Once again disproving the myth that professional artists aren't open to new models and new technology, The Writers Union of Canada has turned to YouTube to get out their message about necessary amendments to Bill C-32, Canada's copyright modernization act.
Not surprisingly, the five prominent Canadian writers featured in the video -- Nino Ricci, Erna Paris, Alan Cumyn, Susan Swan and Sandra Campbell -- focus on the reform bill's ill-conceived educational fair-dealing category. This one element of C-32 has proven most worrisome for the professional writing community because of its vague and contentious promise to exempt from licensing much if not all classroom use of copyright-protected materials.
And, of course, writers and their copyright collectives have good reason to be concerned that an educational category of fair dealing would be broadly interpreted as permission for all classroom use. After all, prominent advocates for the education sector have said as much. In fact, many who counsel the education community on copyright have advised that the current fair dealing categories of research and private study should cover most classroom use.
I expect this video to receive immediate and vitriolic criticism from the free culture theorists pushing for a broad educational exception. We've seen already how ugly the attack on professional creation can be. Making much the same point in the Globe & Mail as he does in this video, Nino Ricci was called a liar and a propagandist by prominent free culturists. When the Writers' Union (among other creator groups) expressed these same concerns in a submission to government, Michael Geist accused them of fear-mongering.
Bravo to five brave leaders in Canada's literary community. Knowing full well the free culture agitators will rally a mob to fling insults and shout them down, they nevertheless speak out loudly and confidently for their rights. And bravo to the Writers' Union for producing the video.
UPDATE: As predicted, the nasty comment campaign has begun at the TWUC video's YouTube location. Here are some sample quotes:
"Writers who don't adapt to digital copy realities are destined to end up like movie and music cartels." -- emperorinsaino
"...this just sounds like more propaganda from an industry in decline." --arjenkamphuis
"This video's alarmist rhetoric is totally disconnected from the text of the bill and is a really misguided attack on education." -- corydoctorow
"This video is high on trying to scare people and low on accurate information. Please stop using such propaganda and misinformation... What's more valuable, the education and future of the country, or what's in your pocket?" -- veraciousful
Yes indeed -- you can count on the free culture folks to get the troops out as soon as artists start talking about their rights.
15 comments:
Thanks John. The quotes from the You Tube comments certainly reveal a pattern of behaviour that you, also, have been subjected to in this space and elsewhere. We can only hope that Canadians who see the video and inform themselves on the issues will be able to differentiate between civil discourse from forthright individuals such as the writers who speak for themselves and their communities in the video and the type of scurrilous messaging, more often than not from poisoned pens who won't even reveal their identities.
Hey John,
Did you get permission from Google to excerpt, in their entirety, those quotes from the commenters?
You are only encouraging the scourge of cut and past digital pirates.
We can only hope that the holocaust of educators being able to excerpt content to discuss important societal issues is stamped out.
@John "Yes indeed -- you can count on the free culture folks to get the troops out as soon as artists start talking about their rights."
John, this is not a zing or a lazy attempt to reuse your words. But the terms; poison pens, bullying, virulent attacks, can also be applied to your uncompromising opinion on 'free culture' advocates.
I'm not sure you can use and disown this principle at the same time with credibility.
Apart from that keep up the good effort of showing one side of this important issue.
Oh, and by the way Sandy, my name is Crockett, David ... my parents had a wry British sense of humor ;)
Um, John, so this video disproves what exactly? All I saw were five chicken littles proclaiming that if our copyright laws had anything even close to the free dealings that Americans' enjoy, our publishing industry would be destroyed. Have the Americans figured out that they've already suffered this fate and have no publishing industry anymore, or are we keeping that as a surprise?
@Darryl,
We have similar provisions in European law (have had them for quite a while actually). There appears to be a general consensus that such provisions benefit society while not really harming the industry. I do agree with John though that the provisions could do with proper explanation as to their limitations, as they are clearly not meant as a license to freely use whatever you want for whatever educational purposes.
