live a good life HERE - doing what I do best, selling to those who appreciate my on-going efforts.

I recently made my final submission to this site, I don't know if it will go 'on line' or not.

I have no sense what the present government will do, I do know that this incessant 'lobbying' for FREE ACCESS to EVERYTHING DIGITAL via 'P2P or 'filesharing' or 'copying' or 'borrowing' - by whatever EUPHEMISM you want to call 'theft' - is a somewhat deafening WAR CRY by those who ARE - somewhat pathetically to my mind - so computer & internet DEPENDENT.

I've had enough, & must now get back to more important things, like MY WORK.

"The old proposed C-61 made any copying illegal if a work was subject to digital copy protection, so it destroyed hundreds of years of legal development on what was "fair use"."

There are two misconceptions here:

1) Contrary to popular conception, C-61 effectively permitted circumvention of technological measures (aka digital copy protection) for "personal purposes". More specifically, while C-61 did prohibit circumvention, it also deemed that rightsholders could not seek statutory damages for circumvention for personal purposes, and given that actual damages would be impossible to prove, this effectively rendered it impossible for a rightsholder to even obtain anything more than an injunction against the activity. So, if a user circumvented for personal purposes, the worse thing that could happen would be a court ordering them to stop…and given that it would cost the rightsholder tens of thousands of dollars to obtain that court order, and given that it's also highly unlikely that a rightsholder would even be able to obtain an injunction against circumvention for personal purposes as it's very unlikely they would pass the standard legal test for injunctions, no rightsholder would ever pursue it.

Of course, the Government did a spectacularly bad job at describing this, and it didn't behoove critics of C-61 to point this out (after all, they were after maximum public outrage against the Bill), so no one seemed to notice or point out this detail.

2) We don't have "fair use" in Canada…rather, we have the more specifically defined "fair dealing". Unlike "fair use", "fair dealing" does not have "hundreds of years of legal development"…in fact, there is relatively little caselaw in Canada providing comprehensive guidance on fair dealing (the most comprehensive being the CCH case that was issued by the Supreme Court in 2004…only 5 years ago).

Many people in this forum have been advocating for "expanding fair dealing", or, in other words, adopting an American-style fair use doctrine. However, it should be noted that changing Canadian "fair dealing" from an exclusive, exhautive list to an inclusive list will introduce a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the law. Even in the US, whether or not a particular use falls within fair use can be very difficult to predict, and unlike the US, we don't have years of jurisprudence defining the scope of the fair use doctrine, and will have to start virtually from scratch. This will inevitably means more risk as even lawyers will not be able to give an opinion as to whether a certain use falls within "expanded fair dealing", and more copyright litigation as courts determine the scope of the new "expanded fair dealing". Consequently, while many may wish to see an open-ended fair dealing exception, there's something to be said for the certainty and clarity of an enumerated list of fair uses.

In almost all cases DRM overrode the new exemptions for private copying in Bill C-61 since it would have been illegal to use anti-circumvention software to override DRM or distribute anti-circumvention software for the purpose of enabling otherwise non infringing activities. This effectively eliminated fair dealing in the digital world. Facing a 20000 dollar fine for watching (note that's watching not copying) a DVD on Linux is ludicrous.

"In almost all cases DRM overrode the new exemptions for private copying in Bill C-61 since it would have been illegal to use anti-circumvention software to override DRM or distribute anti-circumvention software for the purpose of enabling otherwise non infringing activities. This effectively eliminated fair dealing in the digital world."

Actually, what I'm saying is that this blanket statement simply isn't true. While C-61 prohibited circumvention of DRM (subject to a host of exceptions for privacy, security, interoperability, etc.), by eliminating the ability of rightsholders to seek statutory damages for any circumvention done for "private purposes", C-61 eliminated the possibility of any actual sanction or penalty for circumventing for private purposes.

"Facing a 20000 dollar fine for watching (note that's watching not copying) a DVD on Linux is ludicrous."

This is a good example, becuase it illustrates my point. Under C-61, you would not have faced a $20,000 "fine" for circumventing DVD encryption to watch a DVD on a Linux system. The $20,000 "fine" you referred to is not actually a "fine" at all, but rather is the highest possible statutory damage award that is available under the Copyright Act for an infringement of copyright (the actual range is between $500 and $20,000 (altho it's within the court's discretion to go lower than $500 in appropriate circumstances), and I can count on one hand the number of times that the maximum amount has ever been awarded in Canada…only in the most clealr eggregious cases has this ever happened. While C-61 did permit rightsholder to seek statutory damages for circumvention of DRM (again, subject to exceptions), the Bill also prevented a rightsholder from seeking statutory damages against anyone who circumvented DRM for their own "private purposes", so anyone who circumvented for "private purposes" WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIABLE FOR STATUTORY DAMAGES. Circumventing DVD encryption to watch a DVD on Linux would certainly have qualified as circumventing for a "private purpose", so, at most, you would have been liable for actual damages…which, in this case, would have been negligable to non-existant (and, moreover, impossible to prove).

If you doubt me, here's the relevant provision from Bill C-61:

"41.1(3) The owner of the copyright in a work, a performer's performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) [circumvention of technological measures] has been contravened may NOT ELECT under section 38.1 TO RECOVER STATUTORY DAMAGES FROM AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CONTRAVENED that paragraph ONLY FOR HIS OR HER OWN PRIVATE PURPOSES."

