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."

Comments

Oh I get it...

[Audent]

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.

Mwaha!

[omeg]

"Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"

"The same thing we do every night, Pinky: Try to license the internet!"

Scoop is sort of confusing

[RAMMS EIN]

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).

Re:Scoop is sort of confusing

[Alsee]

Yep. Even the "better" of the two legislative proposals is a politics-style fair and balanced compromise. A compromise deal that recognizes both sides in the issue, and gives something to each side in the issue. Specifically:
"Your half of the law will officially granting you part of what the courts have stated you already have, and in exchange our half of the law will grant us a half the stuff we want and can't get because legislators are listening to your complaints."

A fair and balanced compromise. Both sides get something. And it makes it ok to ignore complaints against it because in a compromise both sides are supposed to be unhappy and complain. Anyone still complaining about it is being unreasonable and greedy and unwilling to compromise.

This is exactly how the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) and the DMCA got passed in the US. Most people here are at least basically familiar with the DMCA, but few people have ever heard of the AHRA. One side of the AHRA granted the public a copyright exemption and protection for home recording and granted manufacturers a copyright exemption and protection against being sued for contributory infringment. Of course no one in the public had ever been sued for infringment for home recording and had no need of protection and home recording is clearly Fair Use and a "copyright exemption" "granting" something that is already Fair use is entirely redundant and worthless. And the Betamax ruling had just come out explicitly stated ing that manufacturers needed no exemption from contributory infringment simply for manufacturing a product that can record. And as a compromise for granting all of that, the RIAA got their half of the law imposing a specific DRM scheme (Serial copy management system - SCMS) in all new home digital audio recording devices. Oh wait, I almost forgot... the AHRA also imposses a signifigant TAX on all covered audio devices and all covered recording media (50% to be distributed to writers and 50% to be distributed to publishers), and this tax is imposed "in exchange" for "granting" the public home recording rights that they already had. Based on a quick Amazon.com search, this AHRA imposed media tax changes the price of a Memorex 52x Data CD-R Media 50-Pack Spindle from $6.40 into $16.45 for a Memorex 40x Music CD-R Media (50-Pack Spindle). AHRA "aduio" CDRs are taxed to be more than 2.5 times the price of a normal CDR. And "data" CDRs are forbidden to work in AHRA covered devices, devices with their own AHRA hardware tax.

And what was the effect of the Audio Home Recording Act? It EXTERMINATED all new products and all new technology and all innovation in consumer audio for a decade.

The new product and technology that prompted the AHRA was Digital Audio Tap (DAT). Most of you have probably never heard of DAT. DAT was basically an ordinary audio cassette tape with all of the quality and benefits of digital CDs. Back in 1992 DAT was hot new technology. The audiophile community was eager to get their hands on this new product and it was anticipated to become a mass market hit. But then the audiophile community started baying a few of these DRM crippled devices. They started recording themselves and their own bands. And then they discoved that the devices would not let them copy their own tapes. That they were in fact the copyright holder on these band recordings, and these crippled devices would not allow them to copy their own work - all in the name of preventing "copyright infringment". So the audiophile community was furious and despised the products. And the general consumer market rejected the products as well, and they totally flopped. Which is why most of you never heard of DAT.

And then the recordable minidisk was developed. A fully recordable CD, and a perfect pocket size 2.5 inches in size. Again, an amazing new technology and product that should have been a HUGE market success. And again, a technology and product that was DRM crippled by the AHRA and thus exterminated by the AHRA. A

Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity

[hotdiggity]

I've read this comment four times and still can't decide whether the poster is being ironic. My guess is yes, but then why are people modding it as interesting as opposed to funny? For the record, forgetting about the issues of DRM and stupid software patents, copyright by and large is good for code protection, protecting textbooks which take serious effort to develop, and so on. We can't force everyone to give ideas away. Some people may actually want to negotiate the compensation for their efforts if they specify the right to do so at the time of publication. This silly push by the Canadian government, if true, clearly crosses that line.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure the Marxist post was ironic. In which case: hilarious! Rise up, ye proleteriat, and seize your rightful means of production! With your help we will recreate the glorious days of the Soviet Union, which only needed a few more years to shake the bugs out and acheive political perfection.