Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Copyright Group Seeks To License the Net
An anonymous reader writes "A new Toronto Star article from Michael Geist not only describes why Canadian Ministers of Education are pushing a copyright proposal that will harm Internet access, but also reveals how a copyright group is seeking to create a new license for Internet content. Access Copyright, a copyright collective, wants to use a new international text standard to license everything from books to blogs. Geist outlines in his blog how
Canadians can fight back against these bonehead proposals."
the interwebs are just a series of tubes, right...?
There should be a test for politicians about the internet. It should involve:
knowing the difference between the internet and the web;
being able to explain why censoring the web is difficult if not impossible;
why ISPs aren't liable for the content they host;
and some other stuff.
Actually, there should be an easier test - if you want to be a politician you should be BANNED FROM EVERY BECOMING ONE by law.
Yeah.
I am a leaf on the wind
So now I scanned the text of the first link -- no second post! Is Slashdot empty?
Nah, its just that hell just froze over and pigs flew this morning. As a consequence the topic of copyrights wore thin and became boring so all the slasdotters went off to CowboyNeals place to oooh and aaaah over the Windows Vista Release candidate. Afterwards they plan to set up the worlds first Windows Vista user's fan club.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
What do you expect, with that kind of confusing headline and summary you have to RTFA just to get WTF they're trying to say. I mean, "license everything"? What's that supposed to mean, they claim ownership of every random thing on the internet?
Turns out the article says the ministry of education wants to allow schools to use all material available on the internet and be exempt from copyright that way. Guess someone didn't think about warez there.
The copyright group in question wants to offer content providers the option to use some kind of license for their stuff. Strikes me as idiotic since you can attach any license you like to your content without their help...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Comments show up when someone figures something to comment about - or when 2 people like us just blather about nothing.
You & me about as off topic as it gets.
Well maybe better brains will show up with something on topic.
Congrats on both a first and second post...
Dang -- I coulda gone for a record but I kept holding out for someone to post.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
It _is_ 4AM in the morning, EST. Surely even Slashdotters must retire to a lair of some sort?
Copywriting? Internet? Canadians? Whats this all aboot?
Jesus Saves
"Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky: Try to license the internet!"
Copyright laws are nothing more than a tool of the ruling class to keep freedom and autonomy away from the people. The stifling blockade of draconian laws behind which which the free transmission of ideas is presently locked down is one of the more noxious devices by which the capitalist system perverts human society.
It is only the alienatied status of the modern worker that perpetuates the oppressive regime of copyright. The oppression of the ruling class that keeps workers in a constant state of anxiety, always burdened by financial worries, like Dickensian children chained to their machines, is what prevents creative workers from sharing their ideas freely, for the benefit of all.
For society to be free from the constricting bonds of copyright, it will be necessary to strike at the heart of the capitalist system itself. Only when the lies and distortions of the ruling class are confronted and rejected, only when workers are in control of the means of production, their efforts at last engaged, harmonious, and justly compensated, only then will we see a world where all people are free to share, copy, and most of all create those products of the marvellous human imagination that promote, in that golden phrase, "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
Until then, there's always usenet.
A new Toronto Star article from Michael Geist not only describes why Canadian Ministers of Education are pushing a copyright proposal that will harm Internet access, but also reveals how a copyright group is seeking to create a new license for Internet content. Access Copyright, a copyright collective, wants to use a new international text standard to license everything from books to blogs.
...Proving yet again, that this battle over "copyright" is nothing of the sort. It's a battle over control, and a losing battle at that.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
...a good example of the exception that proves the rule!
"Second, the implication of the exception is that using publicly available Internet materials is not permitted unless one has prior authorization or qualifies for the exception. This suggests that millions of Canadians outside the education system who use Internet-based materials are somehow violating the law."
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
This didn't become clear to me from the title or the scoop, but according to TFA, there are _two_ proposals; one by the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada that argues for an exception to copyright law that would allow schools to use online materials, and one by Access Copyright that aims to introduce a new licensing scheme for online content; basically, anyone can register works with AC, and AC can then license these to everybody.
TFA then goes on to say that ACs proposal is definitely bad, but, contrary to what the scoop suggests, TFA is mainly about the CMEC proposal. What it says is that educational use of online materials is already permitted under current copyright law, and introducing an "exception" that specifically allows it is going to have the negative consequence of making it seem that other uses are not allowed (e.g. fair use at home).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
FTFA:
``Moreover, it is far better than a counter-proposal from Access Copyright that seeks to develop a new licensing system for the use of Internet-based content. According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the copyright collective has asked the Ministry of Canadian Heritage for funding to become the Canadian collective for a new international standard that can be used to register any "textual work" from books to blogs. Armed with a collection of "registered" online text, Access Copyright will be positioned to create a new license for the use of Internet content.''
So, AC wants you to register your work with them, so that they can then license it to everybody? That's what the record labels do, right?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Oh noes! the sarcasm meter just exploded!
Gosh! I wasn't aware the Internet was theirs to license. Silly me.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Every time I read about freedoms being curtailed in Canada, I wonder if I should have applied for emigrating there. Australia also does not seem to be much better.