Consequently, contrary to the blanket assertion you made above, C-61 contained a defacto exception for circumventing for private purposes…

I actually agree with you that it would be difficult to prosecute someone for watching a DVD on Linux, but it strikes me as a bad idea for the government to pass a law that makes or appears to make this action illegal, for one thing, it doesn't harm anyone. In fact, since I bought the DVD the action is helpful to everyone receiving royalties for it.

Thank you for pointing out the exemption from prosecution for private actions such as watching a DVD. That is a good clause. I still think Bill C-61 was poorly worded and confusing though.

In the example you use, what would happen if I wrote the software to decrypt a DVD for my own personal use and then posted it online?

Also, under C-61, couldn't the rights holder have gone after statutory damages for every song in the soundtrack of the movie, every frame in the movie that captured some copyrighted visual image, inflating the "$20,000 max" into the hundreds of thousands?

The provisions in Bill C-61 surrounding reverse engineering and the creation/distribution of anti-circumvention devices for legal, non-infringing uses were so restrictive that most of the other programmers I know were also opposed to the bill on principle because it outlawed or appeared to outlaw many perfectly legal activities.

Rest assured I would not bother to sue a student for pirating my work. However do check out the millions that UK wine writers have sued commercial interests over the unauthorized use of parts of their commentary (successfully). I applaud your enterprise in creating films for no monetary compensation. I chose to make my living writing and have done so. Wouldn't you like to see the day when you can create films and be paid for them?

"Rest assured I would not bother to sue a student for pirating my work."

Do you consider it pirating when a student quotes you (with full documentation) in their essays? While you and many other authors may not bother to sue a student, I can promise you it wouldn't be too long before someone did. What I was trying to point out was that the way you worded what you wanted in the new bill was way too dangerous. There are times that we need some ability to copy parts of a work without having to deal with compensating the author, filmmaker, musician, etc. in order for our society to properly function.

"UK wine writers have sued commercial interests over the unauthorized use of parts of their commentary (successfully)."

If the works are used commercially (unless it falls within fair dealing rights) I believe an author, filmmaker, or musician should have the right to sue.

"I applaud your enterprise in creating films for no monetary compensation. I chose to make my living writing and have done so. Wouldn't you like to see the day when you can create films and be paid for them?"

If I could make a living off filmmaking, I would. That said, I would not stop anyone from using my films in anyway for non-financial gain. They could share it online for free, remix it, write about it, etc. as long as they didn't try to make money directly from its use. It's free advertising!

You are probably trying to figure out why I'd allow my work to be shared so freely when trying to make money off it. Let me explain a bit of where I get this idea. I live in Toronto, but I went to film school in Thunder Bay. While I was there I discovered the Japanese pop group Hello! Project online (through a music video posted on youtube by a fan who did not have the rights to do so). I quickly began downloading more and more Hello! Project music (for free through filesharing programs) until I returned to Toronto. When I got back to Toronto last May, I found an import shop that carried Hello! Project CDs, concerts, posters, and calanders. Interstingly, the things I bought first were all things I had downloaded already because I knew I liked them. Since then I have spent about $1300 on Hello! Project merchandise. I go to that store every week and I also buy Hello! Project things online if the store can't get them. I also still download the new releases because often they become available earlier through radio rips and promotional video rips. I also have to wait anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to get my physical CDs shipped over the ocean. I remember listening to the song "Mikan" while going to pick up the CD at the store. Had Hello! Project or the law come after me for my downloading back when I first found Hello!Project, they would have prevented me from becoming a paying fan.

Gojira, surely you can see that a 'writer' of a full length book is fundamentally different from a 'musical group' who sells t-shirts & posters along with their CD's. There is really no comparison. And, increasingly, I am beginning to believe that this 'distinction' must be somehow built into any 'adjusted' legislation.

I also don't believe Ms.Swaine is attempting to restrict use of her work thru study and/or critcism. That 'consumption' does, as you've mentioned, inadvertantly increase her 'audience'. What she and many other authors object to, especially those who make a full-time living from their writing, is the blatant 'copying' and/or distribution of full texts. How is she meant to 'live' if she can't get paid for what she does? Words are her artistic medium. She doesn't sell t-shirts or posters or give concerts. She is selling her words.

"Gojira, surely you can see that a 'writer' of a full length book is fundamentally different from a 'musical group' who sells t-shirts & posters along with their CD's. There is really no comparison."

Actually, yes there is. Correct me if I am wrong, but I imagine J.K. Rowling has made a fortune off posters, shirts, calanders, mugs, hats, shoes, underwear, public appearances, action figures, dolls, and CDs (if she has worked her contract right) connected to Harry Potter…and all she did was write a few books.

Another good example comes from manga distribution in North America. The popularity of certain manga scanlations (fan translated scans of manga shared online for free) have been used by North American publishers to determine which manga will sell well here if they bring it over from Japan. People download manga, read it, love it, and then buy it if/when it is finally released here. Then they also buy posters, wall scrolls, anime, live action film versions, mugs, hats, shoes, underwear, cosplay costumes, figurines, dolls, CDs, and calanders. The manga and anime producers/distributors in both North America and Japan have actually benefited a lot through what would be considered copyright infringement (scanlations, dojinshi, and fan art for example).

