I am against copyright law, as it is. The IIPA generally lies about everything in their statements and I applaud the many countries that say enough is enough and that the world will no longer bow down to the pressures of the USA. Keep the internet free and uncensored. Just because you are an artist, writer, publisher, actor, or musician does not mean you should have the right to be a millionaire. Fortunately the industries greed has finally caught up with it. Their fight is like a spoiled kid.
Right on man! I think that your point which states "Just because you are an artist, writer, publisher, actor, or musician does not mean you should have the right to be a millionaire" means a lot not only because of the obvious greed and pride inherent in the justifications for the unfair market economy, but also simply because all people who manipulate knowledge for the good of others should fight to keep that knowledge free. What they should fight for is a ...(cont...)
(cont...)... n economic system which gives ALL people the essential resources so that writers do not have to starve themselves of essential things (right to energy for best quality of life, right to food, clothing, and transport that all required for quality living). Writers don't need money, they need resources for a good quality of life so that their ability to transmit new knowledge isn't impaired by our fucked up economic/social system.
The way I see this situation is that writers want to be paid over and over and over for their work. To compare teachers and principals work on the same level of authors is crap, authors do the work once, teachers and principals are there every day. Once ideas are expressed, they become the property of whomever is exposed to them. The next thing that is going to be demanded is for everyone who ever uses an idea from someone else to have to pay every time it is used. I am an author.
And the problem is... no part of the industry is an isolated economy. The ripple effect that you're describing moves more than just one way and copyright does its best to keep it moving ONLY one way. Piracy really isn't the issue. What is the issue is how to make money on the economic abundance.
No one is more supportive of teachers, and of education, than writers are, and we would be the first in line to support increased funding for education. Like all other “suppliers” to the education system, though, writers must get paid for their work. Many individuals volunteer in schools, out of choice, but the law does not compel such philanthropy. Yet C-32 will effectively require writers and other creators to donate portions of their work for free if it is of educational interest.
If the new and badly worded education exception in C-32 stands, writers and publishers will be forced into costly rounds of litigation to find out exactly how much copying this new law allows. Such expensive uncertainty threatens to undermine the current market, which includes a system of collective licensing that features its own checks and balances and has been running for more than 20 years.
The Writers' Union of Canada will continue to advocate for strong copyright protections as Bill C-32 makes its way through Parliament. Canada needs copyright reform, but copyright regulations should fundamentally protect the rights of creators and form a solid foundation for the knowledge economy. It's not going to be much of an economy -- not for creators, at any rate -- if we aren't paid fairly for use of our work.
This is video is lying. It is a blatant lie. Adding education as a fair dealing exception does not make every use fair. Each use would have to pass the fair dealing test.
Also notice how there are no young voices represented in that video. Copyright is outdated; it's time for a fresh take.
Piracy, government funding/grant cutbacks, less private funding, etc, etc... all the young voices were probably too broke to make it to the video shoot.
Right cause piracy is the thing that is making young voices broke. If all students paid for every piece of copyrighted product they consumed then they would be so much richer.
The only reason I don't get mad is because this is so easy to predict: intellectual monopolies (i.e. copyright) are on their way out just like the physical resource monopolies of the mercantilist days. You can't sustain a law that so few people support; with every generation are fewer people supporting IP.
It's not the sole reason, but a big part of it. You have to look at our industries as their own sort of isolated economies. When money is put in, it circulates and trickles and is invested to help the industry progress.
Hey, I'd glady give my art away for free... If I could live in a world where all I have to worry about is art and not money, ie, I don't have to pay for my electricity, food, water, health care, etc, etc. But that's not the case.
If a school pays for a class set of copies of the book then the writer IS getting paid. If the writer comes into the school to talk to kids they DO get paid for it. If a teacher wants to set a homework using a page from the books they use in school then why should they not be allowed to do that? I am a teacher and yes, I get paid for my work. But I have had my lessons recorded in all sorts of ways for students' use. Do I expect to be paid extra for that? Of course not.
all the universities, libraries, archives etc. have said collective licensing is not in quesiton, what part of not don't you get? are you calling them liars? or are you calling them pirates? like a teacher is going to Pirate Bay to download Canadian history textbooks.
Exactly ThePrisoner - educators in the US have had MASSIVE amounts of freedom only wished for by Canadian teachers, but somehow, movies keep being made, novels keep being written, and somehow, money keeps being made.
As a teacher, the hoops you have to jump through in regards to copyright is ridiculous and outrageously expensive for most schools. There is no loss of revenue for artists if the work is being used for non-commercial purpose.
Well, this actually that 2nd large issue I've heard with it. The big one for me is library e-publishing rights. Bill-C32 contains a clause where libraries can make infinite duplicates of books, loan them out, and not pay the authors any royalties or anything. I can see this with books in the public domain (or over 30 years old or so). But there are huge, huge flaws with this bill... terrible stuff!
@CyurusRazor As a respectful FYI, your numbers are way off on the public domain. In Canada a book enters the public domain 50 years after the author's death. In the US it's 70 years after the author's death. There are numerous hundred-year old books around the world that are not in the public domain yet. This is an area where publishing industry lobbyists could stand to reclaim some of their credibility.
@Wildta1 Hey David, you're from the USA and American teachers have had the exact Fair Use rights we're arguing about here since 2002. Tell me my friend, do they still have publishing companies in the good old USA, or writers, or books? Is the history of America still being written after 9 years of Fair Use in the classroom? Because the lady speaking at 2:25 is worried that our publishing industry will be "torn down so quickly" if our teachers get the same rights that US teachers now have.
@ThePrisoner24601 Very interesting to hear you holding the USA as a paragon of copyright perfection from this side of your mouth when the other side is warning against strengthening copyright the way the US did in its Digital Millinnium Copyright Act. That has sent the message to their courts that the USA is serious about protecting intellectual property. If Bill C-32 was as strong as the DMCA Canadian creators would not be as threatened. Would you like that?
@CodfishPie100 Your only debate mechanism seems to be exaggerating what your opponent says and adding things they never said. You might find that your argument convinces more grownups if you respond to what was actually said.
The US got it right by allowing Fair Use exemptions for education in 2002. US publishers either adapted to that change or just kept on going because the US still has a big publishing industry. The US experience with Fair Use disproves this video's doomsday prediction.
@ThePrisoner24601 And you ignored what I actually said, which was that the USA's 2002 TEACH act exists in the context of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provides a much more secure intellectual property environment than Bill C-32 would. The two situations are not parallel.
@CodfishPie100 You might consider that The DMCA (which does not protect books in print because they don't feature any form of DRM) cannot be the reason that American book publishing was not destroyed by the TEACH Act. The two situations are completely parallel for any media which does not feature DRM.
@CodfishPie100 It is equally clear that the US got it very wrong by passing the DMCA. Many segments of the US see that and are working vigorously to amend or repeal the DMCA.
@ThePrisoner24601 So say you. The nerdosphere naturally hates the DMCA because it tends to get in the way of cultural looting, but it is generally consistent with the position of the World Intellectual Property Organization and has become a trendsetter for similar legislation around the world--including, to some degree, Bill C-32. The likelihood of the DMCA being repealed at this point is nil.
@CodfishPie100 A lot of people outside of the nerdosphere oppose the DMCA because it recklessly criminalizes matters that were more appropriately handled under civil law.
we have conditioned an entire generation to feel that art should be free. that they are entitled to it. that all the time, money, energy and blood, sweat and tears that an artist sacrifices for their art is a trivial byproduct of the act.
but all we are doing collectively is contributing to the decay of our own culture. this will not end well. the industries of music, film and literature all need to adjust and find a working solution.
You do a good job of parroting the Geist line, which seems to be that it changes nothing to include education in the short, select list of uses that, in the words of the bill, "does not infringe copyright." This is not believable. This moves the goalposts of the game and courts will certainly interpret it to indicate freer use of copyright work by anyone who claims an educational aim.
Geist didn't originate the thesis that Fair Dealing exceptions should not be given a narrow or restrictive interpretation because doing so will unfairly restrict the inherent rights of users and impair the progress of society.
The Supreme Court of Canada said it first and they said it emphatically.
(Hint: I don't read blogs, they're seldom any more useful than internet comment threads. I read primary documents when an issue seems important.)
@ThePrisoner24601 First you say the education exemption means nothing because the courts puts such strict limits on fair dealing, now you are saying the Supreme Court rejected "narrow or restricted interpretation." You make my point for me. You can't say what the courts are going to make of this huge new copyright exemption, except they won't ignore it.
Your partisan equivocation sure reminds me of Geist, sure you're not him? Anybody who says it means nothing to add a major new category to
@CodfishPie100 I never said that C-32 will have no effect on publishing and I didn't say the limits in place between The Copyright Act, C-32 and judicial precedent were in any way strict. I said that there are some limits in place and there are. That's a matter of public record. Educational use of copyright that is inappropriate or unfair will still infringe. I can't insulate you from the fact that the courts will be needed in this process. Laws work that way, even the laws you like.
@sandcamp45 Kafka worked for an insurance company. Faulkner was a postmaster. T.S. Eliot was inspired to write The Waste Land from the things he saw on the way to his job at a bank. (Just tried to post a link to a longer list at Lapham's Quarterly, but it's not letting me--just search Lapham's and "Day Jobs" if you're interested.) Hope that helps!
This video was meant to help stimulate debate on C-32. It seems to be doing that, even if occasionally generating a puzzling level of incivility. Those of us who appear in the video agreed to do so because we believe C-32 poses a real threat to Canadian culture. For the record, we are not mouthpieces for vested interests or the enemies of educators (most of us work as educators); we are not spawn of the devil bent on deceiving the innocent public (well, I am, sometimes, but not in this case).