Peter, I believe a number of 'free culture' advocates, as well as myself, have been supportive of the call for more clarification and balance in the C-32 education exemptions. Similar to the need for similar treatment to the digital lock issue.
I do sincerely hope these issues can be addressed before Harper's itchy trigger finger pulls an election.
Frankly I think there are more important clarifications to be made such as who exactly is the author of AV works for copyright purposes.
Moving copyright to a creation+X years from a life+X years system whereever possible is another important step in simplifying this law. Instead we see the government bestow the same complicated life+X system upon photographs, that we already suffer with other works.
There are basic issues of fairness such as why do collaborative works enjoy longer copyright protection than solo works?
If this new education exemption really will give schools the ability to stiff authors like they claim, then why hasn't CTV NEWS taken advantage of the identical 'news reporting' exemption to open up their own bestseller bookstore?
Hi John,
FYI, here's a current example of big business failing to keep up with the new emerging markets and exhibiting poor management. It is truly a fast changing & complicated landscape we find ourselves in.
"Bookseller Borders, which helped pioneer superstores that put countless mom-and-pop bookshops out of business, filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday. Borders suffered from a stinging series of errors: failing to catch onto the growing importance of the Web and electronic books, not reacting quickly enough to declining music and DVD sales, and hiring a series of CEOs without book-selling experience." *Globe & Mail
It's tiresome having to correct Darryl's factual wrongness all the time. Respect the rule about commenting with actual facts, please.
And Crockett, note that Darryl used the words "free dealings" when he meant "fair use," the American provisions for limited use. I know you think my use of "free culture" as a label is extreme, but it applies.
So, for the record, educators in America do NOT enjoy markedly greater free (of fair) use of copyright-protected material. Here's a quote from an essay on the subject in the Academic Leadership Journal, and American open access journal for educators:
"Here are some general guidelines to get a clearer picture and ensure that a researcher or educator does not become vulnerable to legal action. Up to 10 percent of a copyrighted text may be used to a limit of 1,000 words, whichever is less. Up to 250 words of a poem may be used, unless the poem is shorter than 250 words, in which case the whole poem may be used. A photograph, graphic or illustration may be used in its entirety, but the use is limited to 5 illustrations per artist or, for a collective work, 15 images or up to 10 percent. Up to 10 percent of a musical composition is allowable, but for each individual composition the limit is 30 seconds. Up to 10 percent of a film is reproducible -- to a limit of 3 minutes.
Let us take an example: a teacher who does not have funds to purchase 25 copies of a musical piece for the band makes 20 copies from the five that have been purchased. This reduces the number of copies sold by the owner of the work by 20 and thus amounts to an infringement of the owner's copyright... Education is not to be used as an excuse for misusing or exploiting the owner's rights."
Access Copyright, who clearly state their licenses are meant to complement "what is allowed under fair dealing, educational exceptions under the Copyright Act, and through the public domain," licenses uses beyond 10%.
So, whose molehill is becoming mountainous here? Education already has all the rights they claim they need through changes in the law.
@John "I know you think my use of "free culture" as a label is extreme, but it applies."
On that topic John, I will agree to disagree with you.
@ Davy...Davy Crockett,
So you don't buy that there is a "Free Culture" movement? Well then, despite your parents sense of humour, I guess you're not the King of the Wild Frontier after all. Seriously though, from what I have absorbed of Lessig and various acolytes such as Cory Doctorow, there is an real and yes, virulent ideology out there that seems to envisage a utopia where all information is available to everyone for nothing more than an investment in a digital device. I do get that you have some sense of principle around compensation for use under your coon-skin hat, but you must see that there are others who won't be satisfied until everyone agrees with their technological trumphalist stance...or else be destroyed by the deluge of solutions to all the world's ills from the cloud.