There are actually a lot fewer differences between how books, music, and films can build fanbases and make money than I think you realize. It's all in how you and your fans manage to exploit the technology to your benefit, rather than you manage to restrict it's use.

MOST writers are not in the position of Ms.Rowlings, and, most WRITERS are not in the manga business. These authors represent is a VERY VERY SMALL fraction of the LARGER writing community.

There is no question that both have, as you say, "exploited the technology to benefit". And yes, they have spun auxcillary products as a net result and made LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of MONEY.

Yet, even so, in Ms.Rowlings case, I am quite certain that the terms of her FIRST contract with her publisher were what most authors would expect, a small advance (if that), with a small percentage of royalties, (usually 10-15%).

It is ONLY by virtue of the unprecedented media attention and sales of her FIRST work that ALLOWED her to RE-NEGOTIATE her contractual terms and build her literary empire.

She is, BY FAR, the exception to the rule.

For every Rowlings there are 1000's who can't 'break in' or 'catch the wave' of 'popular culture'.

There are also, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, 1000's who don't WANT to.

Academics write scholarly works that amplify their research and CONTRIBUTE to their own specialized field. Knowledge moves forward as a result. Is their work of less IMPORTANCE or VALUE then Ms.Rowings?

Or, are freelance authors & journalists who - THINK & WRITE about the causes of the degradation of the planetary environment - who THINK & WRITE about the economic convulsions at the heart of North American enterprise - who THINK & WRITE about the swelling underground 'capitlistic-corporate' movement in China - are their WRITTEN WORKS of any less IMPORTANCE or of less VALUE just because they are not 'commercial' and don't sell 'auxciliary merchandise' like t-shirts & dolls?

No. It is THESE writers who need both copyright protection and monetary incentive to CONTINUE their good 'fact finding' work. Their work contributes, in untold ways, to OUR greater understanding and KNOWLEDGE of humanity.

Their contracts will NEVER be like Ms.Rowlings. WHY? Because what they write about, and who they write for, are light years AWAY from 'pop culture'. They are the WRITERS who not only PERCEIVE but PURSUE what others just cannot or will not SEE or HEAR.

Their AIM is not to write 'fantasy entertainment' that you will CONSUME.

Their AIM is to write about the 'Real World': the one that includes real people, working at real jobs, living with real families, trying to raise 'real' children, living in a real place on a real planet.

They deserve to have their work Protected by Copyright. They deserive to get PAID for the often thankless & hard work they do - for US.

I'm an academic and I don't get paid directly for my articles. I get paid to teach. While I'm in favour of copyright protection for my work, I am most concerned with the moral rights covering attribution and integrity of the work. I actually want people to distribute my work widely (so long as my name is attached) because that will hopefully increase the number of people quoting and using my work.

I do agree with a lot of the authors who have posted complaining about publishers with restrictive contracts. I want my work to be freely available on the web… in many cases publishers want to charge for this and restrict access, which is exactly the opposite of what I want.

It's incorrect to assume that all creators want restrictive copyright laws, in fact, it seems it's often the publishers and distributors that want this not the creators.

I wonder what you would say if you DID make your FULL income from writing …

Would you be so eager to give your work away?

And yes, I agree that publishers & distributors often try to dictate the terms of any electronic rights. (Those third-party clauses can be killers…) It is possible though to negotiate the terms that you want. If you're still unhappy, you can take your manuscript to another publisher, or, failing that, just upload your 'content' to your own blog or website … without pay …And stick with the 'day job'.

The same thing actually. I've read the studies showing that people who are heavy P2P users buy more music so I believe that people who enjoyed my work would pay for it anyway as long as my work was available in the format they wanted or needed (print, electronic, audio). I don't think non-commercial copying is keeping most writers from giving up their day job… I think it's hard to become so popular that you can just write.

"I think it's hard to become so popular that you can just write."

I agree.

Wow, are you trying to be insulting or does it just come naturally!
What I'm reading in your posts is essentially- if you're REALLY a professional then you will agree with me, if you don't, you must be an amateur and I can therefore dismiss you.

There are more ways to make a living than relying on the artificial scarcity model set up by post war neo-capitalism.

If your actually curious about someone that's managing to make a living "giving" his books away, check out Cory Doctorow:
http://craphound.com/
But taking this approach means using ones imagination to see things in a new way…

In Doctorow's words: "eBooks are a tool for expanding your existing publicity and marketing.
It follows that the right time to do a free ebook release is when the printed book is available, so that the deal can be consummated quickly. Asking internet users to remember how intriguing that download they found all those months ago was until the book hits the shelf is impractical. The internet's attention span is about five minutes, so unless the reader can do something affirmative to acquire the book within five minutes of being enticed by the ebook, there's a good chance they never will."

The net is a publicity tool, first & foremost. So, sure, release any potential 'freebie' as long as the actual 'merchandise' is available for purchase. That's how you'll MAKE MONEY at it. Otherwise you're really just being a 'net slave' for FREE …

I also think it has alot to do with whether or not you are a 'brand name' with "60,000" people you can email your 'latest book' publicty to.

Most academics and/or freelance writers and/or other 'writing artists' don't have those kinds of numbers to START with. Nor do they have the ability to necessarily SELL via the web.

It's not for everyone - regardless that the CURRENT 'PUSH' is to make it the 'Only Way', imho.