I do earn a living from writing and am grateful for the money I receive from schools and others using my work. It's not a lot of money but often enough to keep me paying taxes. If schools were allowed to use my work without adequately compensating me, I would have to reconsider the work I do. That's what's lost in this discussion: how the educational exemption will affect the production and quality of Canadian content. if you want good relevant material, you should pay for it!
This is about property rights. If a law forced photocopier companies to donate services to schools for tests and exams the howling would be intense. Yet writers are supposed to donate parts of their work for free? Every major professional writing group in the country opposes the proposed education exception. If a writer wants to donate parts of his or her work to schools, that's a personal choice. But C-32 will require it in law of all writers and artists whose work is of educational interest.
I'm actually a writer and an educator. And I do have to make a living (which is just above the poverty line).
And if someone thought that a piece of my writing had enough value to be used in a classroom, I'd be honoured to donate it to them, just as I donate my time to teaching literacy.
I'm shocked to read here that it seems many people signed up to be writers thinking they'd make money at it.
I'm also a writer and educator. Please tell me more about why its shocking that I would like to be paid for my work. How else will I pay for life basics, life food, lodging, transportation?
It's no surprise that copyleft trolls such as Doctorow have shown up here to try and make everyone drink the Kool-aid of the "Free Culture" cult. At least Cory signs his name to his idiocy. So many of these trolls choose anonymity to launch their diatribes. The writers in this video speak the truth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thank god for the lies of these individuals. Though I see the writer of this ad has quite the creative imagination as they have created a world with a fake bill in Parliament that would allow writer's to have their work stolen, also it outlaws gravity at some later point I'm sure.
Well, I see this bill is having its intended effect even before it is passed. It is driving a wedge between the writing community that provides the resources and the educational community that uses them. I see words like "losers" , "greedy" and "douchebags" being thrown at people who politely suggest that Bill C-32 is flawed. I saw the incredible number "1100%"being thrown out as an unchallenged fact as to how much licensing fees will go up. Is Karl Rove taking a Canadian sabbatical?
@OldMoonjuru Well said. It seems the focus is now writers against educators. I guess that has been done to take the focus away from the real fact that writers (yes I am one) are expected to give their work away for free. You don't think that anything copied for "educational" purposes is not going to fly across the internet for free, educational purposes or not.
The 1100% number that you find so incredible comes from the following calculation:
Most post secondary schools were paying Access Copyright $3.38 - $3.80 per-student-per-year for incidental copying provided free to students and many are still paying that under the current Interim Tariff.
Access Copyright is currently applying for a tariff that will change the rate to $45.00 per-student-per-year.
The educational facilities, the staff, educators, heating, electricity, technology, etc., etc, is paid for -- including the library facilities and IT extension of it -- why would writers not want to be paid by some measuring system, just as the workers in the facilities are paid by the hour, the electricity and heating system by their metering. Where did common sense and the respect for international copyright go with the current legislators in Canada?
To depict the proposed educational exemption as a minor change is deceptive. Bill C-32 adds education to the select list of uses including private study and research that “does not infringe copyright.” This has the effect of making education fundamentally exempt from copyright protection, unless stated otherwise. Minor changes are what they government should have made, but they have given the trillion-dollar education industry the same free pass as a single student studying at home.
You are failing to understand what Fair Dealing actually is or you are deliberately exaggerating. Fair dealing allows LIMITED use of "less than significant" portions of a work in cases where: there is no damage done to the work's market value the use of that work has societal value the use of that work is fair based on the Supreme Court's 6 guidelines
Many of the commenters here would benefit from actually reading C-32, the CCH ruling and the Copyright Act.
In response to some of the comments received: There are students who dream of not only becoming writers, but of also being able to have their own written work earn the income that is deservedly theirs, just like their teachers do today. Yes, some of their teachers work overtime for no pay - so do all artists. Writers do not condone theft by a pen, such as that contained in the recent Act.
This should not turn into teachers vs artists. Everybody should be paid. We all work for little enough as it is. The problem with C-32 is that it 's not at all evident from the wording what will constitute educational fair dealing and what will not. Teachers will not know what is legal copying and what is not legal copying. Artists, instead of having copyright protection for their work, will need to go to court to prove each violation. The law needs to clarify the situation, not muddy it.
@GregHollingshead1 The wording that defines educational fair dealing isn't in C-32 because C-32 is an amendment to a standing act. The wording meant to clarify fair dealing boundaries is in the Copyright Act and in judicial rulings on that act.
You and I might want the law to prescribe the situation exactly for all scenarios, but rights laws seldom do that. Western law understands that there is no set of rules so cleverly written that it can take the place of personal or judicial discretion.
@ThePrisoner24601 Right--the courts will exercise discretion, and when they do they will find significance in the fact parliament moved the whole sprawling universe of education into the once exclusive company of uses "that does not infringe copyright." This will change how they view educational use and for you and Geist (if you're not him you're his clone) to say it won't make any difference is preposterous.
@CodfishPie100 You seem really fond of debating with Michael Geist. You should invite him to this thread.
In any event I'm having trouble understanding your reluctance to let the courts do their job. The judiciary's power to overturn and adapt law to meet changing situations is the last best defense of justice in Western Law. Judges are frequently the best mechanism for keeping laws fair and relevant from decade to decade.
Which is good, because court is probably unavoidable in this case.
@ThePrisoner24601 Maybe you think we should abolish parliament and let unelected judges run the country. The court's job is not to decide policy, it is to interpret laws created by parliament. If parliament signals a major policy shift toward unpaid use of writing and art by the education industry, courts will follow. But you now seem to be acknowledging that. Good. That is what writers and artists disagree with.
@CodfishPie100 No, I'm very comfortable letting Parliament do its job too. They seem to be be taking an important step forward in copyright reform at the moment.
And you really could stand to pull back on the hyperbole and deliberate distortion of opposing views. You're in a room that's much more educated than most internet comment threads. The usual flamewar level of discourse isn't going to cut it.
@ThePrisoner24601 Ok, we've got you to admit the education exemption isn't as insignificant as you first said and the USA example does not actually support your vision of weaker intellectual property rights. Perhaps it is you who underestimates the intelligence of the room with your constant suggestions you are the only one who has read the material and thought through the issues. You could stand to pull back on the pedantic condescension.
@CodfishPie100 As previously, you're claiming a victory that never happened over something I never said. I never called educational fair dealing insignificant. I said it would not damage the publishing industry. Nor did I call it's impact trivial, fleeting, negligible or any other word you're going to invent for me to have said.
It will almost certainly change the publishing industry, just not damage it. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing that the law should prevent any form of change.
Also, this discussion began with a slight to teachers. If Access Copyright (makers of the video) didn't want to suggest a confrontational attitude towards teachers they could have written different words on Susan Swan's prompt card. Susan's comment is designed to imply hypocrisy on the part of teachers who support fair dealing for education.
I wonder if Susan would honour her original offer after she'd heard from thousands of teachers who frequently do work for free...
@ThePrisoner24601 Susan Swan merely made the point that the people who write the books teachers teach from deserve to be able to make a living from the work, just as teachers make a living from theirs. There is nothing confrontational or slighting about it. Copyright collectives provided a cheap, hassle-free way for schools to compensate writers, but Bill C-32 undermines collectives. That is a backward step.
@CodfishPie100 I'm going to assume you haven't read Access Copyright's Interim Tariff or Access Copyright's Proposed Tariff for post-secondary education. You really should.
If you'd read the proposed tariff you'd know that Access Copyright is no longer cheap or hassle free. You're free to keep saying that it is though. But it's not.
BTW, Section 10 of the Interim Tariff is genuinely funny. I won't spoil the punchline for you.
@ThePrisoner24601 Those are as you say interim documents. Since the Association of Canadian Colleges opened with an offer of zero payment to writers and publishers, AC countered with a higher offer, hoping to meet in the middle. It's called negotiating. But copying rates should rise. They're not enough to sustain creators of educational materials at present. The Geist mob's opposition to copyright collectives shows it doesn't support even minimal compensation to creators.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When teachers get paid for every fraction of time they spend doing their job, then writers can get paid for every fraction of their work that gets used for educational purposes. Until then, complaining about teachers wanting fair-use exceptions just makes you sound like greedy douchebags. Shame on the authors who agreed to make this propaganda piece - you make other authors look horrible.
From the educator's perspective, the tactics being used here are certainly misleading and frustrating, but the argument is largely academic. Teachers would like to see the C - 32 education exemption go through, certainly, but the only thing it will change is just how many times a day a teacher breaks the law. Every teacher I know pulls from their personal libraries for classroom use, and plays films without permission or clearace. The UK model is the only sensible approach to this issue.
@samcc42 with the proper collective license in place, the activities you describe are not necessarily against the law, but they sure will be if teachers do them without a license in the mistaken belief they are "fair" because it's "education."
@jkdegen It's not a matter of belief. Of the dozens of teachers I know, relatively few know or care that such restrictions even exist. Those that do largely ignore them, because they understand that following the letter of the law will only result in having to do significantly more work than their colleagues in order to achieve similar results. So again, this becomes not a practical argument, but an academic one.
Most teachers do what they think best for students, legal or not.
Arts and culture groups across the country are protesting aspects of C-32, including the proposed education exception under "fair dealing" discussed in this video. The website mentioned at the end of the video includes several papers which go into much more detail -- look under the "news" tab. There are many, many serious problems with C-32 from creators' point of view.
I am a Canadian writer, and currently serve as SK/MB rep on the national council of the Writers Union of Canada. Many of us come at this with varying interests and viewpoints, but despite our differences most of us agree that C-32 isn't ready yet. We don't want politicians to lose sight of that.
The people who drafted this seriously flawed legislation acknowledge that the education exemption is too wide open, and that it should be "fenced in." OK, here's what I - as a full-time professional writer - propose: You can use the first three paragraphs of my book for free. For the rest of the work of mine that you appropriate for teaching purposes, you send me a cheque. That's the deal I have with critics and reviewers. I also should have it with educators.
