Canada copyright consultation: up to Aug 17
p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- Ottawa University student Frances Munn is back with a summary update, to August 17, of Canada’s copyright consultation discussions.
Here’s Frances, as published by Michael Geist on his blog »»»
Copyright and You — How do Canada`s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?
August 17, 2009 (841 responses)
Over the last couple of weeks, posters were concerned that the government would act in the interest of big corporations rather than consumers. Posters mainly urged the government to expand personal use protections, fair dealing, and create a technologically neutral law. Others opposed following the American example on copyright where individuals are being sued by powerful interests.
Highlights:
- The most recent poster identified as a musician and urged the government to leave copyright laws alone, arguing that he was happy that the Internet allowed people to have easy access to his music.
- A writer pointed out that he or she only makes five to ten cents off every book sold, but took a consumer centred position. He or she urged the government to limit DRM and statutory damages.
- Other writers argued that they need to be paid for their work in order to continue creating and urged the government to create laws that would ensure writers are fairly compensated.
- Another poster argued that a three-strikes graduated response law was completely unreasonable.
- One poster argued that copyright should stop pitting creators and consumers against each other. The poster proposed that creators be paid by public-private partnerships that draw on taxes, corporate profits, license fees, government subventions, and educational budgets.
- One person began a heated debate when he strongly opposed a something for nothing system, arguing that it is unfair for creators to produce work for free.
- Another poster began a debate when he suggested limiting copyright terms to five years.
Test of Time
Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?
Monday, August 17, 2009 (138 responses)
Posters pointed out that file sharing is almost impossible to stop and that the DMCA has had a chilling effect on innovation. One poster proposed banning DRM altogether, arguing that in the free market, industries should be left to adapt to new technologies. Others argued for expanded personal use and fair dealing rights.
Innovation and Creativity
What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?
Monday, August 17, 2009 (292 responses)
Highlights
- Several posters argued that anti-circumvention legislation destroys innovation.
- Another person argued that the law should protect the creator, not someone who wishes to use the creator`s work.
- One poster argued that copyright laws should be written in clear and plain language.
- A writer pointed out that they relied on book and article sales to make a livelihood.
Competition and Investment
What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?
Monday, August 17, 2009 (52 responses)
Highlights:
- One poster proposed lowering prices in order to sell more for less e.g. 1000 CDs for $1 rather than 100 CDs for $10.
- Another person suggested differentiating between commercial, public, and personal use.
- One person cautioned the government against protecting a digital media monopoly that will stifle innovation.
- On the other side of the debate, one poster began a heated debate when he argued that Canada needs iron-clad copyright laws to foster innovation.
Digital Economy
What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?
Monday, August 17, 2009 (330 responses)
Highlights
- The most recent poster cautioned the government against trying to control the spread of information on the Internet, arguing that it would fail in the long run.
- A poster argued for more freedom and privacy online and proposed implementing a levy on hardware.
- Another poster proposed differentiating between commercial use, non-profit use, and private use where private use is exempt from copyright restrictions.
- One person warned that crackdowns on P2P will only lead to increased usage and described a three-strike`s law as draconian.
- Another poster argued that anti-circumvention should not apply to locked cell phones.
blog – Tracking the Copyright Consultation Discussion Forum – Through August 17, 2009
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
August, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
It looks as though there is one asshole out of the masses who tries to go against the current. That poster could be one of “them.”
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 am
The bottom-line is that Canadians wouldn’t even be in this period of discussion if it weren’t for corporations! When the Internet was pretty much hands off from corporations a few years ago, this was the essence of a laissez faire economic model. It was only when corporations felt they were losing profits through peer two peer (P2P) sharing that the entertainment industry went into overdrive creating all these phony organizations like the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) that began lobbying the government to make more laws to protect them!
