Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Minister Promises to Fix Copyright Law
Mashiki writes "In Canada, we can download Mp3's and their assorted goodness without too much of a hassle, recently the CRIA and their friends lost the court case. Well, it would appear that the new Federal Heritage Minister Helene Scherre, has spoken and those words were: 'As minister of Canadian Heritage, I will, as quickly as possible, make changes to our copyright law.'"
So does that mean the CD-R Tax disappears?
/not canadian
Implicit Evaluation with PHP
That a federal election isn't that far off... And slogans like "Helene Scherre wants to put your kids in prison" look great on T-shirts and the news...
Between governments and the people. Already countries have to compete for the best citizens. Eventually they will realize this means making laws people _like_ as well. I'll postpone my departure to Canada until the dust has settled.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Fair enough. Some people download music, some people don't. But consider his quote:
/.'ers comment that the music industry is holding onto a failing business. We don't need them anymore. Despite being wrapped up in the industry by being the winner of a [cheap knock-off] American Idol* contest, he sees the Industry's role as "a new way to survive," as opposed to some criminal challenge that they must overcome.
"I think it's a challenge for the industry, to try and find a new way to survive."
This lends creedence to many a
My hats off to him, especially given his previous quote, "Whether people download or not, as long as they're listening to music."
* Yes, I'm a Canadian. Paul Martin has yet to earn my respect.
Canadian Idol winner Ryan Malcolm expressed skepticism, and suggested the Canadian music biz find a way to live with file-sharers.
"Whether people download or not, as long as they're listening to music," he said.
"I think it's a challenge for the industry, to try and find a new way to survive."
Wow I've never heard that from someone outside of slashdot, now we just need american idol singers to say that, and maybe nsync and britney spears, then MAYBE (doubtfull) people would listen.
What really kills me is that Bill Mahr (I think he's really funny and I love his show on HBO) calls downloading music stealing just like tons and tons of other people. It isn't stealing, you can't steal something by copying it, I wish more people would understand that. It's copyright infringment, not stealing.
So in what world is putting a file that you do _NOT_ own the copyright on, and have not actually obtained permission from the copyright holder to copy for purposes beyond fair use, in a publicly shared folder for others to obtain _not_ a violation of the copyright act?
Downloading copyrighted materials may be perfectly legal in Canada (albeit unethical IMO, since one is aiding another in violating copyright), but it makes no sense to even _BEGIN_ to tolerate uploading whenever and wherever you can positively ascertain that it is occurring.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The court decision inspired panic in the Canadian music industry; industry spokesmen were predicting the collapse of copyright control would cause severe financial hardship for people making their living from music.
If only the people making their living weren't suffering at the hands of labels and record companies/associations already, I might even agree with the people on this side (the CRIA) of the fence.
We all know that artists who don't make enough drama or news to get endorsements, major deals and huge publicity, already have a difficult time making their money from their music alone.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
The key part of the Canadian ruling was that sharing files is perfectly legal. They didn't say distributing was.
Basically, if you leave a copy machine in a room full of copyrighted books, no copyright violation has been comitted. Now, that copy machine could certainly be used in infriging ways, and it can also be used in a few ways that are okay under fair use. But if the machine just sits there and nobody uses it at all... then there's no way there's any infinging use could have happened.
Translated to the digital world, a server that is offering files up for download can't infringe any copyright until somebody actually accesses the files to make an illegal copy. And this brings up a Catch 22 for the "copyright police"... see, in order to actually prove that there was a download they either have to either intercept a download in progress (good luck doing that...) or they have to initiate a download themselves, but whoops... if the copyright owner tries to download their own work, they can't possibly infringe on themselves!
So, basically, there's a problem in the law that's driving the "copyright police" crazy... short of the copyright pirate confessing, how are they gonna prove that an actual violation took place?
This is very bizarre, isn't it. In my country, alcohol is treated in this way: artificially high taxes (meant, in this case, to keep consumption down - for national health reasons, they say), and laws against making your own (for the same reasons, manage consumption).
Ok, the analogy might not be perfect - but shall we treat music as a barely legal drug?
668.5
"However, at the same time, it must be noted that more c90% of proceedings from CD sales go to the record labels."
For what it's worth, it's a little different down here in the US. A CD that you see in the store for US$12.50 was sold into distribution for about $8.00 -- so about a third of the price you pay goes to the channel.
You're correct that the record label collects that roughly $8.00 at which the CD is sold into the sales channel, but in most cases, 100% of that $8.00 ends up going to somebody's salary, whether they work at the CD pressing plant or they're the engineer behind the board or they're the graphic artist that did the artwork. When you phrase it in the form "sales go to the record labels" it may give the impression of going into some vault somewhere. The distribution, sales and marketing of hard goods may be inefficient, but inefficiency != evil.