While I appreciate the concept of intellectual property. I take exception to the notion that teachers don't work for free. My contract day ends at 3:10. On a good day, I leave at 5:00. Oh, and I'm my school site's union rep.
Wow... hate the bill, but don't attack educators. I DO teach for free and have done so for a while now because I believe that educating young humans--at whatever cost to ourselves--is the most important thing we can do as older humans. Please consider young Canadians before your own income.
@5arah3 no-one is attacking educators. Writers are being forced to defend their right to earn a living through copyright licencing. In my experience, the teacher on the street has no issue with copyright licensing other than the fact that their school board or university admin doesn't want to pay for it. The point about teachers is that boards and admins would never get away with not paying teachers; so why should they NOT pay writers for the work they do for education.
I'm the Copyright Officer for a public school district in British Columbia. Do you have any idea of the headaches I have to put up with because our province has a blanket contract with Access Copyright? Did you know that in Canada, contract law trumps statutory rights, and that even though my colleagues should be able to use Fair Dealing guidelines to determine what's permissible, our AC agreement kicks Fair Dealing to the curb? And we can't opt out, either.
@freetardzero I'm sorry, I'm supposed to apologize to you because you have a job to do? My job is also difficult. I assume by "headaches" you mean making sure you honour an agreement. That's tough work alright.
AC licences cover uses not permitted under fair dealing. If your teachers are confused on that fact, maybe their Copyright Officer should help them out with some real information.
@corydoctorow except that's just not true. Access Copyright explicitly does not licence fair dealing uses. The licence covers large-scale industrial copying. Collective licencing is not a perfect solution, but it's a fair one for teachers and creators alike.
@jkdegen I didn't ask for an apology- but if you're working for Access Copyright, you owe me one! AC licenses are PURPORTED to cover uses not permitted under Fair Dealing- but in most cases, the AC agreement actually restricts its users to less than what's allowed by the Act. The main issue is that AC says "You are allowed to copy THIS MUCH AND NO MORE for classroom use", whereas the Act is a lot more open to interpretation- and the courts seem to agree.
@freetardzero The facts must be respected. AC's copying limits are informed by the courts and adjudicated by the Copyright Board. You may disagree with them, but they are completely in line with Canadian law. Ideological disagreement is not a substitute for the facts.
@jkdegen Of course they're in line with Canadian law. That does not mean they are in line with the spirit of the law. It also does not mean they are in line with the best interests of creators OR consumers of content. The one thing AC does well is allow teachers and their aides to copy without thinking or using any judgment about their actions. AC is simply getting too greedy, and beyond a certain price point, their 'service' is worthless.
@jkdegen Correct, on both counts. However, I disagree with your assertion that ideological disagreement is out of line in this discussion: if you were correct in this, then the creators of this wonderful shill piece we have here would be wrong as well. Their ideological disagreement is with the fact that most of people consider the AC license fees already too high, and with the fact that the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act provide a fairer exemption scheme for educators and learners.
Access Copyright would have the public believe that anyone talking about copyright reform thinks Works should be free (as in beer), and that creators should work for free. That's utter bollocks.. Nobody with any credibility is saying that we should get stuff for free. We are saying that it's reasonable to provide ways for people to use Works that won't infringe the rights of creators, while still enabling cultural commentary and academic access. Screw Access Copyright!
The education exemption is for fair dealing, not wholesale copying. With any propaganda like this, just follow the money. Who paid for this video and who stands to benefit? Access Copyright and certain publishers, perhaps?
@hjarche Of course it comes from Access Copyright. It's an organization that includes thousands of Canadian writers and publishers and works in their interest. Do you find this conspiratorial? There's also a bizarre notion out there that Canadian publishers are living high of the hog. If you pay any attention to the news, you'll note the several – and not small ones – are folding. Particularly hard hit by these proposed changes will be educational publishers.
@chthonical So, you're saying HB Fenn's problem was too much unlicensed copying? And not, say, the Tories turning a blind eye to Hachette's decision to go direct to Canadian booksellers from outside the country?
Proponents of "free culture" are people with other sources of income - they have academic appointments, high-earning and indulgent spouses, or trust funds. Giving things away is an indulgence of the rich, who like to present themselves as high-minded.
@chthonical I earn 95% of my income from writing. Meanwhile, one of the "authors" featured in this video is the partner of Patrick Crean an exec with Thomas Allen Publishers. In other words, the critics you're damning ear writers who support their families with words, the people in this video are married to rich corporate execs who benefit from limits on fair fealing.
@corydoctorow This is beyond disgusting. Are you actually saying Susan Swan cannot have her own opinions because of who she is married to? THIS is the rhetoric of free culture? Despicable.
@jkdegen Nobody says she can't have her own opinion, silly. However, as in any matter involving public figures and their statements, it's simple due diligence to point out connections they have that likely influence those statements, especially when they don't disclose up front.
Yeah- keep saying "Free Culture". I don't think it means what you think it means.
@jkdegen No. I'm saying that if you want to disparage people based on whether and for whom their spouses work, then by your lights, I'm an unimpeachable source and Susan Swan is terminally compromised. Personally, i think that's a pretty stupid argument, but if you're going to make it, you should at lease be cognisant of the facts.
@corydoctorow did you teach rhetorical backpedaling at your free culture club at USC? Did "Larry" come as a guest speaker on the subject.
The next time I have lunch with "Suzy" and "Pat", I'll mention how terminally compromised they are for daring to publish Canadian literature, write it, and love each other.
@jkdegen No, Larry didn't come as a guest speaker. The syllabus is trivially googlable, and there's a full list of speakers (none of whom were compensated).
And once again, you appear to be missing the fact that I the argument that spouses' income are relevant to this discussion isn't mine -- indeed, it's an argument I've explicitly rejected.
@jkdegen You're hilarious. Love the scare quotes around the names. Can you point out Doctorow's 'backpedaling' to which you refer? That's not a rhetorical question...and when you see these people to which you refer, tell them the Free Culture movement says hello. And also goodbye.
@jkdegen No. I'm saying that if you want to disparage people based on whether and for whom their spouses work, then by your lights, I'm an unimpeachable source and Susan Swan is terminally compromised. Personally, i think that's a pretty stupid argument, but if you're going to make it, you should at least be cognisant of the facts.
@jkdegen It's pretty obvious that cory was responding to chthonical's ridiculous assertion (that everyone who is in favor of fair dealing doesn't write for a living) and nothing more. Your mock outrage and exaggeration are unimpressive.
Again, keep railing against the free-culture thing, since none of us are arguing for that.
Most people reading this thread will understand that there's a vast difference between arguing for a creator-user balance in copyright law and free culture extremism.
@jkdegen It's pretty obvious that cory was responding to chthonical's ridiculous assertion (that everyone who is in favor of fair dealing doesn't write for a living) and nothing more. Your mock outrage and exaggeration are unimpressive.
Again, keep railing against the free-culture thing, since none of us are arguing for that.
Most people reading this thread will understand that there's a vast difference between arguing for a creator-user balance in copyright law and free culture extremism.
@jkdegen It's pretty obvious that cory was responding to chthonical's ridiculous assertion (that everyone who is in favor of fair dealing doesn't write for a living) and nothing more. Your mock outrage and exaggeration are unimpressive. Again, keep railing against the free-culture thing, since none of us are arguing for that. Most people reading this thread will understand that there's a vast difference between arguing for a creator-user balance in copyright law and free culture extremism.
It's pretty obvious that cory was responding to chthonical's ridiculous assertion (that everyone who is in favor of fair dealing doesn't write for a living) and nothing more. Your mock outrage and exaggeration are unimpressive. Again, keep railing against the free-culture thing, since none of us are arguing for that. Most people reading this thread will understand that there's a vast difference between arguing for a creator-user balance in copyright law and free culture extremism.
@corydoctorow However, 95 percent of the Doctorow-Taylor household income does not come from your writing. If it does, and your notion is to support "free culture", then you, the missus, and the sprog must be eating an awful lot of Kraft Dinner these days. "Free culture" is just a variation of "free labour". See if your lawyer or your plumber goes for this, next time you need one.
@chthonical I sold 100,000 hardcovers of Little Brother. I received a mid-six-figure advance for Pirate Cinema. I've had NYT bestsellers in 2008 and 2009. My books have been optioned for film, turned into stage productions, and sold in 20+ languages. And my wife has just quit her job to start a company (it was even in last week's Observer). So yes, 95% of this household's income comes from the words I write.
@corydoctorow And because you have been so successful, the rest of the world's writers should just shut up when they feel their rights are being removed? BTW, I think your mid-six-figure advance might just put you past that "corporate executive" publisher you disparaged earlier.
@jkdegen you realize, that at some point, you'll actually have to argue with doctorow about the issue instead of trying to argue about his character, right? I mean, you're just distracting from the real argument.
@jkdegen No, John. The person I was replying to implied that the only reason I objected to this video was that I didn't earn any money from writing and was supported by my spouse. This is not only an ad hominem, it's also factually inaccurate. As I pointed out, the vast majority of my income comes from writing. When this person sneeringly implied that I was fudging my figures, I provided specifics.
For the record, I spent 24 years getting to this point, and only quit my dayjob after 21 years.
Meanwhile, it's pretty funny that I'm not supposed to have an opinion on this because I simultaneously earn too much from writing and earn too little for writing. Maybe there's a sweet spot that entitles you to speak on this issue. I'll go out on a limb and say it's exactly CAD22,523.19.
@corydoctorow I don't find any of this funny. No-one's stopping you from having an opinion for any reason. Who could, frankly? Excuse your disparagement however you want. It's on the record.
