p2pnet - rss feed: Truth About Copyright Revision
p2pnet.net News Opinion:- The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) recently released a document titled “The Truth About Copyright Revision“. It’s a collaborative work between people and organizations concerned with the direction that Copyright revision is taking in Canada, and offers a summary of our perspective as well as an opportunity for Canadians to sign-on to indicate their agreement.
I was a participant in that group, and want to add some context to the document.
While discussing this issue with many Canadians it reminded me of the “abortion” debate. People have very strong opinions, and have a hard time talking with the other side as they’re concerned about very different issues. People on either side of the debate don’t identify with the terminology their political opponents use.
I get quite emotional when called a “pirate” by content and software manufacturing industry associations. This accusation is as valid as saying parents who run Planned Parenthood hate children.
I am not pro-infringement simply because I oppose those making proposals they claim to be anti-infringement.
While I am strongly opposed to copyright infringement and speak against it at every opportunity, I believe there are far more important issues. I believe fellow creators should be more concerned with the centralization and privatization of the means of production and distribution of cultural goods and services. I believe that if policy makers continue the direction they have thus far taken that the harm to Canadian creativity will be far greater than any amount of copyright infringement.
I consider the solutions of the legacy content industries and some creator groups to be like amputating your arm because you have a painful paper cut. When I oppose them it’s not because I have no sympathy for their painful paper cut, but because I disagree with their priorities.
I don’t agree they’re trying to stop infringement, but appear to be trying to stop competition to their existing ways of doing things. I see them as trying to take technological control over the means of production and distribution through Digital Rights Management (DRM), as well as opposing a full spectrum of business models through their imposition on all creators and audiences of royalty-based Collective Societies through statutory and extended licensing.
My solutions take on a very different form. I strongly promote modern business models which harness rather than oppose new media. Many of these business models have innovative solutions to the infringement problem, with copyright infringement by private citizens of my software being something that does not happen.
I also create and strongly promote accountable and transparent Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) which puts the means of production and distribution in the hands of citizens, and out of the hands of DRM companies.
While parliaments have been hearing one side of the story, it’s important that they finally hear the other side. I believe “The Truth About Copyright Revision” document is a good summary of the position of those of us who are promoting new media and advances in Canadian creativity and innovation.
And there are other petitions you should consider signing:
Petition for Users’ Rights is a paper petition that follows all the parliamentary rules so it can be presented inside the Canadian parliament.
Save Canada’s Internet from WIPO is an online petition focused on issues with recent WIPO treaties, the same treaties that the USA claims were implemented in their extremely controversial Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Russell McOrmond - digital-copyright.ca
===========================
McOrmond is an independent author (software and non-software) who uses modern business models and licensing (Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Creative Commons). He’s also the webmaster for digital-copyright.ca
January 1st, 2005 at 3:58 am
If 11 year old children getting sued by a multi-billion dollar industry doesn’t change their mind, nothing will. They are a lost cause my friend.
January 2nd, 2005 at 1:01 am
I agree the dinosaur anti-new-media industry is a lost cause, and my message was not to them. My intended audience is the readers of P2PNet.net, many of which distribute information via P2P networks! It is “We the people”, the makers and citizens of the Internet, the P2P swarms, that need to solve the problem. The current attitude of many in the P2P community is, in my opinion, entirely backward!
While I agree that the punishment against these children doesn’t fit the crime, I agree with the industry that it is a crime. I also agree that what the industry is doing is criminal, but understand how in their little dinosaur brains that what they are doing makes sense. I know that they will not change unless we force them to change, using the only real power many of us have: consumer power.
You say you believe what the recording industry is wrong, and yet you appear to support those who are REWARDING this bad behavior by giving these industries free advertisement of their products (music, movies, software, whatever) via P2P networks. I think this behavior is both counter-productive and entirely insane, and should not be so easily forgiven. I do not forgive those who infringe the copyright of RIAA, MPAA or BSA members. It isn’t because I believe that infringement is theft, or that this infringement harms any of these organizations, but that I believe that their extremely antisocial behavior should be punished and not rewarded.
The best way to stop this multi-billion dollar industry from suing 11 year old children is to get those children and all adults to stop sharing or buying music where the musician hasn’t authorized it to be shared on the Internet. We must collectively tell the dinosaurs the only thing their small dinosaur brains will understand: YOUR FIRED.
Please listen to this advise and use your power as consumers to FIRE those in the recording industry who hate the Internet, and to encourage (though sharing and buying of music) those musicians who are part of the new media generation.
Russell McOrmond - http://www.digital-copyright.ca
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:46 am
I follow what you are saying and it does make sense however, there are some artists who are but slaves to the industry. Really good artists in fact. The industry owns subsidiaries which are actually spin-offs of a major big name label. These artists actually have the creativity to write their own music and I enjoy listening to it. The only way to legally listen to their music is to buy it which in turn helps the industry. I try to be pretty open to most music but when you have good artists (IMO) such as Porcupine Tree and Tears For Fears you have no choice except to turn away from their music completely. That’s really tough to do. I can’t think of many artists out there who have the same unique kind of style that these artists have. The artists will need to be the ones to have the courage to step away from the big name media labels. For them though it’s usually suicide to their career unless they can find a truly independant studio with enough big bucks to market their product. I believe that it’s true that marketing is extremely important. There’s something psychological there when you look at an album that has a great art layout on the cover compared to something that looked like it was whipped up in 10 minutes. If the CD cover label looks like crap, not as many people would buy it even if the music was good. For a good example of what poor marketing can do, take a look at Information Society. Yes, they are actually still around..it’s only one member now holding on to what was once a group. He is the last hold out. The latest album cover lacks the media luster of their previous album covers. The music itself is a little rough too possibly because this guy now has to do all the editing as well rather than having access to expensive studio equipment. Anyhow, that’s just my take on the whole situation as dismal as it sounds. The best we can hope for is that one of these P2P companies who are making money can start hiring artists themselves to make music to distribute on their networks. The artists could get a larger share of profit from advertsing revenue some networks derive perhaps or the music could contain links to their website where someone could order the CD directly from the artist themselves.