SOCAN Tries To Keep Its Copyright Consultation Submission Offline And Secret, But Fails
from the what's-there-to-be-embarrassed-about?-oh...-pretty-much-everything dept
We were just talking about how SOCAN, the Canadian copyright collection society, was going after gymnastics clubs for kids using music in their practice routines. Now they're getting some well-deserved attention for other antics. Michael Geist explains how SOCAN tried to keep its submission to the government copyright consultation secret. The organization apparently requested that its submission not be posted online, even though that was part of the consultation process. The government made it available anyways, but only by email upon request. Of course, it's now available online elsewhere [PDF].SOCAN's recommendations aren't surprising. They call for a making available right (article 22 of the submission), a broadening of the private copying levy (article 30), anti-circumvention provisions (55-56), notice-and-takedown (59), copyright term extension (60), and no further exceptions to copyright (34, 48). But rather than outright declaring war on consumers, they copy the language (poorly) of those seeking more effective copyright reform. For example, they claim that the "rights of users and creators" are already "balanced" because "the Copyright Board of Canada provides a fair mechanism to set the royalty" (45) -- someone had better tell the gymnastic clubs! Another great example: They want to expand the private copying
Copyright amendments must not set up unwarranted exemptions, or otherwise limit the copyright royalties paid... If you deprive SOCAN's members of copyright royalties, you are basically asking over 35,000 Canadian individuals to take risks and work for nothing. That's not realistic, and it's not fair. (34-35)It's just laughable to suggest that more flexible fair dealing (i.e., something like the American concept of fair use) would mean artists not getting paid. Do artists "work for nothing" in the U.S.? Though, it should be no surprise from an organization that claims that, if you use a Creative Commons license, you "won't get paid" and your work may become devalued. To a collection society, getting paid can only mean royalties, and the value of music can only mean... well, royalties.
Best of all, they seem nervous about Industry Minister Tony Clement, who's given some indication that he wants to craft forward thinking policies. SOCAN recommends that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage have sole responsibility for copyright reform (article 66). The Heritage committee is involved in the process, but as Geist points out, this recommendation betrays some discomfort with Clement and the Industry Committee, since the Copyright Act clearly grants the Minister of Industry responsibility for copyright. So, first, we get a laundry list of maximalist demands using the language of "balanced" copyright reform, then a suggestion to ignore the Copyright Act and exclude the ministry they're not comfortable with (you know, the one focusing on the economic concerns) from having any responsibility in reform? No wonder they wanted to keep the submission secret.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
While "They claim that the "rights of users and creators" are already "balanced" because "the Copyright Board of Canada provides a fair mechanism to set the royalty"", it is also clear that there are so many exemptions to the process that it isn't completely fair.
At this point, the rights are heavily stacked in favor of the users, who can copy, share, and trade with impunity, without any requirement to pay for the products they enjoy. There is no simple mechanism in Canada do deal with piracy, illegal file trading, or many other issues that are rapidly taking over the music and movie fields.
They aren't being maximalists, they are just trying to pull the pendulum back nearer the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, I'm just too busy laughing to think clearly now.
You tell 'em. Those damn commies not supporting an infinite, perpetual, and all encompassing government granted monopoly. How dare they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...Aside from the usurious blank media levy we've all been paying since the 1980s, regardless of whether said blank media was in fact used to record 'product'.
Gawd, you ACs don't even bother trying anymore, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually that does sound fair.
A copyright abolishionist/destructionalist agreeing with a copyright maximalist/creationist?
Well color me surprised!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"copyright, in Canada, lasts for the length of the artist's life + 50 years."
What happens when immortality starts being a reality?
How will the persons descendants ever make a living?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The laws must stay exactly as they are, regardless of hypothetical scenarios based on extrapolated data from the past to the present.
Sure, not everyone has a super-copying machine in their pockets right now but give a few years. Then everyone will. And if they "steal" based on an accusation then they should have their super-copying machine taken away from them. By the rights holder.
Yeah, that sounds totally fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Clearly, as human longevity approaches infinity, so too should copyright. After all, a songwriter owns her songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, but you need to learn from your boss how to be sarcastic better, you pretty much failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes... that's the point.
Um... you need to talk to songwriters and people in the music industry more. I was just repeating an argument I received yesterday on a folk music mailing list. It's an argument used all the time by lots of songwriters and musicians (and by record industry execs when they try to represent songwriters and musicians).
There was no imagination in my comment. I was just relaying what I've heard a million times from friends and acquaintances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a difference between paying for products you enjoy (i.e. legally acquiring musical recordings, whether paid or not really) and paying for the enjoyment of products. SOCAN, as a collection society, is concerned with the latter. They aren't administering rights so that people can pay when they acquire goods, they're collecting a toll for the use of those goods.
When we're talking about paying for the privilege of dancing (see Tariff 8 [PDF] or the gymnastic clubs story), or playing music to your horses, yeah, there had better be a lot of exemptions, otherwise it gets pretty ridiculous pretty quickly.
And SOCAN's proposals to deal with those issues are maximalist. That is, their response is more copyright restrictions. They want to make it illegal to rip your DVDs to your computer, or to copy and paste from a DRMed eBook, implement a one-strike-and-your-out notice-and-takedown provision with a presumption of guilty until proven innocent, and they oppose an expansion of fair dealing to cover time/format shifting or forms of artistic expression like parody/satire/remix... yet they want to increase the levies we pay.
Why should we pay more levies if we get less rights?
If we're expected to pay an iPod levy all of the sudden, to supposedly account for private copying, they why are all these other restrictions on private copying being suggested at the same time?
The Songwriters Association of Canada wants a levy on ISP connections... but in place of draconian measures to counter "piracy." They aren't asking for legal tools to go after illegal file sharers; they want to make it legal. SOCAN, on the other hand, wants more draconian measures while increasing levies at the same time. That's pretty maximalist.
Also, the laughable "fair use would mean working for nothing" statement is also indicative of maximalism. It's not just the notion that royalty streams would dry up with more flexible fair dealing that's absurd, but the idea that the only value in music is in royalties.
Anything that reduces royalties is bad, anything that increases them is good. The more royalties, the better. That's a maximalist position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah? Well fuck them. They were told this is how things would be if they were allowed to place a levy on damn near anything that music could be copied to and they agreed to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright is nt ownership
ya i agree totally
take away the CRIA from canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright is nt ownership
the green party the only party to actually have a term set is 12 years
sounds reasonable to me
WE DON'T NEED TO CREATE A WELFARE STATE FOR ACTORS/writers and musicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is nt ownership
sounds reasonable to me"
Not to me.
The problem is that trying to police copyright necessarily involves a lot of intrusion. I don't think copyright is worth that. Hell, look at all the creative work (mashups/AMVs/fanfilms etc) that are done DESPITE copyrights. Imagine what would unfold if we got rid of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is nt ownership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright is nt ownership
imagine that people arguing with a pirate party for fair use UGH useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put everybody in jail.
People who watch TV for free and listen to radio for free should be jailed.
Those freeloaders that never pay anything don't deserve to see the light of day and there is a lot of them.
According to U.S. stimates 100% of households in America have TV and radio. This is an absurd. Artists don't see a dime from these people and are enjoying all for free.
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Profits are down.
Go to that webpage and highlight all "200" that it has,
This ending decade was the most profitable decade ever!
And 2008 probably was the best year off all times.
Piracy is truly a burden :)
ps: The values seem to be inflation corrected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]