Meanwhile, it's pretty funny that I'm not supposed to have an opinion on this because I simultaneously earn too much from writing and earn too little from writing. Maybe there's a sweet spot that entitles you to speak on this issue. I'll go out on a limb and say it's exactly CAD22,523.19.
@chthonical I earn 95% of my income from writing. Meanwhile, one of the "authors" featured in this video is the partner of Patrick Crean an exec with Thomas Allen Publishers. In other words, the critics you're damning ear writers who support their families with words, the people in this video are married to rich corporate execs who benefit from limits on fair dealing.
@chthonical I earn 95% of my income from writing. Meanwhile, one of the "authors" featured in this video is the partner of Patrick Crean, an exec with Thomas Allen Publishers. In other words, the critics you're damning are writers who support their families with words, the people in this video are married to rich corporate execs who benefit from limits on fair dealing.
Who are these authors? I don't recall ever seeing one of their names in a book store… This video is a scare tactic, and so badly misrepresents the position that anyone who actually READS the draft legislation for C-32 would laugh. I expect that there is serious lobbyist money behind this video, which I have no doubt leads back to major content conglomerates.
I agree that writers and educators should be partners -- which is why it's so disturbing to writers to witness the two-faced advocacy from the free culture crowd.
@jkdegen I don't know why you think it's two-faced to say that educators should -- along with journalists and critics -- be allowed to quote "non-significant" portions of creative works without permission. I learned to write in the Canadian school system from teachers who felt free to use handouts with brief quotes, without paying a license. Why should I get paid for what I got for free?
@corydoctorow collective licensing is not about brief quotes -- it's about large-scale copying for industrial use. Educators ALREADY have the exact same fair dealing rights as the rest of us where quoting is concerned. Maybe if your "real questions" dealt with actual copyright law, we'd get somewhere.
I'm married to a professor. I'm not calling educators venal. My dispute is with free culture theorists who co-opt educators' confusion for their own purposes. Those are the real dividers.
This video is high on trying to scare people and low on accurate information. Please stopy using such propaganda and misinformation and start getting involved in an actual dialogue with Canadians.
What's more valuable, the education and future of the country, or what's in your pocket?
Cory and The Prisoner -- thanks for the "free culture" talking points via Michael Geist.
So, you would have professional writers spend the next decade in court to wrestle with educational institutions about the 6-point test? Geist and others are already telling education to walk away from collective licensing (the very thing discussed in this video), while at the same time telling writers we have nothing to worry about.
@jkdegen Writers have had no "wrestles" with journalists or critics. US writers have not wrestled with educators in the years since they got this exemption. Why would writers have to wrestle with educators? Are teachers more venal or less reasonable than Conrad Black or Rogers? Rather than dismissing material that reflects the substance of the bill as "talking points," it would be productive and intellectually honest to engage with these real questions.
I think you need to say "free culture" a few more times. Just to make sure that you're not relying on talking points.
It seems clear that you don't understand what's in the existing Canadian Copyright Act or the proposed amendments in Bill C-32 or the Supreme Court of Canada's strongly-worded statement (in the 2004 CCH vs. LSUC ruling) regarding the urgent need for a broader interpretation of Fair Dealing in Canadian law. Michael Geist didn't write any of those documents.
@ThePrisoner24601 I guess you haven't heard where your rhetoric comes from. Free Culture was a book by Lawrence Lessig. You folks coined the phrase. I just use it to make sure everyone else knows who's really talking.
@jkdegen Actually, Larry took the phrase from various people in the free culture movement and used it for the title of his book, which spawned a formal set of university and high school "Free Culture" clubs. I was the faculty advisor for one such when I was the Canada-US Fulbright Chair at the Annenberg School at USC.
Fair Dealing has protected research, criticism, review, private study and journalism for years in Canada without damaging publishers or authors. Education will be no different.
Teachers in the US have had these rights since 2002 without damaging their publishing industry. Canada will be no different.
Canadian Copyright Law specifically says Fair Dealing use must involve a "less than significant" amount of the work. The video deliberately ignores this.
Right now, practically every sector of Canadian society can argue that their uses are fair dealing by showing that the use meets the criteria set out by the Supreme Court. The new exemption merely extends this narrow defense to education.
This video's alarmist rhetoric is totally disconnected from the text of the bill and is a really misguided attack on education. Education is a natural ally of the creative industries, and this divide-and-rule tactic harms creators and educators and kids.
...or because schools can not afford licenses pupils will only be exposed to public domain works that do not inspire them, and seem culturally irrelevant and archaic, so they stop enjoying reading, so they don't buy any of your books. Then you have no customers.
I'm a full time Canadian novelist and I support the education exemption because it bears no relation to the description presented in this video.
The C-32 education exemption doesn't say "Schools can use all published material gratis." It says that educational use should be subject to the same 6-part fair-dealing test set out by the Supreme Court that other users (corporations, etc) are subject to.
I think that this video has distorted an important question for Canadian creators.
@corydoctorow Hey Cory, Why don't you throw up a video response explaining the bill. We both knwo no one is going to take the time to read it. Love your books!
@corydoctorow A coalition of cultural groups representing some 600,000 cultural workers has voiced serious concerns about C-32 on several issues, including the education exemption. While you're right to say the law would continue to provide remedies against unlimited copying, most creators don’t have the resources to sue for such remedies, particularly given that C-32 limits damages for copyright infringement to levels that wouldn’t even cover legal expenses.
In the Canadian court system the winner of a lawsuit has remedies to compel the loser to repay court costs in addition to damages awarded. Any Canadian creator therefore has the resources to sue infringers of their work. Even if your point were partially correct (don't worry, it's not) it would not justify broadly denying essential fair dealing rights to a vital sector of our society.
This video expresses the concerns of so many Canadian writers. I'm sharing it with friends and family members so that they can understand why Bill C-32 needs to be amended in order to allow Canadian creators to continue to thrive and export their work around the world.
You're being misled here. This video expresses little more than the exaggerated concerns of Access Copyright. It's not surprising that the lady speaking at 1:25 of the video specifically mentions Access Copyright and their "reasonable fees" in between glances at her prompt card. I'd be surprised if Access isn't directly involved in making this video.
BTW, the tariff Access Copyright is applying for could increase their reasonable fees by 1100% for colleges and universities.
we need a new system... a new copyright for everything!!! books, art, music, video... the internet has changed everything... you can watch my videos here on you tube for free (and that's fine, ive chosen to allow you to see it) I support this initiative, with a caviat... I challenge us all to get creative and develop new revenues for our work
And artists too! If you're an illustrator of material that may been seen in an educational environment, your work will be given away for free as well.
@rhinoink That's just not true. Artists' works will be usable by educators inside the narrow band set out by the Supreme Court. Whomever told you that this was how the bill worked wasn't telling the truth.
This has been flagged as spam show
Could you please permit me to embed this video in a course wiki on copyright that I and my group are developing?
Thank you
2012nancyj 1 day ago
George Orwell was a better writer than all these horribly ugly looking people, and he wrote a little book called 1984.
ZimzRevenge 3 weeks ago
BUUUUUUUUUU!!!!
Gundamortal 1 month ago
I am against copyright law, as it is. The IIPA generally lies about everything in their statements and I applaud the many countries that say enough is enough and that the world will no longer bow down to the pressures of the USA. Keep the internet free and uncensored. Just because you are an artist, writer, publisher, actor, or musician does not mean you should have the right to be a millionaire. Fortunately the industries greed has finally caught up with it. Their fight is like a spoiled kid.
whitehorsejason 5 months ago 4
@whitehorsejason
Right on man! I think that your point which states "Just because you are an artist, writer, publisher, actor, or musician does not mean you should have the right to be a millionaire" means a lot not only because of the obvious greed and pride inherent in the justifications for the unfair market economy, but also simply because all people who manipulate knowledge for the good of others should fight to keep that knowledge free. What they should fight for is a ...(cont...)
grimslider75 1 month ago
(cont...)... n economic system which gives ALL people the essential resources so that writers do not have to starve themselves of essential things (right to energy for best quality of life, right to food, clothing, and transport that all required for quality living). Writers don't need money, they need resources for a good quality of life so that their ability to transmit new knowledge isn't impaired by our fucked up economic/social system.
grimslider75 1 month ago
The way I see this situation is that writers want to be paid over and over and over for their work. To compare teachers and principals work on the same level of authors is crap, authors do the work once, teachers and principals are there every day. Once ideas are expressed, they become the property of whomever is exposed to them. The next thing that is going to be demanded is for everyone who ever uses an idea from someone else to have to pay every time it is used. I am an author.
Tigerbyte123 11 months ago
@resonantmind
And the problem is... no part of the industry is an isolated economy. The ripple effect that you're describing moves more than just one way and copyright does its best to keep it moving ONLY one way. Piracy really isn't the issue. What is the issue is how to make money on the economic abundance.
Jyagos1 1 year ago
Anybody have a link to a Petition?
Whapastim2 1 year ago
No one is more supportive of teachers, and of education, than writers are, and we would be the first in line to support increased funding for education. Like all other “suppliers” to the education system, though, writers must get paid for their work. Many individuals volunteer in schools, out of choice, but the law does not compel such philanthropy. Yet C-32 will effectively require writers and other creators to donate portions of their work for free if it is of educational interest.
acumyn 1 year ago 7
If the new and badly worded education exception in C-32 stands, writers and publishers will be forced into costly rounds of litigation to find out exactly how much copying this new law allows. Such expensive uncertainty threatens to undermine the current market, which includes a system of collective licensing that features its own checks and balances and has been running for more than 20 years.
acumyn 1 year ago 7
The Writers' Union of Canada will continue to advocate for strong copyright protections as Bill C-32 makes its way through Parliament. Canada needs copyright reform, but copyright regulations should fundamentally protect the rights of creators and form a solid foundation for the knowledge economy. It's not going to be much of an economy -- not for creators, at any rate -- if we aren't paid fairly for use of our work.
acumyn 1 year ago 7
This is video is lying. It is a blatant lie. Adding education as a fair dealing exception does not make every use fair. Each use would have to pass the fair dealing test.
