Don't Let Retraction Distract From The Simple Fact: GOP Copyright Policy Brief Was Brilliant

from the don't-forget-it dept

While there's been plenty of attention paid over the weekend to the fact that the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the conservative caucus of House Republicans, pulled its report on copyright reform after some entertainment industry lobbyists hit the phones/emails late Friday/early Saturday (and, no, it wasn't directly to RSC, for the most part, but to "friendly" members asking them to express their "displeasure" with the report to the RSC leadership). But we shouldn't let that distract from the simple fact that the report was brilliant -- perhaps the most insightful and thoughtful piece of scholarship on copyright to come out of a government body in decades. You can still read the whole thing as uploaded to Archive.org.

Some people have set up a petition at Change.org asking the RSC to republish and stand behind the policy brief. Others are saying you should contact your own Representatives directly and ask them to support the report. For example, Dave Weinberger wrote a wonderful letter to his own Representative, telling him that he should take a look at the report, and that he should use it as a starting point "for a conversation this country very much needs."

It seems unlikely that the RSC will bring it back, despite the quality of the report. But one hopes that the massive outpouring of support (seriously, just check Twitter) will lead politicians from both parties to recognize that sensible and smart copyright reform is a topic that gets people excited -- and one thing they're sick of is decades of both parties simply falling all over themselves to distort copyright to favor a few dominant Hollywood players.

Because the GOP has chickened out, we're going to try to do a series of posts analyzing the various aspects of the report, starting with the three myths about copyright it debunks, followed by four policy recommendations, to see if we can further the discussion. Look for those posts in the coming days and weeks.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, gop, policy, policy brief, republicans, rsc

That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

from the so-that's-how-that-works dept

So, late Friday, we reported on how the Republican Study Committee (the conservative caucus of House Republicans) had put out a surprisingly awesome report about copyright reform. You can read that post to see the details. The report had been fully vetted and reviewed by the RSC before it was released. However, as soon as it was published, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report. They succeeded. Even though the report had been fully vetted and approved by the RSC, executive director Paul S. Teller has now retracted it, sending out the following email to a wide list of folks this afternoon:

From: Teller, Paul
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 04:11 PM
Subject: RSC Copyright PB

We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday....

Paul S. Teller
Executive Director
U.S. House Republican Study Committee
Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov
http://republicanstudycommittee.com

The idea that this was published "without adequate review" is silly. Stuff doesn't just randomly appear on the RSC website. Anything being posted there has gone through the same full review process. What happened, instead, was that the entertainment industry's lobbyists went crazy, and some in the GOP folded.

Frankly, if they wanted to win back the youth vote, this was exactly how not to do it. If you just look through the comments on our post on the original, or through the Twitter response to this report, there were tons of people -- many of whom were lifelong Democrats -- claiming that they would switch parties if the GOP stuck with this. Instead, they folded like a cheap card table in less than 24 hours.

In the long run, that's going to hurt the GOP, because the people who were suddenly interested in supporting the GOP will assume that any such effort is subject to a similar bait-and-switch. Meanwhile, this leaves open an opportunity for the Democrats as well. The Republicans just came close to becoming the party that actually listened to what was important to young people today -- and they quickly changed their mind. The Democrats can sweep in and take the issue since apparently it's there for the taking. All they have to do is be willing to tell some Hollywood lobbyists to pipe down.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, gop, lobbyists, rsc
Companies: mpaa, riaa

House Republicans: Copyright Law Destroys Markets; It's Time For Real Reform

from the congress-wakes-up dept

Update: Wow. It took less than 24 hours for the RSC to fold to Hollywood pressure. They have now retracted the report and attempted to claim that it was not properly vetted.

Right after the Presidential election last week, Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala penned an opinion piece suggesting that one way the Republicans could "reset", and actually attract the youth vote, would be to become the party of copyright reform. We had actually wondered if that was going to happen back during the SOPA fight, when it was the Republicans who bailed on the bill, while most of those who kept supporting it were Democrats. Since then, however, there hadn't been much movement. Until now. Late on Friday, the Republican Study Committee, which is the caucus for the House Republicans, released an amazing document debunking various myths about copyright law and suggesting key reforms.