It's in those niches that the Internet is most adept at getting writer/artists and their audiences connected to each other (you know the Long Tail).
Cory got those numbers by putting himself out there- he was doing okay before, but by leveraging the CC he really exploded.
I only pointed him out because he is more visible, but I know that there are a lot of people out there that are able to make a living (not a killing) by developing a very specific and dedicated audience.
I think we are moving towards the ultimate fragmentation of the creative markets, and I don't think that's a bad thing- I would like to see us move away from the lowest common denominator of "pop" culture.
As a side note, I only listen to music released under a CC license, or by people I know directly that are producing work within my own local community- I think localized cultural production is as important as local food production, neither is getting the focus they need right now.
In terms of writing, right now I'm reading The Purple Button by Esmond Skidmore, he was a substitute teacher when I was in public school. I know others who have written books, a lot of them can't find a publisher, so no one gets to see them, and that's where my push comes from.
The creative class needs to be supported from the community level up and restrictive copyright and a product centric view of cultural dialog is not going to accomplish it.

You might be interested in the book by Anne Elizabeth Moore, entitled - 'Unmarketability: Brandalism, Copyfighting, Mocketing & The Erosion of Integrity'. Available at your local library. I'm quite certain you can not download the ebook, yet.

She was founding editor of the underground 'community' zine called 'Punk Planet'. She has since 'moved' onto & into a completely different 'niche' now with thenewpress.com, as an 'author'. Seems she now wants to get paid a bit more for her thoughts & writings. And FAIR ENOUGH.

As she puts it - too often before that she was working below minimum wage (somewhere below $7.50 an hour, in the U.S. )

It is altogether tragic that our potential 'cultural workers', the true LIFEBLOOD of our political & imaginative nerve endings, are 'existing' at such meagre levels.

And yet, the fact is, it is a competative marketplace.

If you want to 'have a voice' let alone 'be big' you've got to assiduously cultivate your 'markets' aka 'niche audience', as you say, to 'rise up'. To that end, yes, the net is providing the opportunity for lots to get further afield then they might ever do within the confines of their 'own community'. As for the long haul, well, some 'make it', most don't. That's Life.

When you stop selling what you 'create' to 'friends & family' and entire into a legal contract with a 'mainstream' distributor (btw, newpress.com is 'mainstream' by 'freenet' standards, ) - it's a WHOLE different ballgame.

Welcome, like it or not, to the 'Real World'.

Well, keep your "real world", it's not mine.
And yes, I know the one you're talking about, it's pushed into my face all the time- but I'll tell you it's not the WHOLE world.
I don't want to "have a voice" or "rise up" or "be big", I just want to "make a living"- and I'm not middle class, nor do I want to be.
To you I am invisible so I might as well fade back into the oblivion…

You still might want to consider Anne Elizabeth Moore's book. Try your library.

I am familiar with her work- I just don't agree with it- commodification is commodification no matter how you frame it- I'm a staunch anti-consumer, sorry that my existence doesn't fit in any of your boxes.

"property is theft"- to really understand what Proudhon was meaning by that statement (not just a knee jerk reaction) then you'll get an idea where I'm coming from- and by extension why I see IP widgets as absurd!

Proudon was a great thinker & his work was published.

My thoughts are my own.As are yours your own. I cannot think your thoughts, anymore then you can think mine.

You are prepared to 'give' Proudhon HIS thoughts and recognize them as HIS. You are prepared to attribute those thoughts to him. You'll even 'quote' him to bolster your own argument, ie.you'll 'use' and 'copy' him.

How is that any different FUNDAMENTALLY then respecting MY thoughts if I publish -?

I accept that my thoughts are part of a continuum of influences, they are not mine in any other way than to express, once I've done so, I again no longer own them.

I quoted Proudhon as a specific reference point within the context of our shared historical context, a kind of short hand to save some typing, but I know that those thoughts have been expressed before in one way or another and will be expressed again in one way or another.

And, in point of fact, I will respect your thoughts if you publish, if you don't want to share them, I won't read them.

I get it.

You'll only read them if I publish 'for free' on the web …

No, I'll read them if you demonstrate a willingness to share, there is a difference, you just don't seem to want to see it.

If all you want to see is "what's wrong" then that's all you will see.

I certainly cannot see "what's right".

At the moment, all I'm getting is that you just WANT it YOUR way … 100%.

No middle ground, no negotiation, & 'no prisoners'.

This is becoming pointless, I am positing that it is you who are unwilling to compromise.

You see things in black and white, I was trying to show you some grey areas and you don't want to see it.

This has become tedious and I will stop responding now…

Good luck in your world of scarcity and paranoia :-/

Ditto.

Good luck in your world of limitless 'abundance' and 'FREE "love" …

To the vigilant, think about the obvious limitations of OIL as an ENERGY source, think about the scarcity of FRESH WATER globally, and please THINK about the eroding Rights of Women & Children and the billions of 'Un-Users' world-wide …

"Actually, my guess is that the movie production company is making (the lion's share) of revenue from sales of merchandising product (calenders, t-shirts, etc.), not Ms. Rowling."

They would be making the lion's share, but Rowling is more than likely receiving royalties on each one as well for the use of her characters.

"Further, should she not have the right to keep amateur writers from, oh, say, writing about how Harry Potter lost his virginity? That too, is part of copyright."

If somebody wants to write about how Harry Potter lost his virginity in their spare time, post it online, and share it with the world for free then I don't see why not. Fans write fiction about all their favourite characters from Captain Kirk to James Bond. If they were writing about how Harry Potter lost his virginity, it would probably be classified as parody and then fall under fair dealing anyways. To refer back to my manga example, a lot of doujinshi is actually sexual stories about various popular manga characters and it has done nothing to harm the original creators and the original work…it has actually benefited them greatly.

"And why is it for us, in a democratic, free-market society, to decide how much money Ms. Rowling is "allowed" to make from her work? It is, after all, *her* work."

I never said she should have a limit to how much she should be allowed to make. If she writes a book people believe is worth paying for, then they WILL buy it. If people don't think the book is worth paying for, nobody will buy it. No amount of copyright legislation is going to change that. Why is it that she should be entitled to money just because she wrote a book? If I write a book, should I automatically be entitled to make money off it just because it is a book?

"MOST writers are not in the position of Ms.Rowlings, and, most WRITERS are not in the manga business. These authors represent is a VERY VERY SMALL fraction of the LARGER writing community.
Yet, even so, in Ms.Rowlings case, I am quite certain that the terms of her FIRST contract with her publisher were what most authors would expect, a small advance (if that), with a small percentage of royalties, (usually 10-15%).
It is ONLY by virtue of the unprecedented media attention and sales of her FIRST work that ALLOWED her to RE-NEGOTIATE her contractual terms and build her literary empire.
She is, BY FAR, the exception to the rule."

I know. I was justing using them as an example of how a writer CAN make money off more than their writing when all they did was write a book. However, in today's world, you don't even need to go through the trouble of finding a publisher anymore to make money off your writing. You can set up a website, write any fiction you want without publishers interfering with the content, and ask for donations. If you take the time to advertise your work online (offering some for free through filesharing, making commercials for youtube, creating a facebook pages…the list goes on and on), you can make some decent money without ever going through a publisher. The Korean film "My Sassy Girl" was originally a true story being written by a guy about his own life on a blog. I bet the he made a pretty penny when it was made into a film, a Japanese TV Drama version, the (lousy) US remake, and the Bollywood remake.

"For every Rowlings there are 1000's who can't 'break in' or 'catch the wave' of 'popular culture'."

Yeah. Sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you don't. Same with sports, film, music, politics, etc. Welcome to real life. If you can't make money as an author then you need another job. No amount of copyright legislation is going to change that.

"There are also, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, 1000's who don't WANT to."

Then they need another job too. No amount of copyright legislation is going to change that.

"Academics write scholarly works that amplify their research and CONTRIBUTE to their own specialized field. Knowledge moves forward as a result. Is their work of less IMPORTANCE or VALUE then Ms.Rowings?"

I'd be quite willing to argue it is of equal value, just in a different way. Is it right to keep valuable knowledge locked behind fees so only those that can afford the fees can access the knowledge?
"Or, are freelance authors & journalists who - THINK & WRITE about the causes of the degradation of the planetary environment - who THINK & WRITE about the economic convulsions at the heart of North American enterprise - who THINK & WRITE about the swelling underground 'capitlistic-corporate' movement in China - are their WRITTEN WORKS of any less IMPORTANCE or of less VALUE just because they are not 'commercial' and don't sell 'auxciliary merchandise' like t-shirts & dolls?

I think and write about copyright and my view on it because I think it is important. I discuss it a lot online, write to politicians, and alert my friends to negative legisaltion and treaties like Bill C-61 and ACTA. You are doing the same here from your perspective. Both of us are writing about something that is important, but neither of us are getting compensation for it (unless you are being paid by some industry to do so and I don't know about it).

"No. It is THESE writers who need both copyright protection and monetary incentive to CONTINUE their good 'fact finding' work."

That is a complete falsehood. I research things and get involved in political issues like copyright because I believe they are important, not because I believe it will earn me money. I make short films because I love to, even though I gain no monetary compensation from them. I write in my spare time because I love to work out stories, not because I believe I am entitled to money for doing it. Has society degenrated to the point where it feels research and writing is only as important as the money they will make off it? What a sad state we are in if that is true!

"Their work contributes, in untold ways, to OUR greater understanding and KNOWLEDGE of humanity.
"Their contracts will NEVER be like Ms.Rowlings. WHY? Because what they write about, and who they write for, are light years AWAY from 'pop culture'. They are the WRITERS who not only PERCEIVE but PURSUE what others just cannot or will not SEE or HEAR.
Their AIM is not to write 'fantasy entertainment' that you will CONSUME.
Their AIM is to write about the 'Real World': the one that includes real people, working at real jobs, living with real families, trying to raise 'real' children, living in a real place on a real planet.
They deserve to have their work Protected by Copyright. They deserive to get PAID for the often thankless & hard work they do - for US."

So only those with money should have access to information on world events? Only those with money should have access to the newest medical findings that could save their lives? Is that what you want copyright to be about? That's what it seems like to me.

One last question for you all: do you all believe that a copy of writing distributed for free automatically equals a lost sale?

Gojira,

That both you & I are TAKING THE TIME to write about an issue that is of importance to both us - FOR FREE - does not mean that everyone else MUST or SHOULD.

The first half of your argument says that if writers can't earn their keep from writing, they should get another job. The second have of your argument says that writers should give away what they write - they must SHARE what they know and NOT do it for money.

So, which is it? Should writers, scholars, educators, poets, lyricists, novelists, screenplay writers, documentary film-makers, journalists, advertisers, publicists, speech writers, and manga authors SELL their words, or not?

What is WRONG with earning one's keep in this way?

And WHY must ALL succumb to the internet to SELL? Google is NOT 'God', the 'One & Only Way'.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is a kind of anarchy. 'Free for all, and the rest be damned.' In the 'real world', people just do not have that kind of LEISURE. They have bills to pay, families to feed, things to look after. They have RESPONSIBILITIES.

Just because you are a hobbyist, a part-time dabbler in the writing/film-making realm, does not mean that everyone else has to FOLLOW 'YOU' or 'be like you'. That kind of thinking is just 'out to lunch'. People WORK for MONEY. And they want what they work AT protected from theft or seizure. That's what 'copyright' is for. To PROTECT their WORK from people like you who just want to take everything 'for free'.

It seems to me that you just have absolutely no respect or understanding of the VALUE of OTHER PEOPLE'S time. You want them to live THEIR Life YOUR way, in free 'service' to you.

Well, guess what, they don't want to, and they won't.

Meikipp has summed up my view way better than I have been able to. EVERYTHING he/she has said falls perfectly in line with what I think.

"I've read the studies showing that people who are heavy P2P users buy more music so I believe that people who enjoyed my work would pay for it anyway as long as my work was available in the format they wanted or needed (print, electronic, audio)."

This is the whole centre of my argument. I already showed myself as an example of this. I downloaded Hello! Project music for a while and eventually became a paying fan. In order to be a paying fan, I have to import CDs from Japan (which is a hassel) and pay Japanese prices for them. It costs $10 for the regular edition of a single and $15 for limited editions of the singles. There are usually two different limited editions for each single and I always try to buy both of them if I can. I also download them on their release dates to hold me over until the physical copies cross the Pacific. As I've said before, free online distribution by fans can encourage sales rather than discourage them.

"I wonder what you would say if you DID make your FULL income from writing …

Would you be so eager to give your work away? "

Why do we have this idea that it is imperative that people be able to make their WHOLE living off writing? What's so bad about just making some money off writing rather than all your money?

"The first half of your argument says that if writers can't earn their keep from writing, they should get another job. The second have of your argument says that writers should give away what they write - they must SHARE what they know and NOT do it for money. So, which is it? Should writers, scholars, educators, poets, lyricists, novelists, screenplay writers, documentary film-makers, journalists, advertisers, publicists, speech writers, and manga authors SELL their words, or not? "

Yes, they should sell it. They should not, however, be allowed to sue poor students, homelesse people, dead grandmothers, and the like for non-commercial uses of their work such as university essays, scanlations, or being read out load by Kindle to a child. Look at what meikipp and I have said about music. A download does not equal a lost sale. It seems to increase them, with me and my $1300 I spent on Hello! Project CDs/DVDs being a fine example. If I download the first Harry Potter book and it turns me into a fan, I'll probably go buy it, all the other Harry Potter books, movies merchandise, and then get into whatever Rowling writes next. Right?

You say - "Why do we have this idea that it is imperative that people be able to make their WHOLE living off writing? What's so bad about just making some money off writing rather than all your money?"

Again, with the 'godepeak'. WHY do WE have to do YOUR way?

You say - "Yes, they should sell it."
HURRAH, you have given 'us' permission. Thank you o'mighty one. We are now ALLOWED to write & sell!!!! … truly, thanks for that.

You say: - "They should not, however, be allowed to sue poor students, homeless people, dead grandmothers …"

Your beef is with the licensing Agreements with Distributors. And on that I do agree, suing a college student who knowlingly & 'illegally' downloaded over 800 tracks over a number of years from pirated distributors for several thousand grand is excessive. However, and on this I agree with the 'legit' Distributors, there ought to be a limit to how much 'dead grandmothers' aka 'students' can 'download' FOR FREE. I understand there is some kind of 'Notice & Desist' action developing, or something similiar to that, but I don't know. I don't download music. I go to second hand shops or listen to the radio.

If we WRITERS are SELLING our works, (thanks again, phew, had me worried there…) we WILL give away SOME in the name of 'good will' but we are NOT GIVING away our livelihood. (See original posters comments on this thread to that effect.)

I tend to think this is more a question of 'sampling' anyway. Perhaps that would be a BETTER model: to give away 'extracts' then entire texts. That way everyone wins. If something written entices ENOUGH the entire texts can be purchased, or, at a later date, 'borrowed' from the library. In that way, you get what YOU WANT, and the writer SURVIVES.

Pirates, btw, who take and send WHOLE literary TEXTS are VERY DIFFERENT then academic colleagues who freely exchange 'ideas' to develop working hypothesis', or software. Surely even YOU can SEE that.

Also, I've noticed throughout this forum that there is a GREAT propensity by a select few to rant on about the music industry. Again, that is only ONE ASPECT of the entire 'entertainment' -let alone ALL- industry that you and dead grandmothers want to CONSUME for FREE. It is not, and should not be, the 'model' for EVERYTHING else, (especially now that you've GIVEN US PERMISSION to SELL our work.)

I personally think the likelihood of you buying Ms. Rowling's next tome, regardless that you are her BIGGEST FAN, is nil. You MIGHT buy one for you children, but, personally, I also think that highly unlikely. For obvious reasons.

"Again, with the 'godepeak'. WHY do WE have to do YOUR way?"

You never answered my question and instead resorted to a personal attack. Do you or do you not have a counter point to my questions? Why do we have this idea that it is imperative that people be able to make their WHOLE living off writing? What's so bad about just making some money off writing rather than all your money?

"You say - "Yes, they should sell it." HURRAH, you have given 'us' permission. Thank you o'mighty one. We are now ALLOWED to write & sell!!!! … truly, thanks for that."

Yet another personal attack.

"Your beef is with the licensing Agreements with Distributors. And on that I do agree, suing a college student who knowlingly & 'illegally' downloaded over 800 tracks over a number of years from pirated distributors for several thousand grand is excessive."

Thankfully downloading music isn't illegal in Canada and hopefully Clement and Moore will not try to change that. The public's ability to download music for free off p2p sites does not hurt the music industry, but instead increases artist exposure and helps increase sales. I know this is a fact because I am a living example of it.

"However, and on this I agree with the 'legit' Distributors, there ought to be a limit to how much 'dead grandmothers' aka 'students' can 'download' FOR FREE."

I don't think there ought to be a limit. If I used up my limit on BoA or Koda Kumi before I bothered to try Hello! Project, I would have never become a paying Hello! Project fan willing to cross half my country and the Pacific Ocean to go to their concert.

"I understand there is some kind of 'Notice & Desist' action developing, or something similiar to that, but I don't know."

It's called three strikes legislation. If the music industry accuses your IP address of downloading music three times you get cut off from the internet, have to pay your bill, and cannot switch to a new ISP during that time. There is no due process, you have no chance to prove you didn't download, and it is all based on the music industry's accusations. These are the same accusations that have falsely accused homeless people, dead people, disabled people, and even printers of downloading. We must work hard to prevent this from happening in Canada.

"I don't download music. I go to second hand shops or listen to the radio."

I bet if you tried it out you'd see a whole different side of the copyright debate.

"If we WRITERS are SELLING our works, (thanks again, phew, had me worried there…) we WILL give away SOME in the name of 'good will' but we are NOT GIVING away our livelihood. (See original posters comments on this thread to that effect.)"

So you are a writer. I thought so. You still seem to think that private copying for non-commercial reasons will result in lost sales for you. I find that rather ironic as I can walk into a library and get a writer's whole life's work for free. Do libraries result in lost sales for you? Should we ban libraries in the new copyright bill because they allow me to obtain access to your livelihood for free? If I accessed your book online you'd be mad and want to sue, but if I go borrow it from the library then it is all right. Do you not see some hypocrisy in that?

Look at the Bible. It is available online in just about every version and in every language, yet it is consistantly a best seller and has been for centuries. I can go online and search for any specific verse for free much easier than flipping through the 1000+ pages of the book, yet the book version still sells at an outstanding rate.

"I tend to think this is more a question of 'sampling' anyway. Perhaps that would be a BETTER model: to give away 'extracts' then entire texts. That way everyone wins."

That's all fine in theory, but that method has already been tried and has failed countless times. There is absolutely no way to stop people from sharing complete writing, music, and films online. Downloading is not about just about sampling and cost (though sampling and cost do play into it)…it is, for me anyways, mostly about having things now. Let's go back to my Hello! Project example for a second. I have to wait at least a week (usually more) from a CD's release date in Japan to get it brought over the Pacific Ocean and into my CD player. I usually just download the whole song to hold me over until it finally arrives and I often listen to the song as I go out to buy the CD. Since all attempts to surpress p2p have failed (and future ones WILL fail), why bother trying when you could put the energy being used to try and stop p2p into developing a way to co-exist with this technology? That way people could share the works for free and the authors, musicians, and filmmakers could get paid. "That way everyone wins."

"Pirates, btw, who take and send WHOLE literary TEXTS are VERY DIFFERENT then academic colleagues who freely exchange 'ideas' to develop working hypothesis', or software. Surely even YOU can SEE that."

I do. It was Ms. Swaine who suggested "We need to make sure that nothing gets reproduced without compensation to the writer."

"Also, I've noticed throughout this forum that there is a GREAT propensity by a select few to rant on about the music industry. Again, that is only ONE ASPECT of the entire 'entertainment' -let alone ALL- industry that you and dead grandmothers want to CONSUME for FREE. It is not, and should not be, the 'model' for EVERYTHING else, (especially now that you've GIVEN US PERMISSION to SELL our work.)"

Hmmm, yet another personal attack. Anyways, the reason everyone is ranting about the music industry is because they are the ones who have made the biggest fuss about downloading, have made the biggest mistakes in their "sue 'em all" campaign, and have influenced politicians to restrict perfectly legit uses of their media (like making backup copies). Music is also small enough to download quickly, unlike HD films which can take hours if not days depending on the host and your connection speed (again, its that 'instant' aspect that we like most about downloading). When it comes to books, well…my generation generally doesn't read (except Twilight and Harry Potter), reading a whole novel off a screen isn't very much fun, and it is too much of a bother to bring a whole laptop onto the bus or subway just to read a novel.

Honestly, I don't think writers have much to fear from p2p and their work being posted online. The aspect of the internet writers do have to fear though is the fact that it allows people to do so much in one place that they have just sort of lost interest in books.