Also notice how there are no young voices represented in that video. Copyright is outdated; it's time for a fresh take.
jessified 1 year ago
@jessified
Piracy, government funding/grant cutbacks, less private funding, etc, etc... all the young voices were probably too broke to make it to the video shoot.
resonantmind 1 year ago
@resonantmind
Right cause piracy is the thing that is making young voices broke. If all students paid for every piece of copyrighted product they consumed then they would be so much richer.
The only reason I don't get mad is because this is so easy to predict: intellectual monopolies (i.e. copyright) are on their way out just like the physical resource monopolies of the mercantilist days. You can't sustain a law that so few people support; with every generation are fewer people supporting IP.
jessified 1 year ago 2
@jessified
It's not the sole reason, but a big part of it. You have to look at our industries as their own sort of isolated economies. When money is put in, it circulates and trickles and is invested to help the industry progress.
Hey, I'd glady give my art away for free... If I could live in a world where all I have to worry about is art and not money, ie, I don't have to pay for my electricity, food, water, health care, etc, etc. But that's not the case.
resonantmind 1 year ago
If a school pays for a class set of copies of the book then the writer IS getting paid. If the writer comes into the school to talk to kids they DO get paid for it. If a teacher wants to set a homework using a page from the books they use in school then why should they not be allowed to do that? I am a teacher and yes, I get paid for my work. But I have had my lessons recorded in all sorts of ways for students' use. Do I expect to be paid extra for that? Of course not.
paintycat 1 year ago
all the universities, libraries, archives etc. have said collective licensing is not in quesiton, what part of not don't you get? are you calling them liars? or are you calling them pirates? like a teacher is going to Pirate Bay to download Canadian history textbooks.
AnneThen 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnneThen 1 year ago
Exactly ThePrisoner - educators in the US have had MASSIVE amounts of freedom only wished for by Canadian teachers, but somehow, movies keep being made, novels keep being written, and somehow, money keeps being made.
As a teacher, the hoops you have to jump through in regards to copyright is ridiculous and outrageously expensive for most schools. There is no loss of revenue for artists if the work is being used for non-commercial purpose.
guinness13 1 year ago
Well, this actually that 2nd large issue I've heard with it. The big one for me is library e-publishing rights. Bill-C32 contains a clause where libraries can make infinite duplicates of books, loan them out, and not pay the authors any royalties or anything. I can see this with books in the public domain (or over 30 years old or so). But there are huge, huge flaws with this bill... terrible stuff!
CyurusRazor 1 year ago
@CyurusRazor As a respectful FYI, your numbers are way off on the public domain. In Canada a book enters the public domain 50 years after the author's death. In the US it's 70 years after the author's death. There are numerous hundred-year old books around the world that are not in the public domain yet. This is an area where publishing industry lobbyists could stand to reclaim some of their credibility.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
That's just crazy!
David
USA
Wildta1 1 year ago
@Wildta1 Hey David, you're from the USA and American teachers have had the exact Fair Use rights we're arguing about here since 2002. Tell me my friend, do they still have publishing companies in the good old USA, or writers, or books? Is the history of America still being written after 9 years of Fair Use in the classroom? Because the lady speaking at 2:25 is worried that our publishing industry will be "torn down so quickly" if our teachers get the same rights that US teachers now have.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 Very interesting to hear you holding the USA as a paragon of copyright perfection from this side of your mouth when the other side is warning against strengthening copyright the way the US did in its Digital Millinnium Copyright Act. That has sent the message to their courts that the USA is serious about protecting intellectual property. If Bill C-32 was as strong as the DMCA Canadian creators would not be as threatened. Would you like that?
CodfishPie100 1 year ago
@CodfishPie100 Your only debate mechanism seems to be exaggerating what your opponent says and adding things they never said. You might find that your argument convinces more grownups if you respond to what was actually said.
The US got it right by allowing Fair Use exemptions for education in 2002. US publishers either adapted to that change or just kept on going because the US still has a big publishing industry. The US experience with Fair Use disproves this video's doomsday prediction.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 And you ignored what I actually said, which was that the USA's 2002 TEACH act exists in the context of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provides a much more secure intellectual property environment than Bill C-32 would. The two situations are not parallel.
CodfishPie100 1 year ago
@CodfishPie100 You might consider that The DMCA (which does not protect books in print because they don't feature any form of DRM) cannot be the reason that American book publishing was not destroyed by the TEACH Act. The two situations are completely parallel for any media which does not feature DRM.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@CodfishPie100 It is equally clear that the US got it very wrong by passing the DMCA. Many segments of the US see that and are working vigorously to amend or repeal the DMCA.
Thanks for bringing up the subject.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 So say you. The nerdosphere naturally hates the DMCA because it tends to get in the way of cultural looting, but it is generally consistent with the position of the World Intellectual Property Organization and has become a trendsetter for similar legislation around the world--including, to some degree, Bill C-32. The likelihood of the DMCA being repealed at this point is nil.
CodfishPie100 1 year ago
@CodfishPie100 A lot of people outside of the nerdosphere oppose the DMCA because it recklessly criminalizes matters that were more appropriately handled under civil law.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
we have conditioned an entire generation to feel that art should be free. that they are entitled to it. that all the time, money, energy and blood, sweat and tears that an artist sacrifices for their art is a trivial byproduct of the act.
but all we are doing collectively is contributing to the decay of our own culture. this will not end well. the industries of music, film and literature all need to adjust and find a working solution.
scruffynloaded 1 year ago
You do a good job of parroting the Geist line, which seems to be that it changes nothing to include education in the short, select list of uses that, in the words of the bill, "does not infringe copyright." This is not believable. This moves the goalposts of the game and courts will certainly interpret it to indicate freer use of copyright work by anyone who claims an educational aim.
CodfishPie100 1 year ago 2
@CodfishPie100
Geist didn't originate the thesis that Fair Dealing exceptions should not be given a narrow or restrictive interpretation because doing so will unfairly restrict the inherent rights of users and impair the progress of society.
The Supreme Court of Canada said it first and they said it emphatically.
(Hint: I don't read blogs, they're seldom any more useful than internet comment threads. I read primary documents when an issue seems important.)
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 First you say the education exemption means nothing because the courts puts such strict limits on fair dealing, now you are saying the Supreme Court rejected "narrow or restricted interpretation." You make my point for me. You can't say what the courts are going to make of this huge new copyright exemption, except they won't ignore it.
Your partisan equivocation sure reminds me of Geist, sure you're not him? Anybody who says it means nothing to add a major new category to
CodfishPie100 1 year ago
@CodfishPie100 I never said that C-32 will have no effect on publishing and I didn't say the limits in place between The Copyright Act, C-32 and judicial precedent were in any way strict. I said that there are some limits in place and there are. That's a matter of public record. Educational use of copyright that is inappropriate or unfair will still infringe. I can't insulate you from the fact that the courts will be needed in this process. Laws work that way, even the laws you like.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
Simply put. I get it.
IxCloudxIx 1 year ago 3
@sandcamp45 Kafka worked for an insurance company. Faulkner was a postmaster. T.S. Eliot was inspired to write The Waste Land from the things he saw on the way to his job at a bank. (Just tried to post a link to a longer list at Lapham's Quarterly, but it's not letting me--just search Lapham's and "Day Jobs" if you're interested.) Hope that helps!
5arah3 1 year ago
This video was meant to help stimulate debate on C-32. It seems to be doing that, even if occasionally generating a puzzling level of incivility. Those of us who appear in the video agreed to do so because we believe C-32 poses a real threat to Canadian culture. For the record, we are not mouthpieces for vested interests or the enemies of educators (most of us work as educators); we are not spawn of the devil bent on deceiving the innocent public (well, I am, sometimes, but not in this case).
NinoRicciAuthor 1 year ago 13
I do earn a living from writing and am grateful for the money I receive from schools and others using my work. It's not a lot of money but often enough to keep me paying taxes. If schools were allowed to use my work without adequately compensating me, I would have to reconsider the work I do. That's what's lost in this discussion: how the educational exemption will affect the production and quality of Canadian content. if you want good relevant material, you should pay for it!
donoutdoors 1 year ago 13
This is about property rights. If a law forced photocopier companies to donate services to schools for tests and exams the howling would be intense. Yet writers are supposed to donate parts of their work for free? Every major professional writing group in the country opposes the proposed education exception. If a writer wants to donate parts of his or her work to schools, that's a personal choice. But C-32 will require it in law of all writers and artists whose work is of educational interest.
acumyn 1 year ago 15
@hanssue
I'm actually a writer and an educator. And I do have to make a living (which is just above the poverty line).
And if someone thought that a piece of my writing had enough value to be used in a classroom, I'd be honoured to donate it to them, just as I donate my time to teaching literacy.
I'm shocked to read here that it seems many people signed up to be writers thinking they'd make money at it.
5arah3 1 year ago
@5arah3 I'm
I'm also a writer and educator. Please tell me more about why its shocking to think that I could be paid for my work.
sandcamp45 1 year ago 2
@5arah3 I'm
I'm also a writer and educator. Please tell me more about why its shocking that I would like to be paid for my work. How else will I pay for life basics, life food, lodging, transportation?
sandcamp45 1 year ago 5
It's no surprise that copyleft trolls such as Doctorow have shown up here to try and make everyone drink the Kool-aid of the "Free Culture" cult. At least Cory signs his name to his idiocy. So many of these trolls choose anonymity to launch their diatribes. The writers in this video speak the truth.
