Hannah
06-22-2008, 06:11 PM
There are at least 400 movies and an uncountable number of television shows on about 200 VHS tapes stored in my den. They constitute what the federal government would refer to as a "permanent library." Should the amendment to Canada's copyright law pass without change, I will apparently be branded a thief for keeping these tapes and will have made Brigitte into a criminal -- the receiver of "stolen" goods.
The woman who cleans my house, does windows, recycles the newspapers, plastic bags and cardboard, and also collects all of our old magazines, books and videotapes to donate to various groups would not be pleased to find herself on the other side of the law because I choose to give her things I no longer need, rather than tossing them in the garbage.
This is the ludicrous aspect of what started out as a serious attempt to curtail the abuse and theft of copyrighted material through the magic of new technology. Should it pass, untouched by cooler heads and brighter minds, it will make me a criminal. It will also make a percentage of Canadians into miscreants by telling them they can't record a favourite television show and keep it. Nor after watching it once, can they give it away.
I can hear the soothing voice of the federal government assuring me that it isn't out to arrest, prosecute, fine or harass retired people who have finally mastered the art of transferring the Well-Tempered Clavier onto tape without the help of their grandchildren. No, the government is out to stop the wholesale downloading and uploading of copyrighted material from the Internet. And it's serious business: a $500 fine for any infringement that isn't commercial (that's you and me), but a hefty $20,000 fine each for any attempt to circumvent, override or bypass what's known as a digital lock. In simpler terms, that's the technological way of preventing what millions of kids do each day -- download, upload and share videos, film clips, bits and pieces of songs and lyrics, probably all of it the intellectual and artistic property of someone.
This is not a new fight and this Act isn't new, either. What it is, is patchwork legislation designed to put the onus on the consumer, rather than commercial businesses involved in the marketing of music, television, film or the intellectual property of writers. It is the content licensers, rather than the artists, who will be protected. Here's what will happen: The copyright owners -- the creators -- unless they are household names, will continue to eke out a living from their art while the money will continue to flow through to those who market the product. Queen Anne knew all about that. At least her legislators did in 1710 when the Statute of Queen Anne was passed, introducing copyright to published works. Prior to that the printers had been ripping off the authors. Printers and publishers, said the act, had been taking the liberty of reproducing published works "without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writing, to their very great detriment and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families." The law was proposed "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books."
Since then, the copyright laws have been rewritten to reflect whatever modern times demanded: currently, the right of a creator to his or her own intellectual work lasts for the life of the artist plus 50 years post-mortem. No matter the modern interpretation of what constitutes intellectual property, few laws have set forth the principle that the rights of modern technology take precedence over the rights of the author and the needs of both the consumer and the competitive market. While the purported beneficiaries of the new act are those artists, the real beneficiaries will be the companies who publish, control and market such work. With the possible exception of an original piece of art, all intellectual property are copied and distributed by someone other than the creator. It is these middlemen who will profit from digital locks, regardless of the hype about copyright protection.
In his essay for the Canadian university textbook Mediascapes, Martin Laba of Simon Fraser University pinpointed the likely result of passing the proposed law. In Pirates, Peers and Popular Music, Laba writes: "Consumers have little compunction about file sharing because they have little affection or concern for an industry that pulls in very handsome profits globally and that engages in 'demonizing the record-buying public and online community' and threatens litigation as its response to peer-to-peer practices." It is prescient. Technologically adept kids won't pay attention because they don't believe they are doing anything wrong in sharing their "stuff" with friends.
Perhaps the next time federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice is back home in Calgary, he might want to have a chat with University of Calgary professor David Taras to talk about what Taras refers to as the "unintended consequences" of consuming media. While Taras surely didn't intend his phrase to apply to ill-thought-out law, it's appropriate.
Meanwhile, until the copyright police break down my door, I'm keeping my movies. And the DVDs made by a friend. And my iPod with its selection of audiobooks.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=4564a92a-a437-42d9-8688-dd16f501144d
Well... sucks to be Canadian.
The woman who cleans my house, does windows, recycles the newspapers, plastic bags and cardboard, and also collects all of our old magazines, books and videotapes to donate to various groups would not be pleased to find herself on the other side of the law because I choose to give her things I no longer need, rather than tossing them in the garbage.
This is the ludicrous aspect of what started out as a serious attempt to curtail the abuse and theft of copyrighted material through the magic of new technology. Should it pass, untouched by cooler heads and brighter minds, it will make me a criminal. It will also make a percentage of Canadians into miscreants by telling them they can't record a favourite television show and keep it. Nor after watching it once, can they give it away.
I can hear the soothing voice of the federal government assuring me that it isn't out to arrest, prosecute, fine or harass retired people who have finally mastered the art of transferring the Well-Tempered Clavier onto tape without the help of their grandchildren. No, the government is out to stop the wholesale downloading and uploading of copyrighted material from the Internet. And it's serious business: a $500 fine for any infringement that isn't commercial (that's you and me), but a hefty $20,000 fine each for any attempt to circumvent, override or bypass what's known as a digital lock. In simpler terms, that's the technological way of preventing what millions of kids do each day -- download, upload and share videos, film clips, bits and pieces of songs and lyrics, probably all of it the intellectual and artistic property of someone.
This is not a new fight and this Act isn't new, either. What it is, is patchwork legislation designed to put the onus on the consumer, rather than commercial businesses involved in the marketing of music, television, film or the intellectual property of writers. It is the content licensers, rather than the artists, who will be protected. Here's what will happen: The copyright owners -- the creators -- unless they are household names, will continue to eke out a living from their art while the money will continue to flow through to those who market the product. Queen Anne knew all about that. At least her legislators did in 1710 when the Statute of Queen Anne was passed, introducing copyright to published works. Prior to that the printers had been ripping off the authors. Printers and publishers, said the act, had been taking the liberty of reproducing published works "without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writing, to their very great detriment and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families." The law was proposed "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books."
Since then, the copyright laws have been rewritten to reflect whatever modern times demanded: currently, the right of a creator to his or her own intellectual work lasts for the life of the artist plus 50 years post-mortem. No matter the modern interpretation of what constitutes intellectual property, few laws have set forth the principle that the rights of modern technology take precedence over the rights of the author and the needs of both the consumer and the competitive market. While the purported beneficiaries of the new act are those artists, the real beneficiaries will be the companies who publish, control and market such work. With the possible exception of an original piece of art, all intellectual property are copied and distributed by someone other than the creator. It is these middlemen who will profit from digital locks, regardless of the hype about copyright protection.
In his essay for the Canadian university textbook Mediascapes, Martin Laba of Simon Fraser University pinpointed the likely result of passing the proposed law. In Pirates, Peers and Popular Music, Laba writes: "Consumers have little compunction about file sharing because they have little affection or concern for an industry that pulls in very handsome profits globally and that engages in 'demonizing the record-buying public and online community' and threatens litigation as its response to peer-to-peer practices." It is prescient. Technologically adept kids won't pay attention because they don't believe they are doing anything wrong in sharing their "stuff" with friends.
Perhaps the next time federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice is back home in Calgary, he might want to have a chat with University of Calgary professor David Taras to talk about what Taras refers to as the "unintended consequences" of consuming media. While Taras surely didn't intend his phrase to apply to ill-thought-out law, it's appropriate.
Meanwhile, until the copyright police break down my door, I'm keeping my movies. And the DVDs made by a friend. And my iPod with its selection of audiobooks.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=4564a92a-a437-42d9-8688-dd16f501144d
Well... sucks to be Canadian.