If you're used to Congress not understanding copyright, prepare to be surprised. It's clear, thorough and detailed about just how problematic copyright has become and why it needs to change. To give you a sense of where the document heads, note the final line:

Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets -- rather it destroys entire markets.

There is a lot in this document, and we can't go through it all, but I highly recommend reading through it. The three "myths" it attacks are:

1. That the purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator. No, it correctly notes, it's about benefiting the public:

   Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” In today’s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation.
   
   This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators “deserve” or are “entitled to” by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights.

2. That copyright is a representation of free market capitalization. The paper properly notes that the reality is the exact opposite:

   Copyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez faire capitalism. Under the current system of copyright, producers of content are entitled to a guaranteed, government instituted, government subsidized content-monopoly.

3. That the current copyright regime leads to the greatest level of innovation and productivity. That makes no sense at all, the paper says:

   Today’s legal regime of copyright law is seen by many as a form of corporate welfare that hurts innovation and hurts the consumer. It is a system that picks winners and losers, and the losers are new industries that could generate new wealth and added value. We frankly may have no idea how it actually hurts innovation, because we don’t know what isn’t able to be produced as a result of our current system.

From there, it goes on to look at some of the specific harms of today's copyright law, including harming remix culture and a lot of commercial activity around it, that it "hampers scientific inquiry," discouraging value added industries and others.

Finally, it puts forth suggestions for copyright reform that go way, way, way beyond anything we've seen legitimately discussed in Congress, ever. Below I just show some snippets from the recommendations, so go read the full thing.

1. Statutory Damages Reform:
   
   Copyright infringement has statutory damages, which most copyright holders can and do use in litigation (rather than having to prove actual damages). The government sets a range – which is $750 to $30,000 per infringement – but that goes up to $150,000 if the infringement is "willful." Evidence suggests that the content holder almost always claims that it is willful. This fine is per infringement. Those rates might have made sense in commercial settings (though even then they arguably seemed high), but in a world where everyone copies stuff at home all the time, the idea that your iPod could make you liable for a billion dollars in damages is excessive.
   
2. Expand Fair Use:
   
   Right now, it's somewhat arbitrary as to what is legally fair use based upon judicially created categories. One example: parodies are considered protected by fair use but satire is not. There's an excellent book (and a shorter paper) called Infringement Nation that details how things you do every single day are infringing and leave every single person liable for billions in damages each year (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151).
   
3. Punish false copyright claims:
   
   Because there is minimal or nearly non-existent punishment for bogus copyright claims today, false takedown requests are common and have a chilling effect upon legitimate speech. While those filing a takedown request have to swear on the threat of perjury, that swearing is only in regard to whether the work is theirs but not whether the work is actually infringing. The court has said that their needs to be “subjective bad faith” in order to be sanctioned for false takedown requests. This often leads to de facto censorship.
   
4. Heavily limit the terms for copyright, and create disincentives for renewal:
   
   Current public policy should create a disincentive for companies to continue their copyright indefinitely because of the negative externalities explained in this paper. Unlike many forms of government revenue, generating revenue by disincentivizing activities with negative externalities is one way for the government to pay for its operations. This is a far superior way for the government to generate revenue rather than having a tax system that disincetivizes work.

It goes on to suggest a sliding scale for copyright renewal, after a free initial term of 12 years. The fee for renewal would be a percentage of revenue from the work, and that percentage increases with each additional renewal term. Under such a system, those who are still exploiting the copyright can continue to hold one, but for most, where there is greater benefit to have the work in the public domain, the work goes into the public domain.

This document really is a watershed moment. Even if it does not lead to any actual legislation, just the fact that some in Congress are discussing how copyright has gone way too far and even looking at suggestions that focus on what benefits the public the most is a huge step forward from what we've come to expect. In many ways, this is the next logical step after the completion of the SOPA fight. Rather than just fighting bad policy, it's time for Congress to recognize that existing copyright law is bad policy and now is the time to fix it. It comes as a surprise, but kudos to the Republican Study Committee -- and specifically Derek Khanna, the policy staffer who wrote the document -- for stepping up and saying what needed to be said, but which too many in Congress had been afraid to say for fear of how the entertainment industry lobbyists would react.