Sandy Crawley
inkink47 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thank god for the lies of these individuals. Though I see the writer of this ad has quite the creative imagination as they have created a world with a fake bill in Parliament that would allow writer's to have their work stolen, also it outlaws gravity at some later point I'm sure.
What a crock of shit.
kanuckadisk 1 year ago
Well, I see this bill is having its intended effect even before it is passed. It is driving a wedge between the writing community that provides the resources and the educational community that uses them. I see words like "losers" , "greedy" and "douchebags" being thrown at people who politely suggest that Bill C-32 is flawed. I saw the incredible number "1100%"being thrown out as an unchallenged fact as to how much licensing fees will go up. Is Karl Rove taking a Canadian sabbatical?
OldMoonjuru 1 year ago 6
@OldMoonjuru Well said. It seems the focus is now writers against educators. I guess that has been done to take the focus away from the real fact that writers (yes I am one) are expected to give their work away for free. You don't think that anything copied for "educational" purposes is not going to fly across the internet for free, educational purposes or not.
hanssue 1 year ago 2
@OldMoonjuru and anyone listening.
The 1100% number that you find so incredible comes from the following calculation:
Most post secondary schools were paying Access Copyright $3.38 - $3.80 per-student-per-year for incidental copying provided free to students and many are still paying that under the current Interim Tariff.
Access Copyright is currently applying for a tariff that will change the rate to $45.00 per-student-per-year.
$45.00 / $3.38 = 1331%
$45.00 / $3.80 = 1182%
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
The educational facilities, the staff, educators, heating, electricity, technology, etc., etc, is paid for -- including the library facilities and IT extension of it -- why would writers not want to be paid by some measuring system, just as the workers in the facilities are paid by the hour, the electricity and heating system by their metering. Where did common sense and the respect for international copyright go with the current legislators in Canada?
TheBeaconview 1 year ago 11
To depict the proposed educational exemption as a minor change is deceptive. Bill C-32 adds education to the select list of uses including private study and research that “does not infringe copyright.” This has the effect of making education fundamentally exempt from copyright protection, unless stated otherwise. Minor changes are what they government should have made, but they have given the trillion-dollar education industry the same free pass as a single student studying at home.
howardwhite11 1 year ago 13
@howardwhite11
You are failing to understand what Fair Dealing actually is or you are deliberately exaggerating. Fair dealing allows LIMITED use of "less than significant" portions of a work in cases where: there is no damage done to the work's market value the use of that work has societal value the use of that work is fair based on the Supreme Court's 6 guidelines
Many of the commenters here would benefit from actually reading C-32, the CCH ruling and the Copyright Act.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
Comment removed
howardwhite11 1 year ago
Comment removed
howardwhite11 1 year ago
In response to some of the comments received: There are students who dream of not only becoming writers, but of also being able to have their own written work earn the income that is deservedly theirs, just like their teachers do today. Yes, some of their teachers work overtime for no pay - so do all artists. Writers do not condone theft by a pen, such as that contained in the recent Act.
SharonOddieBrown 1 year ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shame on you all. I'll never buy another book by Ricci - have never done so for the other losers on this vid.
rincewind99 1 year ago
This should not turn into teachers vs artists. Everybody should be paid. We all work for little enough as it is. The problem with C-32 is that it 's not at all evident from the wording what will constitute educational fair dealing and what will not. Teachers will not know what is legal copying and what is not legal copying. Artists, instead of having copyright protection for their work, will need to go to court to prove each violation. The law needs to clarify the situation, not muddy it.
GregHollingshead1 1 year ago 39
@GregHollingshead1 The wording that defines educational fair dealing isn't in C-32 because C-32 is an amendment to a standing act. The wording meant to clarify fair dealing boundaries is in the Copyright Act and in judicial rulings on that act.
You and I might want the law to prescribe the situation exactly for all scenarios, but rights laws seldom do that. Western law understands that there is no set of rules so cleverly written that it can take the place of personal or judicial discretion.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 Right--the courts will exercise discretion, and when they do they will find significance in the fact parliament moved the whole sprawling universe of education into the once exclusive company of uses "that does not infringe copyright." This will change how they view educational use and for you and Geist (if you're not him you're his clone) to say it won't make any difference is preposterous.
CodfishPie100 1 year ago
@CodfishPie100 You seem really fond of debating with Michael Geist. You should invite him to this thread.
In any event I'm having trouble understanding your reluctance to let the courts do their job. The judiciary's power to overturn and adapt law to meet changing situations is the last best defense of justice in Western Law. Judges are frequently the best mechanism for keeping laws fair and relevant from decade to decade.
Which is good, because court is probably unavoidable in this case.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 Maybe you think we should abolish parliament and let unelected judges run the country. The court's job is not to decide policy, it is to interpret laws created by parliament. If parliament signals a major policy shift toward unpaid use of writing and art by the education industry, courts will follow. But you now seem to be acknowledging that. Good. That is what writers and artists disagree with.
CodfishPie100 1 year ago
@CodfishPie100 No, I'm very comfortable letting Parliament do its job too. They seem to be be taking an important step forward in copyright reform at the moment.
And you really could stand to pull back on the hyperbole and deliberate distortion of opposing views. You're in a room that's much more educated than most internet comment threads. The usual flamewar level of discourse isn't going to cut it.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 Ok, we've got you to admit the education exemption isn't as insignificant as you first said and the USA example does not actually support your vision of weaker intellectual property rights. Perhaps it is you who underestimates the intelligence of the room with your constant suggestions you are the only one who has read the material and thought through the issues. You could stand to pull back on the pedantic condescension.
CodfishPie100 1 year ago
@CodfishPie100 As previously, you're claiming a victory that never happened over something I never said. I never called educational fair dealing insignificant. I said it would not damage the publishing industry. Nor did I call it's impact trivial, fleeting, negligible or any other word you're going to invent for me to have said.
It will almost certainly change the publishing industry, just not damage it. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing that the law should prevent any form of change.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@GregHollingshead1
Also, this discussion began with a slight to teachers. If Access Copyright (makers of the video) didn't want to suggest a confrontational attitude towards teachers they could have written different words on Susan Swan's prompt card. Susan's comment is designed to imply hypocrisy on the part of teachers who support fair dealing for education.
I wonder if Susan would honour her original offer after she'd heard from thousands of teachers who frequently do work for free...
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 Susan Swan merely made the point that the people who write the books teachers teach from deserve to be able to make a living from the work, just as teachers make a living from theirs. There is nothing confrontational or slighting about it. Copyright collectives provided a cheap, hassle-free way for schools to compensate writers, but Bill C-32 undermines collectives. That is a backward step.
CodfishPie100 1 year ago 5
@CodfishPie100 I'm going to assume you haven't read Access Copyright's Interim Tariff or Access Copyright's Proposed Tariff for post-secondary education. You really should.
If you'd read the proposed tariff you'd know that Access Copyright is no longer cheap or hassle free. You're free to keep saying that it is though. But it's not.
BTW, Section 10 of the Interim Tariff is genuinely funny. I won't spoil the punchline for you.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 Those are as you say interim documents. Since the Association of Canadian Colleges opened with an offer of zero payment to writers and publishers, AC countered with a higher offer, hoping to meet in the middle. It's called negotiating. But copying rates should rise. They're not enough to sustain creators of educational materials at present. The Geist mob's opposition to copyright collectives shows it doesn't support even minimal compensation to creators.
CodfishPie100 1 year ago
Comment removed
Provenzano1970 1 year ago
Comment removed
Provenzano1970 1 year ago
What is altruism?
frade001 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When teachers get paid for every fraction of time they spend doing their job, then writers can get paid for every fraction of their work that gets used for educational purposes. Until then, complaining about teachers wanting fair-use exceptions just makes you sound like greedy douchebags. Shame on the authors who agreed to make this propaganda piece - you make other authors look horrible.
wylkyn 1 year ago
From the educator's perspective, the tactics being used here are certainly misleading and frustrating, but the argument is largely academic. Teachers would like to see the C - 32 education exemption go through, certainly, but the only thing it will change is just how many times a day a teacher breaks the law. Every teacher I know pulls from their personal libraries for classroom use, and plays films without permission or clearace. The UK model is the only sensible approach to this issue.
samcc42 1 year ago
@samcc42 with the proper collective license in place, the activities you describe are not necessarily against the law, but they sure will be if teachers do them without a license in the mistaken belief they are "fair" because it's "education."
Thus the problem with the bill.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen It's not a matter of belief. Of the dozens of teachers I know, relatively few know or care that such restrictions even exist. Those that do largely ignore them, because they understand that following the letter of the law will only result in having to do significantly more work than their colleagues in order to achieve similar results. So again, this becomes not a practical argument, but an academic one.
Most teachers do what they think best for students, legal or not.
samcc42 1 year ago
Well done! Let's hope the government listens to the concerns of creators.
CARFACNational 1 year ago 11
Arts and culture groups across the country are protesting aspects of C-32, including the proposed education exception under "fair dealing" discussed in this video. The website mentioned at the end of the video includes several papers which go into much more detail -- look under the "news" tab. There are many, many serious problems with C-32 from creators' point of view.
acumyn 1 year ago 16
I am a Canadian writer, and currently serve as SK/MB rep on the national council of the Writers Union of Canada. Many of us come at this with varying interests and viewpoints, but despite our differences most of us agree that C-32 isn't ready yet. We don't want politicians to lose sight of that.
adaher63 1 year ago 29
@1:56 i like how they play the we are going to sue the taxpayers card
hanksnow82 1 year ago
The people who drafted this seriously flawed legislation acknowledge that the education exemption is too wide open, and that it should be "fenced in." OK, here's what I - as a full-time professional writer - propose: You can use the first three paragraphs of my book for free. For the rest of the work of mine that you appropriate for teaching purposes, you send me a cheque. That's the deal I have with critics and reviewers. I also should have it with educators.
percypage 1 year ago 6
While I appreciate the concept of intellectual property. I take exception to the notion that teachers don't work for free. My contract day ends at 3:10. On a good day, I leave at 5:00. Oh, and I'm my school site's union rep.
davevanfunk 1 year ago 2
Wow... hate the bill, but don't attack educators. I DO teach for free and have done so for a while now because I believe that educating young humans--at whatever cost to ourselves--is the most important thing we can do as older humans. Please consider young Canadians before your own income.