"The vast majority of artistes vehemently support electronic means of music distribution over the CD method."
Interesting, I didn't know somebody'd taken a poll. Do you have a citation for that statistic? Does that count signed as well as unsigned artists? The A&R guys see so many demo CDs -- from more artists than they could possibly sign -- that I just don't see the math working here.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Haven't you ever heard of price fixing? This should be something along the same lines ;)
From the beginning of CD times, the price to manufacture a CD record has gone down all the time. Yet I haven't witnessed a single price drop in CD prices. Somehow the laws of supply and demand don't work in the record industry and I fail to see how this is not a monopoly/cartel. Think about it: Same companies all over the world. About the same price levels everywhere, regardless of record company or country.
Yes, I do believe politicians are indeed "fixing" things for the record industry. What else is new? Recording industry is just too powerful. The real question is what to do about it. My ignorant answer is that bands should become independent entreprenours and forget about the record companies altogether. 100% is a lot more than 5% or 10% even if you lower your prices a bit. I don't know what the current percentage of profits for the bands is but I do believe some the OSS principles could be applied to the music industry and the rest would be pretty simple to work out with common sense. Or then I'm puffing on the wrong ciggie again.
Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
You guys are this close to getting voted off the continent. Yeah, I saw Mexico's confessional the other week, and they're just itchin' to cut you Canucks off.
In all seriousness, for as fun as it is to rip on Canadians, being a (United States of) American myself, in the last few years I've come to appreciate Canada a lot more. Despite the fact that we share so much of our culture (Quebec residents excluded), this only serves to highlight some of the differences in our attitudes and our social and political systems. Sure, Americans find a lot of little things about Canada weird (mounties, mooses, and Manitoba, to name a few), but I think Canadians have been a great check on our sanity as of late. A lot of Americans like myself look to those funny guys up north and think, you know, if they go for public health care and sit out aggressive invasions, there's hope for us, too.
Which brings us to copyright law. The recent ruling seemed an inspiring victory, not necessarily for filesharing, but for users' right to privacy on the Internet. I really hope that all you Canadians out there manage to fend off this current threat. Ideally, I'd like to see Larry Lessig's system, wherein musicians are paid directly a share of general royalties collected based on their popularity (a la ASCAP), implemented somewhere (you could even start funding the royalty pool with the levy on blank CDRs). Who knows, if it works out well enough, maybe we'll even steal the idea (a la Lorne Michaels, Dan Akroyd, Mike Myers, etc.). Good luck, my Canadian friends.
(Just a side note: I'm a Michigander, which is about as close to a half-breed as you can get. If any statements seem incongruous, consider them sufficiently explained.)
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
Her email address: Scherrer.H@parl.gc.ca
& u=/washpost/ 20040330/tc_washpost/a34300_2004mar29
Paul Martin's email: Martin.P@parl.gc.ca
Honourable Ms. Scherrer;
I have heard your recent comments about seeking to change the Copyright Act.
I would urge you to consider very carefully what steps are taken in any changes to this act. As the act stands, Canadians pay a levy on
recordable media, money from which specifically goes to the music industry in compensation for supposed lost revenues.
As such if the law is changed, I would also expect any media levies to be immediately lifted, as the proper method for handling any cases
of copyright infringement would then fall to the music industry and the legal system of Canada, and not to a discriminatory levy applied
to the majority of law-abiding citizens.
Beyond this, the issue of whether revenues are lost at all is entirely debatable, as you can see in this story from the Washington Post
citing a study done by two university researchers specializing in economics:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story
I realize that I am not of your riding, but I have been a Liberal voter for many years now, even though I live in Calgary, Alberta. I
am probably one of the few Liberal voters here.
However, this issue of copyright is a very important one to me because those countries that address the issue properly stand to be at the
fore-front of the information economy. Limiting information flow to prop up business models that simply are no longer feasible is not the
way to go about this. While I do not support the policies of the Conservatives, your actions on this issue will certainly be enough to
determine whether I decide to place my vote in a party other than the Liberals in the coming election.
I do not feel that I am alone.
Thank you for your time.
Name & Address Stuff
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
http://cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html
I think that those who compared the sharing with installing a photocopier in the library are on to something. The trick questions is: what is distribution? IMHO, we should re-evaluate what consitutes a "distribution", given that it became so cheap an simple with the advent of the Internet.
Just like people noted before, when I share a file on a p2p network, I'm not really distributing it. Every downloader had to 1. get a computer 2. get an Internet connection 3. get a p2p client 4. find the file 5. initiate the downloading. Understandably, there's an illusion of a distribution here, because a p2p network beats any library by its size, and all of them put together by its content, but I am still willing to argue that downloaders do more for the "distributing" than the sharers.