Filed Under: congress, copyright reform, sopa

Is Neelie Kroes Implicitly Calling For Your Assistance For Copyright Reform?

from the you-go-girl dept

Neelie Kroes, the Vice President of the European Commission and politician in charge of the Digital Agenda, announced the impressive ambitions of the EU to support the ongoing technology revolution in a recent speech in Brussels. Repeatedly, she calls for radical reform of policy and public R&D investment. The speech shows once again that she and her team really understand the current transformation to a networked economy, which brings about “open, agile and collaborative” innovation and research. Kroes wants to accelerate and boost the potential of technology innovation by creating space for “disruptive ideas”. A few snippets:

“I want to try out support for truly open, disruptive innovation in ICT.”

“[…] remember that great innovation isn't about keeping the status quo: it's about challenging it. It's radical, disruptive, and sometimes non-linear – especially for emerging technologies. So let's make space for that in Horizon 2020.”

“We must update our policies and practices for the digital world”

How refreshing is that from a senior government official? Of course, she names and shames some barriers, which she intends to bring down. Notably, she mentions the policy incoherence of EU copyright, where the status quo strangles innovation (if you follow her implied logic from the speech). This is not the first time she mentions that copyright is doing more harm than good. She has criticized the system again and again. And again just the other day. And several more times in unofficial speeches.

It must now be getting obvious -- even for the layman -- that the copyright system is one of the biggest inhibitors of Mrs. Kroes’ ambitious and forward-looking agenda for positive technological change. Too bad the copyright office of the EU is not in her department, but in the department run by Mr. Barnier, who seems a little more hesitant to enact change. Perhaps it's because he has a top former IFPI lobbyist working for him? Perhaps Kroes’ frequent mentioning of copyright is an implied call for assistance to her audiences to help change Mr. Barnier’s mind.

I wonder how long it will take for civil society organizations to pick up on these hints. The current public interest in copyright policy after ACTA, SOPA and PIPA can now be called into action again to send a batch of friendly notes to Mr. Barnier, possibly with a few quotes from Mrs. Kroes’ speeches, urging him to develop new copyright legislation which should be discussed in open and transparent forums sooner rather than later. It would be a shame to let governments postpone legislative action until the public interest from the internet freedom movements subsides.

In any case, you may comment on Mrs. Kroes' speech or leave a reply on her blog to show your support and even make some suggestions of your own.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, eu, neelie kroes

Has The German Pirate Party Lost Its Way?

from the harder-than-it-looks dept

For the last year, it seemed like the German Pirate Party could do no wrong. In November 2011, it won 9% of the vote in the Berlin parliamentary elections, then 7.4% in Saarland in March, 8.2% of the vote in Schleswig-Holstein in May, and a similar level in North Rhine-Westphalia shortly afterwards. There was a little pushback from copyright maximalists, but after ACTA's defeat in July, you might have expected the Pirates to be riding even higher in the public's favor. A recent article in the German news magazine Der Spiegel reveals that's far from the case:

a new opinion poll by the German public broadcaster ZDF put support for the party at just 6 percent, its lowest level since March. Another survey recently conducted by the Forsa research institute found that the Pirates only enjoyed 7 percent of the electorate's support, down from 9 percent in July. Indeed, it would seem that the up-and-comers are losing a bit of their magic.

As Der Spiegel points out, this is largely the Pirates' own fault. Brutal in-fighting, made all-the-more evident because of the party's laudable belief that internal discussions should be conducted in the open, is undermining the party's credibility as a serious political player:

What other party streams the meetings of its national committee live on the Internet or allows people to watch sessions of its parliamentary groups? Is there another party where it's possible to find its members' cell-phone numbers via a Google search? But the constant chatter of the crowd also has negative consequences: It makes it difficult for the party to be taken seriously as a political actor.