5arah3 1 year ago
@5arah3 no-one is attacking educators. Writers are being forced to defend their right to earn a living through copyright licencing. In my experience, the teacher on the street has no issue with copyright licensing other than the fact that their school board or university admin doesn't want to pay for it. The point about teachers is that boards and admins would never get away with not paying teachers; so why should they NOT pay writers for the work they do for education.
jkdegen 1 year ago 10
@5arah3
what income? You are assuming many of us make money. Most of us don't. Nice for you that you don't have to make a living.
hanssue 1 year ago 2
I'm the Copyright Officer for a public school district in British Columbia. Do you have any idea of the headaches I have to put up with because our province has a blanket contract with Access Copyright? Did you know that in Canada, contract law trumps statutory rights, and that even though my colleagues should be able to use Fair Dealing guidelines to determine what's permissible, our AC agreement kicks Fair Dealing to the curb? And we can't opt out, either.
freetardzero 1 year ago
@freetardzero I'm sorry, I'm supposed to apologize to you because you have a job to do? My job is also difficult. I assume by "headaches" you mean making sure you honour an agreement. That's tough work alright.
AC licences cover uses not permitted under fair dealing. If your teachers are confused on that fact, maybe their Copyright Officer should help them out with some real information.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen No, s/he was saying that the teachers in the district
a) Must opt into the AC
b) Must surrender their statutory fair dealing rights to do so
In other words, they are required to pay for uses that, by statute, should be free.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 3
@corydoctorow except that's just not true. Access Copyright explicitly does not licence fair dealing uses. The licence covers large-scale industrial copying. Collective licencing is not a perfect solution, but it's a fair one for teachers and creators alike.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen I didn't ask for an apology- but if you're working for Access Copyright, you owe me one! AC licenses are PURPORTED to cover uses not permitted under Fair Dealing- but in most cases, the AC agreement actually restricts its users to less than what's allowed by the Act. The main issue is that AC says "You are allowed to copy THIS MUCH AND NO MORE for classroom use", whereas the Act is a lot more open to interpretation- and the courts seem to agree.
freetardzero 1 year ago 2
@freetardzero The facts must be respected. AC's copying limits are informed by the courts and adjudicated by the Copyright Board. You may disagree with them, but they are completely in line with Canadian law. Ideological disagreement is not a substitute for the facts.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen Of course they're in line with Canadian law. That does not mean they are in line with the spirit of the law. It also does not mean they are in line with the best interests of creators OR consumers of content. The one thing AC does well is allow teachers and their aides to copy without thinking or using any judgment about their actions. AC is simply getting too greedy, and beyond a certain price point, their 'service' is worthless.
freetardzero 1 year ago
@freetardzero Ah, so what you're saying is I'm right about the licences, but you wish I wasn't right. Also, you don't want to pay a lot for them.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen Correct, on both counts. However, I disagree with your assertion that ideological disagreement is out of line in this discussion: if you were correct in this, then the creators of this wonderful shill piece we have here would be wrong as well. Their ideological disagreement is with the fact that most of people consider the AC license fees already too high, and with the fact that the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act provide a fairer exemption scheme for educators and learners.
freetardzero 1 year ago
Access Copyright would have the public believe that anyone talking about copyright reform thinks Works should be free (as in beer), and that creators should work for free. That's utter bollocks.. Nobody with any credibility is saying that we should get stuff for free. We are saying that it's reasonable to provide ways for people to use Works that won't infringe the rights of creators, while still enabling cultural commentary and academic access. Screw Access Copyright!
freetardzero 1 year ago
The education exemption is for fair dealing, not wholesale copying. With any propaganda like this, just follow the money. Who paid for this video and who stands to benefit? Access Copyright and certain publishers, perhaps?
hjarche 1 year ago
@hjarche Of course it comes from Access Copyright. It's an organization that includes thousands of Canadian writers and publishers and works in their interest. Do you find this conspiratorial? There's also a bizarre notion out there that Canadian publishers are living high of the hog. If you pay any attention to the news, you'll note the several – and not small ones – are folding. Particularly hard hit by these proposed changes will be educational publishers.
chthonical 1 year ago
@chthonical So, you're saying HB Fenn's problem was too much unlicensed copying? And not, say, the Tories turning a blind eye to Hachette's decision to go direct to Canadian booksellers from outside the country?
corydoctorow 1 year ago 2
Proponents of "free culture" are people with other sources of income - they have academic appointments, high-earning and indulgent spouses, or trust funds. Giving things away is an indulgence of the rich, who like to present themselves as high-minded.
chthonical 1 year ago
@chthonical I earn 95% of my income from writing. Meanwhile, one of the "authors" featured in this video is the partner of Patrick Crean an exec with Thomas Allen Publishers. In other words, the critics you're damning ear writers who support their families with words, the people in this video are married to rich corporate execs who benefit from limits on fair fealing.
corydoctorow 1 year ago
@corydoctorow This is beyond disgusting. Are you actually saying Susan Swan cannot have her own opinions because of who she is married to? THIS is the rhetoric of free culture? Despicable.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen Nobody says she can't have her own opinion, silly. However, as in any matter involving public figures and their statements, it's simple due diligence to point out connections they have that likely influence those statements, especially when they don't disclose up front.
Yeah- keep saying "Free Culture". I don't think it means what you think it means.
freetardzero 1 year ago 2
@jkdegen No. I'm saying that if you want to disparage people based on whether and for whom their spouses work, then by your lights, I'm an unimpeachable source and Susan Swan is terminally compromised. Personally, i think that's a pretty stupid argument, but if you're going to make it, you should at lease be cognisant of the facts.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 2
@corydoctorow did you teach rhetorical backpedaling at your free culture club at USC? Did "Larry" come as a guest speaker on the subject.
The next time I have lunch with "Suzy" and "Pat", I'll mention how terminally compromised they are for daring to publish Canadian literature, write it, and love each other.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen No, Larry didn't come as a guest speaker. The syllabus is trivially googlable, and there's a full list of speakers (none of whom were compensated).
And once again, you appear to be missing the fact that I the argument that spouses' income are relevant to this discussion isn't mine -- indeed, it's an argument I've explicitly rejected.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 2
@jkdegen You're hilarious. Love the scare quotes around the names. Can you point out Doctorow's 'backpedaling' to which you refer? That's not a rhetorical question...and when you see these people to which you refer, tell them the Free Culture movement says hello. And also goodbye.
freetardzero 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@jkdegen No. I'm saying that if you want to disparage people based on whether and for whom their spouses work, then by your lights, I'm an unimpeachable source and Susan Swan is terminally compromised. Personally, i think that's a pretty stupid argument, but if you're going to make it, you should at least be cognisant of the facts.
corydoctorow 1 year ago
@jkdegen It's pretty obvious that cory was responding to chthonical's ridiculous assertion (that everyone who is in favor of fair dealing doesn't write for a living) and nothing more. Your mock outrage and exaggeration are unimpressive.
Again, keep railing against the free-culture thing, since none of us are arguing for that.
Most people reading this thread will understand that there's a vast difference between arguing for a creator-user balance in copyright law and free culture extremism.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jkdegen It's pretty obvious that cory was responding to chthonical's ridiculous assertion (that everyone who is in favor of fair dealing doesn't write for a living) and nothing more. Your mock outrage and exaggeration are unimpressive.
Again, keep railing against the free-culture thing, since none of us are arguing for that.
Most people reading this thread will understand that there's a vast difference between arguing for a creator-user balance in copyright law and free culture extremism.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jkdegen It's pretty obvious that cory was responding to chthonical's ridiculous assertion (that everyone who is in favor of fair dealing doesn't write for a living) and nothing more. Your mock outrage and exaggeration are unimpressive. Again, keep railing against the free-culture thing, since none of us are arguing for that. Most people reading this thread will understand that there's a vast difference between arguing for a creator-user balance in copyright law and free culture extremism.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@jkdegen
It's pretty obvious that cory was responding to chthonical's ridiculous assertion (that everyone who is in favor of fair dealing doesn't write for a living) and nothing more. Your mock outrage and exaggeration are unimpressive. Again, keep railing against the free-culture thing, since none of us are arguing for that. Most people reading this thread will understand that there's a vast difference between arguing for a creator-user balance in copyright law and free culture extremism.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago 2
@corydoctorow However, 95 percent of the Doctorow-Taylor household income does not come from your writing. If it does, and your notion is to support "free culture", then you, the missus, and the sprog must be eating an awful lot of Kraft Dinner these days. "Free culture" is just a variation of "free labour". See if your lawyer or your plumber goes for this, next time you need one.
chthonical 1 year ago
@chthonical I sold 100,000 hardcovers of Little Brother. I received a mid-six-figure advance for Pirate Cinema. I've had NYT bestsellers in 2008 and 2009. My books have been optioned for film, turned into stage productions, and sold in 20+ languages. And my wife has just quit her job to start a company (it was even in last week's Observer). So yes, 95% of this household's income comes from the words I write.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 5
@corydoctorow And because you have been so successful, the rest of the world's writers should just shut up when they feel their rights are being removed? BTW, I think your mid-six-figure advance might just put you past that "corporate executive" publisher you disparaged earlier.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen you realize, that at some point, you'll actually have to argue with doctorow about the issue instead of trying to argue about his character, right? I mean, you're just distracting from the real argument.
ffreak3 1 year ago 2
@jkdegen No, John. The person I was replying to implied that the only reason I objected to this video was that I didn't earn any money from writing and was supported by my spouse. This is not only an ad hominem, it's also factually inaccurate. As I pointed out, the vast majority of my income comes from writing. When this person sneeringly implied that I was fudging my figures, I provided specifics.