Sharing was made possible by a technology that could not be envisioned when the copyright law was created, and we won't get far by suing people who engage in it. A legal change is what we desperatly need: a kind of a copyright law that would allow artists to get paid, while all people are able to share the information in an unrestricted manner, for non-commercial purposes. I'm am of opinion that art will survive even if we go all the way and declare information free, but heck, I'll settle for a voluntary collective licensing scheme too.
Having said all that, the minister seems to be moving in just the opposite direction, but after I've seen RIAA, I'm not surprised anymore...
I respect "copyright" in the original sense; something about promoting the sciences and useful arts, remember?
I do not respect the disgusting perversion of copyright that greatly restricts new art based on the old (How many of Walt's classic movies are an entirely new storyline and NOT based on fairy tales, legends, or other earlier works? Steamboat Bill Jr, anyone?). Most art, and perhaps all science, builds on what has been done before. To quote Einstein; "If I have seen further than other men, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants"
I do not respect the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" (Sonny Bono, etc), a 'copyright' extended so far that any work you see created in your lifetime will not enter the public domain until long after you die.
And I do not respect the DMCA, a disgusting perversion of 'copyright' that restricts what has traditionally been 'unregulated' use. Not just fair use, but 'unregulated use' completely unrelated to the act of 'copying' in any traditional sense. Studying and understanding something that I legitimately bought, or even using something that I OWN in unconventional ways.
I know what I believe in. There's no contradiction here.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
After reading this post, I was left more sympathetic for the Copyright Goon. Why, pray tell, is the Judge so hell-bent on ignoring the obvious conclusion?
I thought I'd share what I wrote to the Canadian Heritage Minister.
To: The Honourable Helene Chalifour Scherrer, Minister of Canadian Heritage
Greetings Honourable Minister,
I recently read with great dismay your new initiative to make file sharing of music over the internet illegal. I'm sorry to use such harsh language, but that is the stupidest idea ever. I understand your intent to protect Canadian music, after all that is the very purpose of your office, but what you are proposing will create thousands upon thousands of Canadian criminals overnight.
Your initiative is also something that criminologists call an "unenforceable law." There are potentially more than a million Canadians currently sharing music files on the internet, it would be utterly impossible for any law enforcement agency to ever enforce such a ridiculous and freedom stripping law.
Pierre Trudeau once said that the government has no business being in the bedrooms of the nation. I would take that sentiment further: The government has NO business or right to tell me what I can or cannot do with files that are on my computer.
Your suggested changes to the law would not help protect Canadian heritage or music in any way shape or form; it will simply ensure more profit for huge American record companies. Last time I checked, the name of the ministry you are the head of is "Ministry of Canadian Heritage" not "The Ministry of Protecting American Economic Interests in Canada."
If you persist in attempting to draft such a law I will campaign against you specifically, and your party in general with as much strength as I can muster. I'm quite certain that Prime Minister and Liberal Party Leader Paul Martin would not like the campaign slogan "Helene Chalifour Scherrer wants to put your children in prison" plastered everywhere during the upcoming election.
Hoping you give this a sober second thought,
X
Please stop thinking the music industry is this great cash cow. Yes, the artists get (for the most part) a pittance and usually wind up owing the record label money (which the label tends to "forgive" if the record sells well), but the rest of that vast majority does not go to line the pockets of those big execs. Profit margins are slim, anywhere from 0.5 to 15%, depending on the label. You want to talk about corpulent assholes, take a look at cable companies, whose profits are more along the lines of 40%. And they still make me pay for channels I don't want...
c-hack.com |
The Honourable Ms. Scherrer:
... and are inconsistentM arch 2004.pdf
You were quoted as saying " I will, as quickly as possible, make changes to our
copyright law", in response to concerns expressed by the Canadian music industry.
As an author, I strongly support strong copyright protection against professional
thieves, but you should be aware that the so-called "sharing" on the internet has
increased the sales of my book and others. Readers go out and buy the printed
version, as it's far more convenient and portable than a computer.
I therefor support having my book available to "share", as it's to my financial
benefit, and that of my publisher.
I see the same thing happening with music. I strongly suspect that playing
music on the internet is financially advantageous to the artists and publishers.
As I'm elderly I don't download music: I listen to the CBC and buy CDs I like.
My younger friends say they listen on-line and then buy CDs. I don't have sales
figures for CDs that I do for my book, but a recent study by two academics who
do have the figures showed that the downloading has not done any detectable
harm.
The study, "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales An Empirical Analysis",
by Felix Oberholzer and Koleman Strumpf concluded "Downloads have an effect
on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero
with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music
sales." That reports is available at
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_
I would like to see continuing stringent protection for authors, but suspect
that playing music on the internet is about as dangerous to the artists and
their publishers as playing it on the radio.