Equally serious has been an inability to set any overall sense of political direction:

it is still unclear where this journey is leading, and the party can't answer the relevant questions. "A unified strategy is not observable," Klaus-Peter Schäppner of the Emnid opinion-research institute told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

It is perhaps understandable that a party that coalesced around a small number of digital issues -- absurdly harsh punishments for unauthorized file sharing, or the increasing invasion of privacy by governments through the use of online surveillance -- should find it harder to arrive at a consensus on more traditional ones, like economic and social policy. But it was widely assumed that in the field of copyright, at least, it would be able to make radical and concrete proposals that set it apart.

A recent policy document on the subject, drawn up by the Pirate Party in Berlin (pdf, in German), disappoints those expectations. Where the German Pirate Party's page on copyright boldly calls for the legalization of copying for non-commercial purposes, the rejection of DRM as "immoral", and "a drastic reduction of copyright periods, far below the periods specified in the TRIPS agreement," the Berlin Pirates' paper is content to produce a series of meek observations about ways in which small improvements could be made without rocking the boat. These include the wider use of Creative Commons licenses, making court rulings freely available, and more transparency for negotiations with the German performance rights organization GEMA. None of these are bad ideas, but they're hardly the significant reform proposals that helped get the party so much attention in the first place.

Maybe the Pirate Party wants to prove its rigor and seriousness by starting from the current position, rather than seeking to overturn it; perhaps it is trying to work with the mainstream parties, and doesn't want to frighten them with radical proposals; or perhaps it has simply lost its way and ended up being assimilated by the system.

Whatever the cause, the consequences of this lack of vision could be serious. As Der Spiegel notes:

polling experts say the party is in freefall and that it may struggle to get the 5 percent of the vote it needs to win seats in the German parliament, the Bundestag, in the 2013 national election.

That's by no means inevitable, but the German Pirates certainly face a huge task if they want to avoid becoming a textbook example of how quickly a new political party's fortunes can wax and wane.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copyright reform, germany, pirate party

Copyright Reform Process Begins Down Under... And They're Actually Asking Good Questions

from the they-did-what-now? dept

Australia's been an interesting country to follow on the copyright front. In terms of court decisions, there have been some good ones and some awful ones. On the lawmaking front, we've seen ridiculous ideas floated and good ones as well. The current regime is, unfortunately, supporting some of the bad parts of the TPP, but the Australian Parliament has argued for rejecting ACTA. All in all, it's a mixed bag.

However, Australia is about to undergo a copyright reform process, with the Australian Law Reform Commission focusing on how copyright reform should work in the digital economy, and releasing a very encouraging set of questions that it is seeking to answer as a part of the process. Unlike the typical "and just how awesome is copyright?" type of questions we see in some other places, the ALRC's questions raise many of the key issues -- noting that copyright law absolutely has an impact on the introduction of new and innovative business models and that it "imposes unnecessary costs or inefficiencies on creators or those wanting to access or make use of copyright material."

Furthermore, it has some specifics that show whoever put together the questions has a pretty deep understanding of some of the key upcoming issues, including how copyright law should handle things like caching and cloud computing. There's a push among copyright holders to change or clarify laws to say that temporary or cached copies can violate copyright, but that that leads to some serious problems for all sorts of online activities. Some of the ALRC's questions show a recognition of the potential problem:

Question 3. What kinds of internet-related functions, for example caching and indexing, are being impeded by Australia’s copyright law?

Question 4. Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide for one or more exceptions for the use of copyright material for caching, indexing or other uses related to the functioning of the internet? If so, how should such exceptions be framed?

Question 5. Is Australian copyright law impeding the development or delivery of cloud computing services?

Question 6. Should exceptions in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended, or new exceptions created, to account for new cloud computing services, and if so, how?

There's also a whole series of questions looking at how private copying should be dealt with, as well as "online use for social, private or domestic purposes." A few more of the questions:

Question 7. Should the copying of legally acquired copyright material, including broadcast material, for private and domestic use be more freely permitted?

Question 11. How are copyright materials being used for social, private or domestic purposes—for example, in social networking contexts?

Question 12. Should some online uses of copyright materials for social, private or domestic purposes be more freely permitted? Should the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be amended to provide that such use of copyright materials does not constitute an infringement of copyright? If so, how should such an exception be framed?