Is it worth the pain?
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
I think most Slashdotters live, breathe, browse and sleep in the same place - one cannot "retire" to your mother's basement if you never leave it. :3
I've never been more ashamed to be a Canadian right now.
What the hell are they thinking!?
TFA can't even find a good reason for the copyright...in fact, it spends half the time telling us why it's a shitty idea. I knew American laws were stupid, but, damn, we overflowed into Canada. Leave them to their ice hockey, dammit!
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
Why limit our choices on the web??? why???
Politicians in Western countries have sadly become corrupt representitives of big business. Everyone who runs big business has a vote like anyone else. Why should they be allowed to use the wealth of big business to unduly influence and corrupt the democratic process.
If this happens, you have nothing more than a corporate dictatorship. Look at the mess in the United States. This may be an extreme, but sadly other counties are now following this path of corruption.
I've never been more ashamed to be a Canadian right now.
This is the worst thing Canada has ever done to earn your disgust? Wow. What a truly amazing country.
In the vast history of governmental screwups, this is hardly even a footnote. It's not like they've been tapping your phones without a warrant... Disclaimer: I'm Canadian.
The article didn't really say much clearly.
There already is a limited education use exemption in Canadian Copyright law, saying it applies to blogs too sounds reasonable.
I think it is acceptable for a teacher to print out or save a copy of a blog that they are discussing in class.
What even the pron ;-)
You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim
... to reassign the top-level domains so that all web addresses end in .eh eh?
A little planning goes a long way...
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
First the CRTC wanted to regulate the content on the web, now the Access Copyright folks want to licence the content on the web.
...
The brilliance of the civil service mindset continues to astound me. My tax dollars at work
I think the issue is not whether something can be copyrighted (it already is) or licensed, but the best way to wring cash out of the licensee.
I personally don't mind the idea of reimbursing the author of content. I'd guess if we don't have some way to do that, the only content available will be from people who don't have anything better to do (and little to say), or poor passionate artists.
Perhaps there would be some benefit to a mechanism that allowed large numbers of Internet users (e.g. all the subscribers of an ISP service) to pay a small amount each to some outfit -- as long as most of the money paid ends up in the hands of the creators of the content. On the other hand, that looks very much like a tax...
My mom put their whole dilemma succinctly when she said, "this copy of Windows is mine and I don't give a shit what Microsoft thinks. I bought it, it belongs to me."
I'll be the first to say that I despise the vast majority of the legal profession. I despise the mindset, the technicalities, the sophistry (what does "is" mean?) and all of that crap. Copyright law is a lawyer's dream because it is convoluted, technical and requires a legal prophet to understand.
Normal people don't have any use for the legal arguments about licensing and things like that. Copyright law is undermined with every argument that does not appeal to the norms of physical property culture.
Copyright allows Marcus Greene to sell copies of what he wrote at monopoly rates. He can sell the original manuscript he wrote to someone for a fixed fee. That transaction has NOTHING to do with copyright, just works created. Copying is the only thing limited by copyright.
I can only possible think that the parent was supposed to be mod'ed as "Funny".
Seriously though, the GPL relies on copyright law and without it, it doesn't matter if you are Stalin, Hitler or anyone else - you could do whatever you wanted with whatever software you want.
No one could possibly be that cliched.
Noone said it cant be done right ?
There is NO difference between trying to copyright the WORLD, the UNIVERSE, the MOON, or AN ARSE and trying to copyright the INTERNET.
These people should be SUED TO HELL. These people should be banned from government work, public service, and even stock markets or anything related to people.
This is not an extreme radical jacobin statement im making - these kind of people are just watered down nazis, in pursuit of control - only with slightly more non-violent means. Other than this, there is no difference between them.
Read radical news here
Why is it every time we turn around some non-profit group has thier nose in what I am doing? RIAA, Access Copyright, the Church? Give it a rest people. I will enforce my own copyright thank you. -- this post is not copywriten you may use it, flame it, smoke it as you see fit here is my copyright infrindgment of the day used without permission "Access Copyright provides access to copyright protected works. Our licences provide users with immediate, legal and economic access to published works while ensuring that publishers and creators are fairly compensated" KMRWA Access Copyright
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
So this has been the plan all along?
Make the whole world watch somewhere else and then just invade Canada. We've got Oil, Snow (going to be rare when the World heats up), Fresh Water, and the Hacker Hellstorm. Just FYI, we don't have Mule Bombs -- but watch out for our Ski-doos (if you catch my snow-drift).
Fake Left, go Right. Kansas City Style. Gotcha.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
*waves at your Karma going byebye*
First, please stop referencing American law - Canada is still a foreign country.
Second, the function of Access Copyright is pretty simple: it licences content on behalf of the creators so that it can be freely used within shcools. The idea, a simple one, is that when some teacher photocopies dozens of copies of your short story instead of buying text books you will still get some payment.
Contary to common belief, especially among teachers, there no law natural or otherwise that allows them unfettered use of other people's work.
Three Squirrels
Strikes me as idiotic since you can attach any license you like to your content without their help...