I suspect this is much like the furor over VCRs and CD burners, and should
be dealt with the same way, with a levy on blank CDs. I would be quite
supportive of levies, including additional levies, on the CD media and
burners I use.
Sincerely, David Collier-Brown
davecb@spamcop.net
I've sent my response to Scherrer:
Does anyone know the average age of the downloaders? Are there any studies out there?
I might be wrong but I think people who make these laws are going to be in for a ruff ride when it comes to enforcement. They might have to put a lot of minors in jail.
First off I know a lot of youth (14-18 years old) and I visit some web forums for various topics. Now what suprises me is the age of a lot of the people on them. There are a lot of youth. They don't have money, but they have time and access to a computer. They spend a great deal of time on MSN (Hardly any of them have heard of ICQ) chatting, web forums and guess what downloading music.
I also propose that these Music exec's who complain about copyright infrigement should check under their own noses. Are their kids or grandkids engaging in this activity? I can almost certianly say so. Who isn't that is under the age of 25-20 and has a net connection?
What is the average age of a music sharer? I propose that a 80% of the file sharing is done by people under the age of 30 and that 40% or more occurs with people who are under 18 years of age. Especially in Canada where broadband has been around for a long time (6 years where I live).
The other problem with these laws and stuff is that music sharing has been going on for a long time. I was in high school when I was first exposed to it all. I remember what the first version of Internet Explorer looks like. Windows 95 had just come out! Whoo! At the time everyone who was in Visual Communications or who knew about comptuers was into downloading music and making MP3's! This was over 7 years ago! It's been going on a long time. It's embeded into our culture all ready. It's almost too late to change the laws now.
Back when this all started my friends where into Warez as well. I don't know what else to call it. But they downloaded software just for the sake of downloading it. A friend of mine had over 200 applications. Some like lightwave, windows, office, and oddles of games. Probably worth MILLIONS OF DOLLARS if bought retail. He probably had over 20 burned CD's at the time (7 years ago). I don't remember how many MP3 CD's he had but I know it was over 11. When your young you have the time to download all sorts of stuff and learn how computers ect. work.
The other problem is ignorance. Parents have no idea what their kids are doing on their computers. If they can hardly run Word and fight with their printers and don't understand email how can they understand what P2P is or how it works? Let alone know enough to enforce any rules. Removing young people from a computer with a net connection can be very challenging.
I hope someone does a study on the age of the average downloader/uploader. I am sure some interesting stats would come out.
And people wonder why i'm not a freaking liberal. Just like any politician, its all "We promise X, We promise Y." Post Election.... X and Y never happen.
Our government wonders why the 18-25 voting range has such low turn out: It's because we are young, cynical and have lost faith in the way that our political system is supposed to work. No one wants to vote, because there are no good parties to vote for. (Well, for me, the closest i go for is NDP). Now that Paul has decided to take away our electronic freedoms, i wonder how much longer the liberal party will stay in power. My best bet: Until all the older voters die. Best be pumping money into health care Mr.Martin, because your best voting base is dying.
Paul Martin is a FINK
Tragek
I am disappointed and disgusted (but not shocked) by the statement by Federal Heritage Minister Helene Scherre that she will "as quickly as possible, make changes to our copyright law." This is just another classic example of politicians being swayed through pressure from corporations to do their bidding, rather than protecting the rights of the citizens they were elected to represent. The music industry has claimed to be losing money over the last few years, and say that the cause is the internet and file-swapping. This is, in reality nothing but an opportunistic scapegoat for their failing business model. The real reason they have lost money is that the economy is weaker now compared to the one from 5 years ago. They have also lost money through bad investments in musicians that have not profited. So, of course when comparing todays market to a booming market, it seems plausible that filesharing could be the reason, but it is in fact due to their inability and lack of interest in adapting. They view filesharing as a threat and are using this as a tactic to cajole politicians into reforms to the copyright law to squash filesharing and in the process relieve the music industry of the need to change the way it does business. I am nothing less than disgusted that our politicians are bending over backwards for an industry that refuses to change its business model and instead infringe on my privacy and rights as a Canadian citizen. Even the RCMP can't spy on me as easily as the music industry is permitted to. This is clearly unacceptable. We as Canadians, need to stand up for our rights, contact our elected representatives, and demand that our rights take priority over the minority of people in this country that are affected by the music industry's unwillingness to change. Did our politicians make reforms when Nortel lost money because of their mistakes? No, so why should they for the music industry? One thing is for certain, I'm am NEVER going to give my money to an industry that chooses to terrorize me, spy on me, and invade my privacy and rights in their pursuit of a profit. This is one less customer for LIFE.