The questions even specifically call out how samples, remixes and mashups should be handled. I doubt that the majority of US politicians even know what any of those three things are.

Furthermore, the questions explore known issues with copyright law today, such as how to deal with libraries, archives and orphan works (though we still think they should be referred to as hostage works). Towards the end, there are a whole bunch of questions around fair dealing (what Australia currently has) and fair use. They specifically ask if Australia should switch from fair dealing -- with its specific exceptions to copyright law -- to fair use, with its much more broad and flexible look at whether or not uses should be allowed without permission.

Who knows how this will turn out in the long run, but from a starting point, it certainly looks like the ALRC is actually asking a lot of the right questions, rather than trodding down the well-worn path of simply expanding copyright law over and over again. Of course, the really tragic part is that if Australia does sign onto ACTA and the TPP, they may not be able to make many of the changes suggested by these questions. That's one of the major concerns with both agreements. They lock governments into certain ways that copyright law must act, and it wouldn't allow the kinds of exceptions that these kinds of questions would likely lead to. That's one of the reasons why we're so worried about both agreements. They don't necessarily change the laws today in some places (in others, they make some changes), but the real problem is they lock in clearly broken parts of the system and make it impossible for them to evolve. Clearly some people in Australia recognize the problems with copyright law in the digital age -- but ACTA and TPP might limit their ability to fix those problems.

Filed Under: australia, cloud computing, copyright, copyright reform, fair dealing, fair use, personal use

A Postgame On Canada's Copyright Reform

from the mixed-bag dept

On Monday, after multiple attempts over several years, Canada's House of Commons passed Bill C-11 (previously known by other names), a sweeping copyright reform bill. Senate approval is all but assured, and the bill is essentially certain to become law in the near future. Luckily, unlike SOPA/PIPA in the States, C-11 is not a ridiculous, draconian internet lockdown bill. In fact, there's a lot to celebrate in the bill, though that celebration is marred by one significant problem: the digital locks portion, which is similar to the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules.

But first, the good stuff. Michael Geist has an excellent summary of C-11 with a comparison to previous phases of copyright law in Canada. The victories for smarter copyright law in C-11 sound almost like fantasy when compared to the American copyright debate. They include:

• New fair dealing provisions (our version of fair use) to cover educational uses, plus parody and satire
• New backup, format-shifting and time-shifting allowances that remove previous restrictions on networked DVRs and internet TV services (similar to those that have suffered in American courts)
• Explicit copyright exceptions for "user-generated content", aimed at protecting non-commercial fan-art and remixes
• A bunch of explicit exceptions for schools, such as the right to stage public performances
• A notice-and-notice system, not a notice-and-takedown system
• A $5,000 cap on statutory damages for all non-commercial infringement

Many of these are, as Geist calls them, "user-focused reforms"—something conspicuously absent from most proposed copyright legislation these days. But the digital locks issue remains a black mark on C-11, as the concerns of groups representing consumers, the blind and visually impaired (who will have a tougher time accessing digital content now), and Canadians in general were all brushed aside in favor of a DMCA-style approach that makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection systems even if it's for the purposes of making a legal copy. This, unfortunately, weakens the impact of all the positive reforms in the bill, because it creates a glaring loophole whereby rightsholders can attempt to block copying even if it's for one of the newly defined legal reasons. It's a real shame, and it also represents a foot-in-the-door for those who want more DMCA-style laws in Canada.

Still, it hardly erases the fact that there's a lot to like in C-11. User rights got more attention and more serious consideration in this bill than they ever did in SOPA/PIPA. Given that American diplomats were (and still are) actively pushing for Canadian versions of the DMCA and SOPA (or even more draconian laws that they can then import back to the U.S.), we came out of this one pretty well.

Filed Under: bill c-11, canada, copyright reform, digital locks, fair dealing

The Case For Copyright Reform: Techdirt Book Club

from the let's-discuss dept

First off, a reminder that this Friday, at 1pm PT (4pm ET), we'll be hosting a live Q&A concerning the Techdirt Book Club book for May, Reclaiming Fair Use by Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi. If you want to see the first excerpt, the second excerpt, the third excerpt and the fourth excerpt go check them out. Patricia will be joining us for the Q&A on Friday, so get your questions ready.