For the record, I spent 24 years getting to this point, and only quit my dayjob after 21 years.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 3
Meanwhile, it's pretty funny that I'm not supposed to have an opinion on this because I simultaneously earn too much from writing and earn too little for writing. Maybe there's a sweet spot that entitles you to speak on this issue. I'll go out on a limb and say it's exactly CAD22,523.19.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 2
@corydoctorow I don't find any of this funny. No-one's stopping you from having an opinion for any reason. Who could, frankly? Excuse your disparagement however you want. It's on the record.
jkdegen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meanwhile, it's pretty funny that I'm not supposed to have an opinion on this because I simultaneously earn too much from writing and earn too little from writing. Maybe there's a sweet spot that entitles you to speak on this issue. I'll go out on a limb and say it's exactly CAD22,523.19.
corydoctorow 1 year ago
@chthonical I earn 95% of my income from writing. Meanwhile, one of the "authors" featured in this video is the partner of Patrick Crean an exec with Thomas Allen Publishers. In other words, the critics you're damning ear writers who support their families with words, the people in this video are married to rich corporate execs who benefit from limits on fair dealing.
corydoctorow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chthonical I earn 95% of my income from writing. Meanwhile, one of the "authors" featured in this video is the partner of Patrick Crean, an exec with Thomas Allen Publishers. In other words, the critics you're damning are writers who support their families with words, the people in this video are married to rich corporate execs who benefit from limits on fair dealing.
corydoctorow 1 year ago
Sorry, a 1100% increase in fees is not reasonable. I want to reach through the internet and knock out some teeth. Fucking liars.
fakegjfkler 1 year ago
This video is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.
Wuggyboobeaufuf138 1 year ago 2
Who are these authors? I don't recall ever seeing one of their names in a book store… This video is a scare tactic, and so badly misrepresents the position that anyone who actually READS the draft legislation for C-32 would laugh. I expect that there is serious lobbyist money behind this video, which I have no doubt leads back to major content conglomerates.
BMcRaeC 1 year ago
I agree that writers and educators should be partners -- which is why it's so disturbing to writers to witness the two-faced advocacy from the free culture crowd.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen I don't know why you think it's two-faced to say that educators should -- along with journalists and critics -- be allowed to quote "non-significant" portions of creative works without permission. I learned to write in the Canadian school system from teachers who felt free to use handouts with brief quotes, without paying a license. Why should I get paid for what I got for free?
corydoctorow 1 year ago 3
@corydoctorow collective licensing is not about brief quotes -- it's about large-scale copying for industrial use. Educators ALREADY have the exact same fair dealing rights as the rest of us where quoting is concerned. Maybe if your "real questions" dealt with actual copyright law, we'd get somewhere.
I'm married to a professor. I'm not calling educators venal. My dispute is with free culture theorists who co-opt educators' confusion for their own purposes. Those are the real dividers.
jkdegen 1 year ago
This video is high on trying to scare people and low on accurate information. Please stopy using such propaganda and misinformation and start getting involved in an actual dialogue with Canadians.
What's more valuable, the education and future of the country, or what's in your pocket?
veraciousful 1 year ago 2
Cory and The Prisoner -- thanks for the "free culture" talking points via Michael Geist.
So, you would have professional writers spend the next decade in court to wrestle with educational institutions about the 6-point test? Geist and others are already telling education to walk away from collective licensing (the very thing discussed in this video), while at the same time telling writers we have nothing to worry about.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen Writers have had no "wrestles" with journalists or critics. US writers have not wrestled with educators in the years since they got this exemption. Why would writers have to wrestle with educators? Are teachers more venal or less reasonable than Conrad Black or Rogers? Rather than dismissing material that reflects the substance of the bill as "talking points," it would be productive and intellectually honest to engage with these real questions.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 3
@jkdegen
I think you need to say "free culture" a few more times. Just to make sure that you're not relying on talking points.
It seems clear that you don't understand what's in the existing Canadian Copyright Act or the proposed amendments in Bill C-32 or the Supreme Court of Canada's strongly-worded statement (in the 2004 CCH vs. LSUC ruling) regarding the urgent need for a broader interpretation of Fair Dealing in Canadian law. Michael Geist didn't write any of those documents.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
@ThePrisoner24601 I guess you haven't heard where your rhetoric comes from. Free Culture was a book by Lawrence Lessig. You folks coined the phrase. I just use it to make sure everyone else knows who's really talking.
jkdegen 1 year ago
@jkdegen Actually, Larry took the phrase from various people in the free culture movement and used it for the title of his book, which spawned a formal set of university and high school "Free Culture" clubs. I was the faculty advisor for one such when I was the Canada-US Fulbright Chair at the Annenberg School at USC.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 2
Way to take a complex issue and simplify to suit your needs.The system needs fixing, not road blocks.
macblaze3 1 year ago
Comment removed
macblaze3 1 year ago
This video is alarmist and misleading.
Fair Dealing has protected research, criticism, review, private study and journalism for years in Canada without damaging publishers or authors. Education will be no different.
Teachers in the US have had these rights since 2002 without damaging their publishing industry. Canada will be no different.
Canadian Copyright Law specifically says Fair Dealing use must involve a "less than significant" amount of the work. The video deliberately ignores this.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
Right now, practically every sector of Canadian society can argue that their uses are fair dealing by showing that the use meets the criteria set out by the Supreme Court. The new exemption merely extends this narrow defense to education.
This video's alarmist rhetoric is totally disconnected from the text of the bill and is a really misguided attack on education. Education is a natural ally of the creative industries, and this divide-and-rule tactic harms creators and educators and kids.
corydoctorow 1 year ago
...or because schools can not afford licenses pupils will only be exposed to public domain works that do not inspire them, and seem culturally irrelevant and archaic, so they stop enjoying reading, so they don't buy any of your books. Then you have no customers.
This very nearly happened to me.
cjeam9199 1 year ago
If you want anyone to believe this you need to show numbers. Right now this just sounds like more propaganda from an industry in decline.
arjenkamphuis 1 year ago 2
We pay our politicians well to misrepresent us, why should our artist not be paid to pass on our culture!
willgrip4food 1 year ago
I'm a full time Canadian novelist and I support the education exemption because it bears no relation to the description presented in this video.
The C-32 education exemption doesn't say "Schools can use all published material gratis." It says that educational use should be subject to the same 6-part fair-dealing test set out by the Supreme Court that other users (corporations, etc) are subject to.
I think that this video has distorted an important question for Canadian creators.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 4
@corydoctorow Hey Cory, Why don't you throw up a video response explaining the bill. We both knwo no one is going to take the time to read it. Love your books!
Tyler W
Dezec 1 year ago
@corydoctorow A coalition of cultural groups representing some 600,000 cultural workers has voiced serious concerns about C-32 on several issues, including the education exemption. While you're right to say the law would continue to provide remedies against unlimited copying, most creators don’t have the resources to sue for such remedies, particularly given that C-32 limits damages for copyright infringement to levels that wouldn’t even cover legal expenses.
NinoRicciAuthor 1 year ago 11
@NinoRicciAuthor
In the Canadian court system the winner of a lawsuit has remedies to compel the loser to repay court costs in addition to damages awarded. Any Canadian creator therefore has the resources to sue infringers of their work. Even if your point were partially correct (don't worry, it's not) it would not justify broadly denying essential fair dealing rights to a vital sector of our society.
Creators would have to
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago
Thanks for doing this. I've shared and sent it on. It's simple, clear and to the point, even my member of parliament should be able to "get" it.
sandylou65 1 year ago
This video expresses the concerns of so many Canadian writers. I'm sharing it with friends and family members so that they can understand why Bill C-32 needs to be amended in order to allow Canadian creators to continue to thrive and export their work around the world.
onewomanoneblog 1 year ago
@onewomanoneblog
You're being misled here. This video expresses little more than the exaggerated concerns of Access Copyright. It's not surprising that the lady speaking at 1:25 of the video specifically mentions Access Copyright and their "reasonable fees" in between glances at her prompt card. I'd be surprised if Access isn't directly involved in making this video.
BTW, the tariff Access Copyright is applying for could increase their reasonable fees by 1100% for colleges and universities.
ThePrisoner24601 1 year ago 2
Writers who don't adapt to digital copy realities are destined to end up like movie and music cartels.
emperorinsaino 1 year ago
Comment removed
triplederby 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emperorinsaino -- Cartels? Really?
I think you may be confusing artists, authors or creators with publishers, or distribution companies.
triplederby 1 year ago
Woohoo! I am so proud of this video! Thanks for the opportunity to create it for you!
sarahthomasmoffat 1 year ago
we need a new system... a new copyright for everything!!! books, art, music, video... the internet has changed everything... you can watch my videos here on you tube for free (and that's fine, ive chosen to allow you to see it) I support this initiative, with a caviat... I challenge us all to get creative and develop new revenues for our work
darcylindzon 1 year ago
Awesome!!! Thank you for turning on the lights!!!
DivinoIable 1 year ago
well done! I will circulate this.
rayhach123 1 year ago
Excellent!
chthonical 1 year ago
And artists too! If you're an illustrator of material that may been seen in an educational environment, your work will be given away for free as well.
Evelyn
RhinoInk Illustrations
rhinoink 1 year ago 2
@rhinoink That's just not true. Artists' works will be usable by educators inside the narrow band set out by the Supreme Court. Whomever told you that this was how the bill worked wasn't telling the truth.
corydoctorow 1 year ago 2