"I personally think the likelihood of you buying Ms. Rowling's next tome, regardless that you are her BIGGEST FAN, is nil. You MIGHT buy one for you children, but, personally, I also think that highly unlikely. For obvious reasons."

Another personal attack. I have actually never read a Harry Potter book. I don't have children. I fell asleep half way through the first film when watching it at my cousin's house. The likelihood of me buying Ms. Rowling's next book is indeed nil, but not because I plan on copying it for free. I may buy it for one of my children when I have some though.

Why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine?

Libraries purchase inventory thus supporting living authors/musicians/film-makers/scholars/journalists. Downloading off the net is not a purchase. Why don't you get your FREE STUFF from the library? At least in that way you would be indirectly subsidizing living creators.

Everything in LIFE is not free. You may just have to wait, and WORK, for the THINGS that you want. Just like everyone else.

Perhaps if you were an actual creator attempting to make a living from your craft/discipline/words you would see the whole issue differently.

You might want to try that for awhile. Try living without the internet, like 5/6ths of the people on the planet. Try living without the luxury, the assumption, the presumed power.

… Could you do that?

What if you did not have the choice? What if the internet just STOPPED? What would you DO?

How would that change your thinking I wonder?

"Why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine?"

You just don't have a counter point to my argument, do you? Which questions of yours did I avoid? I am quite willing to take them on because I have no fear that I am wrong and won't be able to answer.

"Libraries purchase inventory thus supporting living authors/musicians/film-makers/scholars/journalists."

The original uploaders (generally) purchase inventory, thus supporting living authors/musicians/film-makers/scholars/journalists. All that content has to get online from somewhere, right? The majority of the time it is a purchased source. Even films recorded in the theatre are replaced with a purchased source as soon as possible because the recorded version is always lousy looking.

"Why don't you get your FREE STUFF from the library? At least in that way you would be indirectly subsidizing living creators."

Which library has Hello! Project CDs? Does ot have them the day they are released in Japan? They are no help if I have to wait for them to cross the ocean as I already have my own copies coming by then. I've told you already, if I like what I download AND I have the ability, I do buy it. Mp3s and avi's are too easily lost or damaged in a computer crash, take up a lot of harddrive space, and are lower quality than the purchased item. If I think whatever I've downloaded is trash, I delete it because it takes up too much space. If I can't buy it right away, then I keep it and the creator will just have to wait until I can. If it's unavailable for purchase or there is some other road block in my way to purchasing it, then nobody's lost any money anyways.

"Perhaps if you were an actual creator attempting to make a living from your craft/discipline/words you would see the whole issue differently."

If I want to make wheels for people using horses and buggies, will I make a living off that? Of course not…using horses and buggies has become a thing of the past. Consumers have chosen cars over horses and buggies. No matter how much I may want to make a living off making buggy wheels I can't because that's not what the consumer wants. If I really loved making buggy wheels I could make a few and perhaps sell them at a market or fair as a novelty, but I'd need to make my actual living doing something else. It's called consumer demand and it should dictate the market, not legislation and greedy music labels. Please read the post by i_love_the_sgi_stl@yahoo.ca which is right after Margaret Swaine's initial post for an indepth and educated explaination on what I mean.

"You might want to try that for awhile. Try living without the internet, like 5/6ths of the people on the planet. Try living without the luxury, the assumption, the presumed power.
… Could you do that?"

If 5/6ths of the planet can't download content for free online, then what are you so worried about? I personally couldn't live without the internet as it is the only way to follow what new music and films are being released in Japan. Also, I wouldn't be able to support Hello! Project as easily because I'd lose access to CDJapan. Cutting me off from the internet would be a hugely negative thing for the creators of the content I love, not a positive thing.

"What if you did not have the choice? What if the internet just STOPPED? What would you DO?"

Panic.

"How would that change your thinking I wonder?"

It wouldn't. It'd strengthen my belief that the internet is a wonderful thing because I'd be so limited in the information I had instant access to, compared to what I have now. The internet is a good thing and you don't have to be afraid of it.

Filesharing has been around for 10 years. Do we still have musicians making a living off their work? Yes, more than ever before. Do we still have a film industry? Yes, and it is making record profits despite all last year's movies being trash. Do we still have writers making a living off writing? Yes. Why then do you have this idea that the internet is a threat to these people's ability to make a living off their work? Since it hasn't hurt them over the last decade, why do you think we need to suddenly stomp out this technology now?

You wrote- "I personally couldn't live without the internet".

That seems the crux of the WHOLE 'problem'.

I could.
Quite happily.

Techno-DEPENDENCY ought to be a CHOICE, not a dictatorial 'Live-or-Die' 'Absolute'.

The ability to use a simple pencil to write & draw one's OWN thoughts is of FAR GREATER IMPORTANCE - in the LONG RUN - then the entire 'plugged-in' 'digital economy' … And that is WHY 'copyright' for 'Original Creators' is at 'issue' here.

Thank you for this enlightening discussion.

Gojira54,
Actually, my guess is that the movie production company is making (the lion's share) of revenue from sales of merchandising product (calenders, t-shirts, etc.), not Ms. Rowling.

Further, should she not have the right to keep amateur writers from, oh, say, writing about how Harry Potter lost his virginity? That too, is part of copyright.

And why is it for us, in a democratic, free-market society, to decide how much money Ms. Rowling is "allowed" to make from her work? It is, after all, *her* work.