And, with that I wanted to introduce the June book, which is The Case for Copyright Reform, by Rick Falkvinge and Christian Engstrom. This time, I don't have to include an excerpt, because you can download the whole thing for free in a variety of different formats. Of course, you can also buy a physical copy if you'd like to.

And... then you can do whatever you want with it, as the authors have explicitly declared that they retain no copyright in the works, and you are free to do with it what you will. Just to whet your appetite, I'm still going to include a very brief excerpt of just the first few paragraphs, which highlights the key point of the book. Rick and Christian will be joining us for a (I expect, lively) chat at the end of the month as well. Anyway, here's the excerpt:

Today’s copyright legislation is out of balance, and out of tune with the times. It has turned an entire generation of young people into criminals in the eyes of the law, in a futile attempt at stopping technological development. Yet file sharing has continued to grow exponentially. Neither propaganda, fear tactics, nor ever harsher laws have been able to stop the development.

It is impossible to enforce the ban against non-commercial file sharing without infringing on fundamental human rights. As long as there are ways for citizens to communicate in private, they will be used to share copyrighted materials. The only way to even try to limit file sharing is to remove the right to private communication. In the last decade, this is the direction that copyright enforcement legislation has moved in, under pressure from big business lobbyists who see their monopolies under threat. We need to reverse this trend to safeguard fundamental rights.

At the same time, we want a society where culture flourishes, and where artists and creative people have a chance to make a living as cultural workers. Fortunately, there is no contradiction between file sharing and culture. This is something we know from a decade’s experience of massive file sharing on the Internet.

In the economic statistics, we can see that household spending on culture and entertainment is slowly increasing year by year. If we spend less money on buying CDs, we spend more on something else, such as going to live concerts. This is great news for artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD, but 50% of the revenues from a concert. The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.

It may well be that it will become more difficult to make money within some parts of the cultural sector, but if so, it will become easier in some others – including new ones, that we have not even imagined so far. But as long as the total household spending on culture continues to be on the same level or rising, nobody can claim that artists in general will have anything to lose from a reformed copyright.

Should this also have the side effect of loosening up some of the grip that the big distributors have over cultural life, then so much the better for both artists and consumers.

Filed Under: book club, christian engstrom, copyright reform, fair use, patricia aufderheide, peter jaszi, rick falkvinge

Canadian Politician Claims That Ripping A CD To Your iPod Is Like Buying Socks & Stealing Shoes To Go With Them

from the these-people-don't-belong-in-gov't dept

Via Michael Geist, we learn that Canadian Member of Parliament Dean Del Mastro, as part of the debate over copyright reform in Canada, is arguing fervently (and mockingly) against the right to format shift legally purchased music, say, from a CD to your digital music player. Specifically, he argues that format shifting is no different than buying one thing and then stealing a completely different product:

It's like going to a clothing store and buying a pair of socks, and going back and saying 'By the way, it wasn't socks I needed, what I really wanted was shoes, so I'm just going to take these -- I'm going to 'format shift' from socks to shoes -- and I'm not going to pay anything because it was all for my feet.'"

I wouldn't believe it myself if there wasn't video:


It's scary that people so clueless about the basics of what they're discussing not only get elected, but then presume to make new laws based on their gleefully on-display cluelessness. No one is asking people to give up a totally unrelated product. They're just saying that they quite frequently already do make use of a legally purchased good in a different context, and that should be legal. It's like saying that they buy socks, and sometimes they like to make hand puppets out of them. In the ridiculous world of MP Dean Del Mastro, such a "format shift" would require a different purchase. People like that should have no business legislating.

Filed Under: canada, copyright reform, dean del mastro, format shifting

Copyright Reform

from the artists'-point-of-view dept

This week at Mimi & Eunice I'm writing a Haiku for every comic, starting with this one:

Real artists don’t wait
For lawyers and officials
To give permission.

 

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform