- Post a comment
- Skip to the latest comment
- Back to the blog
As the federal government draws closer to introducing a new copyright law -- a proposed update was expected before Christmas but was withdrawn at the last minute, after a vocal protest involving a Facebook group set up by University of Ottawa law professor and fair copyright advocate Michael Geist, as well as other activity -- various groups are jockeying for position.
The latest entry is a formal "platform" statement from the Creators Copyright Coalition, an alliance of 19 professional associations representing writers, musicians, actors and other performers whose work appears in print, on stage, on TV and radio, in movies and in galleries. The document isn't online at the CCC website (at least as far as I can tell), but there is copy of the platform here.
From the looks of the copyright coalition’s platform, its vision of the future is one in which everyone pays more in fees, and Internet providers are liable for any copyright infringement that is transmitted over their networks.
Among other things (including a request that schools pay a fee to put on plays, something they are currently entitled to do for free), the coalition wants artists to have the explicit right to forbid -- or to charge money for -- the transfer of their work to another medium.
The CCC’s platform also wants the private copying levy, which adds a charge to the purchase of every blank CD in order to reimburse artists for illegal copying, expanded to include not just music but visual art, video, written content and other forms of art. The coalition recommends that "new tariffs be levied for the new categories."
Finally, the group says that it would be "only fair" to require Internet service providers or ISPs to "assume the responsibilities" of ensuring that content on their networks doesn’t infringe copyright. The CCC recommends that Canada adopt a notice-and-takedown process similar to that used by the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, making the ISPs liable for infringement.
Note: The federal Privacy Commissioner has some concerns about the copyright legislation as well -- in particular, the fact that some digital-rights management or DRM tools used by content companies can record information about people's behaviour, in breach of privacy protections, as well as the fact that a "notice and notice" process being contemplated as part of the law for ISPs would require those ISPs to retain information about their users in ways that would contravene privacy laws.
-
Chris Levesque from Calgary, Canada writes: I believe that artists and content creators should be fairly compensated for their work by the people who enjoy it. That being said, a blanket levy tacked onto the ISP bills of every Canadian, forcefully compelling them to pay artists whose works they may or may not otherwise purchase, is a completely unfair system to law-abiding consumers.
The moment I'm forced to pay copyright holders a blanket fee is the the moment that I become a pirate. I currently spend a few hundred dollars on new CDs each year; if a copying levy is applied to my internet bill, I'll turn to bittorrent and and P2P networks to acquire new music instead. Why should I have to pay for the same works twice -- once at the record store, and once on my ISP bill?- Posted 21/01/08 at 3:11 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Kevin Henning from Canada writes: Chris. Go ahead, you already pay a levy on blank recording media, including CDs. Everyone now seems to want a levy to cover the possibility that they may not get paid.
Of course, applying a levy for a dial-up internet connection really is free money for them... Why would you download at 56 kbps? What about people who have internet access from work? Do their employers need to cough up the levy too?- Posted 21/01/08 at 4:37 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Chris W from Sudbury, Canada writes: This is nothing more than the music (or other copyright groups) industry's answer to Governmental "Downloading" that happened a few years ago.
They don't want to be the bad guys and try to get "their" money back. They want ISP's to be the badguys.
If I owned an ISP and I was responsible for what my customers did, I would either close up shop while I was ahead or be forced hire a couple of good lawyers to drive my customers away in droves with dumbass lawsuits to recover my money.
I fully agree that artists of any type should get paid the same as the rest of us, it is their livelyhood after all. If they want to reduce pirating, etc, charge less for your work so more people would be willing to purchase it legally.
But, if the artists groups want the law passed, they should pay for the collection, administration and disbursment of the "fee". While their at it, they should also be paying for the mechanisms that would allow them to "monitor for copyright infringment". Maybe a huge and continued outlay of cash from these groups might get them to stop talking stupid once in awhile.- Posted 21/01/08 at 8:21 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
A. Nonymous from Starving Artist Ville, United States writes: Why don't we add a levy to restarant meals, because some people don't tip, depriving the waiter of compensation?
Why don't we add a levy to haircuts, because some people don't tip?
Why don't we add a levy to newspapers, because people can share them, and the writer only get's paid once.
Why don't we add a levy to everything? Everyone should be compensated. Let's just give all our money to the government, so they can give it to needy corporations, its our duty as consumers to make sure everyone gets compensated.
CONSUME! CONSUME! CONSUME!- Posted 22/01/08 at 10:06 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Gordon Duggan from Canada writes: It is worth noting that the CCC does not represent the position of all artists in Canada. The Appropriation Art Coalition represent 600 arts professionals including several Governor general Award winners. Many of our members are members of CARFAC and RAAV and do not support the position that creators need more "protection" our position is that creators need better access to create. We do not believe that in the false dichotomy of user/creator rights all Canadians are both creators and user. Debates rooted in this type of arguments dismiss much of the critical discourse of the 20th and 21st century and lock creative practice firmly into notions of 19th century philosophy. We have sent a letter to the Ministers outlining our concerns which the mainstream media have failed to pick up. The letter can be found at http://www.appropriationart.ca/appropriation-art-send-letter-to-ministers-prentice-and-verner.htm
- Posted 22/01/08 at 11:34 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Gordon Duggan from Canada writes: It is worth noting that the CCC does not represent the position of all artists in Canada. The Appropriation Art Coalition represent 600 arts professionals including several Governor General Award winners. Many of our members are members of CARFAC and RAAV and do not support the position that creators need more "protection" our position is that creators need better access to create. We do not believe in the false dichotomy of user/creator rights - all Canadians are both creators and users. Debates rooted in this type of arguments dismiss much of the critical discourse of the 20th and 21st century and lock creative practice firmly into notions of 19th century philosophy. We have sent a letter to the Ministers outlining our concerns which the mainstream media have failed to pick up. The letter can be found at http://www.appropriationart.ca/appropriation-art-send-letter-to-ministers-prentice-and-verner.htm
- Posted 22/01/08 at 11:42 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
jdegen Blow from Toronto, Canada writes: ... oh, and just to answer a point by Chris W from Sudbury -- in one of the models for compensation supported by creators, we do pay all those costs. Access Copyright is a copyright licensing and revenue gathering collective started and maintained by creators.
- Posted 23/01/08 at 12:19 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
jdegen - from Toronto, Canada writes: Well, I had another long comment in defense of the CCC, but it appears to have not made it online. How frustrating.
- Posted 23/01/08 at 12:24 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Duane Freemantle from writes: In an ideal world it would be acceptable to have a levy to reimburse artists for illegal copying. We have such tax or levy included in the price of some blank mediums such as CD and tapes. The nature of this levy was never designed to substitute illegal copying. With the language that they use it automatically assumes that we are all criminals, or some of are and the rest of use have to pay the cost to compensate the artist. The sole purpose of this "artists' coalition", is to find a new source of revenue and to have absolute control of their works of arts. For me to have my money go to a group of people who do not deserve it is wrong. Canada is a country that believe in the rule of law, and the CCC seems to believe that this system of broken.
- Posted 24/01/08 at 5:00 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment
This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?
You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!
Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.
Alert us about this comment
Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