Sandy, It is true that there are quite a few people out there who don't intend to ever pay for any media regardless of the consequences to creators or themselves. These people are therefore shameful parasites of our society. But those same people are not likely to be the ones who campaign for fair use or market reform, they really don't care ... They just take.
Those who do take the time and effort to debate are often more thoughtful about it and have varying views, opinions and often even very supportive of creators.
Now this may be just my personal bent, but I hate labeling groups of people. It pigeonholes individuals and smothers further understanding. It may be my perception at fault here, but it seems most everyone who doesn't agree with John gets filed into the 'free culture' folder. Giving the impression that those who are interested in exploring creative copyright solutions are assumed to have the intent at heart to clean out the cupboards and run.
I don't think this is true for most who take the time speak up. The ones who want to have their cake and eat it too are too busy stuffing their faces to get a word out edgewise.
To quote John:
"Let us take an example: a teacher who does not have funds to purchase 25 copies of a musical piece for the band makes 20 copies from the five that have been purchased. This reduces the number of copies sold by the owner of the work by 20 and thus amounts to an infringement of the owner's copyright... Education is not to be used as an excuse for misusing or exploiting the owner's rights."
...when we arrive at the social decay that you've described (and arguably, we're there in many areas), I'll still put a child's education first before endorsing your view that paying for extra copies is the more ethical choice between the two.
Crockett,
I can't help feeling you're relatively new to all of this. In this debate, which I have been personally and professionally involved in for a full decade now, I've heard professional artists called most vile names you can imagine -- sheep, shills, liars, fascists, Nazis, etc.
I've personally been called every name in the book, and had my intelligence, personal integrity, honesty and ethics questioned and maligned. Much of this has happened right here in my own personal space on the Internet. Much of it, as well, has come directly from the university I paid money to attend, from an academic I and every other tax payer in this country subsidizes in six figures to do "impartial" research.
I am not going to apologize to you or anyone for using an accurate term - free culture - to refer to an ideology and its self-identifying followers. I just finished an online argument with self-appointed "copyfighter" Cory Doctorow -- in which he revealed his complete ignorance of Canadian copyright law, btw -- and he happily described his days in the USC Free Culture student club.
I absolutely don't think everyone with a mildly free culture bent is a pirate or thief, but I do know from long experience that those with a professional interest in advancing this theory use every well-intentioned expression of cultural generosity to push their theory; and if they can make real legislative change happen, well that's just more money in the tenure bank.
Mr. Chesworth -- you are not quoting me; you're quoting an essay I was quoting. And I disagree. You teach nothing of value when you teach from a compromised ethical position. Such defeatism is not in the spirit of education.
"but I do know from long experience that those with a professional interest in advancing this theory use every well-intentioned expression of cultural generosity to push their theory; and if they can make real legislative change happen, well that's just more money in the tenure bank."
There are only three words with which to respond to this.
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
"You teach nothing of value when you teach from a compromised ethical position. "
All ethical positions are a compromise. Who do you save, the mother or the unborn child? How much do we allow our citizens to be taxed so that we can afford to take care of society's less fortunate?
Perhaps in this particular case if copyright were just a little bit shorter so that works entered the public domain sooner there would be enough money to pay living artists instead of the heirs of long dead ones. We as a society are choosing to support artists for far longer than is reasonable, and the result of that is a far higher cost for creative works than would otherwise be the case.
Usually John when you are personally attacked, other than the occasional drive by troll, it has been simply a response to an attack you have made.
BTW, you are right about my fair use terminology gaff. Sorry. It's late at night.
Regarding broader American fair use for education. Here is section 107 of their copyright law:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
This looks remarkably like what is proposed in bill c32 and is followed by a 4 point tests which also is remarkably similar to the one laid out by our court.
As for your Essay. I'm not sure what you think it proves. It is one reasonable interpretation of their legislation. It could equally apply to a post c32 canadian copyright law as well. BTW did you notice the section above where it said including multiple copies for classroom use? Are you really telling me that isn't broader than our current copyright?? Yeah right!
Post a Comment