No you can't. Try being an independent musician in Canada and burning CDs to sell to your fans. You'll be paying the media tax designed to give the recording industry lots of money that theoretically goes to the band whose copyright you must be infringing. Or try streaming your own music in the US and having RIAA's soundexchange telling you that you have thousands of dollars due in unpaid compulsory broadcast licensing fees.
The lessons from history seem to indicate that this "Access Copyright" company is most likely trying to become the "keeper" of the internet, oh, and your internet connection will be CDN$10 extra per month so that this company can pay back all the companies whose copyright you must be infringing by browsing the web. Of course, 95% of that goes to administrative overhead in tracking down all those website owners, 5% goes to their "preferred partners" who just so happen to be government officials, and the remainder is divvied up to all of the copyright holders.
... because it might give the wrong idea to people.
This is the first I've heard of this. I'm sure someone in the crowd can correct me if I'm wrong, but my basic interpretation of this seems to be:
I'd kinda like to address each of these in turn:
All this really really makes me wonder why this guy is so against this... I can't find a SOLID reason amongst all of his hyperbole... could someone please tell me what I'm missing? Why is this a big deal?
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Fuck Canada! Why are Canadians so dumb?
They are the blame for everything!
Aussie's are imho the coolest!
I encourage everybody to put their content under the public domain, or GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or perhaps even Creative Commons.
Piss off enough people with stupid stuff this and you get revolution.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well, I disagree with most of Michael Geist's arguments on this issue. That's rare: in general I agree when he says that copyright needs reforming. But in this case, I think we're on opposite sides.
But I think I do understand what he's saying. And for the record, he is a lawyer, (and a Professor of Law), so his legal opinions matter. He knows what he's talking about, with regard to the law itself. That said, I don't think he's right about the social impact of this proposed legislation.
His first point of five is that the proposal doesn't grant much. I disagree: I think it grants a great deal, to non-lawyers. Ambiguity in the law is no problem when it's your profession to know in advance how a judge is likely to rule; but for the common man, it's a strong chilling effect. Geist worries that we're not gaining much, so why pass the law? I think we're gaining something.
Point 2: It might confuse the public, making them think they don't have rights that they really do have. It's something of a legitimate concern (people are easy to confuse). I'm of the opinion that people are already so confused about the law that making at least one part of it crystal clear does more good that harm. Geist worries that we might be doing more harm than good.
Point 3: The Berne Convention is an international treaty that Canada has signed on to. He's rightly worried about breaking our obligations under international law. I'm of the opinion that if treaties can be signed, they can be repealed, as well. I'd like to see the entire Berne Convention re-written. But Geist is right: it's not a small undertaking.
Point 4: People might pull content down for fear of people using it. This is Geist's weakest point, in my opinion. After all, if he's right about his Point One, educational institutes have already access to most of these materials under the Fair Dealing section of the Copyright Act. So, who's left to pull down materials out of fear? By his own admission, a small minority.
Point 5: Politics. This is the real crux of Geist's argument, although he doesn't put it as plainly as he might. Together with Point 1, this seems to be his real point: he's worried that the government will try to "balance" a trivial, mostly useless grant of rights to the public, "in exchange" for the proposed DRM and stricter copyright legistlation that nearly passed before last election. Geist is strongly in favour of copyright reform, and against DRM, so his fears are well founded. I disagree with him on this point, as well: I think we need to take this first step to clear up the ambiguity in the law, *and* to use it as a staging ground for further reforms. So again, his point is well thought out and well founded; and again, I disagree with it.
All this really really makes me wonder why this guy is so against this... I can't find a SOLID reason amongst all of his hyperbole... could someone please tell me what I'm missing? Why is this a big deal?
Well, I'm speculating that he's worried about different things than I'm worried about. He's fretting over the politics of the matter, and rightly so. He's undervaluing the benefits of improved clarity in the law, because, as a lawyer, he doesn't quite understand how inaccessible case law is to the average citizen, especially one who can't afford a lawyer. Accordingly, he sees the bad, but not the good, in the proposed reform, and campaigns against it.
That's just my $0.02,
--
AC
Remember in Canada the Record Lobby "convinced" the politicians to charge a media tax.
Wonder exactly how they "convinced" them?
Thank God for national boundaries.
you've already addressed pt.2 - yes michael geist is canada's closest equivalent to lawrence lessig in the u.s., even to the extent of aping lessig's powerpoint presentations with white buzzword text on black backgrounds.
once you've enshrined this in legislation as an 'exception', then everything else becomes a fair target. yes, the court decisions have provided for fair dealing for research purposes, but that was given the legislation at the time. if another court challenge arises, the court would have to consider the new case in light of the new version of the legislation and, seeing the exception, could rule in a different fashion than before. this is unlikely in this situation, given the unanimity of the CCH decision, but just like the RIAA lawsuits, media will attempt to provide 'balanced coverage', highlighting the illegality of what is actually legal just to make sure the corporate perspective is presented. that media kerfluffle will be enough to convince some in society that downloaded and printing from the internet might not be worth the potential legal trouble.
for the experienced librarian, google is merely one tool of many