Only a few years ago, nobody every heard of throttling, who would have even dreamed that the Internet speeds which they connected to could be deliberately slowed down by corporations. If this would have been an issue when high-speed Internet first expanded, sales would have plummeted but once Internet content became so complex and high-speed became more or less an essential speed (not for only for file sharing but looking at websites that have media streaming content for example) then all of a sudden the suppliers of the Internet connectivity decided to interfere with users’ speeds. Why? Because it all comes down to profit! Why should I (the corporation) spend more money to lay out the expensive of expanding my network (via cable or fiber optic wire) when I can just charge the same price to consumers and just reduce their usage. That’s the only reason corporations are trying to slow down users’ connection speeds, in order to make the Internet viable for the actual usage people need and require means an outlay of capital. But throttling can only be a stopgap measure because the rest of the world is working at much faster speeds and connecting at non-throttled speeds 24/7. Even at the rate the Internet keeps on growing in demand, throttling will mean the destruction of those economies in the 21st century that give into corporate demands. Tell me, who is going to do business with Canadians in 5 years from now when the world is going the equivalent speed of a race car and Canadians’ Internet speed is the equivalent of a donkey pulling a cart? Giving into the short-term greed of corporations today means that in 5 years from now, Canada will even be farther back in the technological race; what nations would want to do business with us? Even if throttling would end in 1 year from now, it would take these companies time to finally expand their Internet capacity and in the end Canadians would still be behind those countries that are constantly upgrading their Internet networks!
The same goes for the selling of media, the newspaper industry isn’t whining to governments and lobbying politicians to outlaw Internet newspapers! Most of the print journalism is going the way of the dinosaur, it’s not only the small town newspapers that have gone under but many of the big names in journalistic print have either shutdown their print edition or are in the process of scaling down its print editions. It’s not the fault of Internet consumers that the way in which they rather read their news content is through the Internet rather than in print.
So too goes TV, music and movies–it’s not the fault of Internet consumers that they’ve made their own innovations in order to consume these entertainment products. The entertainment industry is crying foul, however the news media aren’t–they’re attempting to adapt. People want to see TV programs at their leisure and not when the big moguls decide to just show it on TV. Adapt and forget the old commercial format and program slots, sell viewership via the Internet! I don’t want to see commercials and I don’t care about waiting for you to decide what program slot is good for you, I’m willing to go on-line and pay to watch TV programs and my leisure! I’m paying too much for cable TV, how about dumping regular TV with direct Internet viewership. I bet in the end it will be a better deal for me and the companies producing TV programs can have their TV programs listed 24/7, then consumers can pay to watch their favorite TV programs when they want!
Music, the music industry has a lobby into order to pressure governments to close down the Internet sharing of music. Once again, the music industry is just like news print, you can’t undo invention. Consumers don’t want to go to music stores to buy marked upped CD’s! Get rid of physical music stores and just sell music on-line but add some innovation. Most CD consumers just want one or two songs from an entire album. So innovate, make a price list per song, give packages that essentially make it desirable that the cost of an entire album is equivalent to just 3 or 4 songs; believe me–you’ll make money! But what you don’t do is the equivalent of being a greedy news print industry with no vision and lobby the government to shutdown all Internet newspapers so consumers are forced to just go back to purchasing their news via print editions!
And finally the movie industry, get rid of DVD rentals completely! Sell digital movie editions that can also be played on Divx players so consumers can watch movies on their TV screens. You can sell specific registration only digital movies, whereby the consumer can either purchase a permanent key (so that the movie is owned by the consumer outright) or sell time sensitive digital keys whereby the digital movie can be rented by so many hours (have different pricing structures for 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, etc.). Also you’ll need to invest in a new Divx technology whereby movies will play once the permanent or temporary rental code(s) are entered. Also right now you have an antiquated release date system of movies, it’s no different than consumers being reliant on TV producers on what season and time slot (including day) TV programs are going to be put on. Consumers of movies have large appetites and if you (the movie industry) feed them well, consumers will eat up your products! So once a movie has gone off the screen, you have large delays in release times of this same movie to the DVD rental market. First by making very few DVD’s (for a niche market of collectors), you’ll be saving an enormous amount of money by not burning all these DVD’s for the rental market. Also, I guarantee your sales will go through the roof if you make these movies available for Internet sale and rental via the electronic system I explained. Not everybody wants to see a movie in a theatre or even has the time to see a specific movie before it’s removed from the theatre system. But imagine if you released this same movie within a matter of weeks or even less after it came off the theatre screening system, I’d guarantee you’d make alot more profit than you ever would under the current system of a lengthy delay followed by a DVD release throughout thousands of retail stores!
So my bottom-line is rather than inhibit the consumer with regulation that you’ve gained through your political lobbying, you (the entertainment industry) need to adapt rather than attempt to protect your profits through regulatory laws that guarantee the strangulation of consumer rights and freedoms! Adapt rather than regulate your way to profitability in that way you’ll win but also consumers will ultimately gain their freedoms of choice, availability and price; all without having sword of Damocles hanging over them expecting to be arrested because they are watching or listening to entertainment via the Internet!