what are 3 million books worth?

That's a question the framers of Canada's Bill C-32 are going to have to ask themselves after a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision to support a 2009 tariff certified by the Copyright Board of Canada. The tariff was under review at the request of all provincial Ministers of Education (except Quebec's) and a number of individual school boards.

Access Copyright, Canada's Copyright Licensing Agency sent out a press release yesterday announcing the ruling, calling it "an important decision for rights holders not just in the education sector, but in every field of creative endeavour."

Access Copyright has shown that over 250 million pages of work are photocopied for use in the Canadian K-12 sector, an amount roughly equivalent to 3 million books. Access Copyright's Executive Director Maureen Cavan notes:

"That's 3 million books that have not been sold. As long as reproduction is compensated, creators and publishers and the thousands of knowledge workers supported by this industry can survive. Take away the compensation, and you will jeopardize a Canadian industry that provides Canadian children and their teachers with Canadian content."

On the other hand, the introduction of an overly broad exception to copyright for educational use would all but eliminate fair compensation for this established use. While happy with the Court of Appeal ruling, Access Copyright General Counsel, Roanie Levy, worries about the unintended effects of copyright amendments under C-32.

"The decision is bitter-sweet when you consider that the federal government's proposed changes to the Copyright Act could impair future compensation for reproduction of materials used in education."

250 million of anything is bound to have important economic value - even 3 million is not a figure one would ordinarily discard with the wave of a hand. Undoubtedly, the special committee on C-32 will be hearing a strong message about knowledge workers and education from the creator sector. After all, everyone else gets paid for their work in education. It would be odd, and rather expensive, if writers and publishers find themselves caught up in an exception to that rule.

Especially when the presumed reasoning behind an educational exception - providing easy and worry-free access to a large pool of creative work - is the very reasoning behind the tariff. From AC's info page on the tariff:

The tariff is designed to allow you to make copies that would not be covered by fair dealing or available through the public domain . It simplifies your job by eliminating the need to ask permission every time you want to make a copy.

The tariff provides permission to copy from a vast repertoire of commercially published books, magazines, journals and newspapers, and ensures that creators and publishers are paid when their works are copied.

book piracy -- a tale of two worlds

The Guardian online is running a photo essay about physical book piracy in Peru. The photos remind me of the book vendors I frequented in Eastern Europe when I toured the region in 1994. One fellow in Bucharest was using the steps of a bullet-scarred university building to stack his wares, many of which had the look and feel of cheap, quick, rip-off copies of North American bestsellers -- though it was admittedly hard to tell, because five years out of the revolution the free publishing industry in Romania was still in its infancy.

As this essay suggests, the effects of (and motivations for) physical book piracy can seem complex -- access and affordability for the poorest of the poor, increased audience for writers -- but the bottom line remains intellectual property is being trespassed upon and abused.

Meanwhile over here in the digital world, book authors and publishers are trying to figure out how to secure their "treasure" while watching what appears to be an advancing fleet of pirate vessels. IP law-guy, Barry Sookman points us to a recent study showing what appears to be an epidemic of online book piracy. The study was conducted by an online piracy monitor called Attributor, and it estimates that piracy represents approximately 10% of current U.S book sales, or roughly $3 billion (USD).

Consider the potential effects for Canadian writers and publishers worldwide. According to a recent Hill Strategies analysis of Statistics Canada data, our current international trade in homegrown books is approximately $395 million. We are currently experiencing a book trade deficit of approximately $1 billion.

BTW, books, magazines and other printed materials appear to be the clear leaders in terms of Canadian cultural exports (and imports) outstripping even film and video. Granted, video games stats were not collected.

this seems like an easy resolution

For anyone still struggling with choosing a New Year's resolution, how about "I resolve to learn the name of one Canadian writer in 2009."

Preferably, you will learn this name by purchasing and reading a Canadian book. And if this resolution doesn't seem difficult enough, you could try "I resolve to introduce at least one friend to an excellent Canadian book this year."

Why the resolution? Because the National Post finished 2008 with some of the most depressing news Canadian writers and publishers have seen in a long while:

"Almost half of Canadians could not name a single Canadian author unprompted, according to results of a government-sponsored survey."

And apparently those who could name an author named ... well... how to put this politely?... very few young (or actually alive) authors. Margaret Atwood, Farley Mowat and the late Pierre Berton were the most frequent names given.

Entire lists of Canadian authors, and their books, can be found on the websites of Ontario's excellent literary publishers, in the links section of the righthand menu on this site.

linking to Ontario's literature

The last section in the right-hand menu of this blog is now an alphabetical list of links to the many and various magazines, book publishers, art service organizations and literary festivals supported by the Ontario Arts Council Literature Office in 2008. I will add more as they arrive within the granting system, and will also include links to groups operating without OAC support. As we know, the OAC cannot possibly fund all of the worthwhile requests it receives in a given year.

Have a look through the list and marvel, as I do, at the size and breadth of literary culture in the province of Ontario.

the cleansing power of economic depression

Los Angeles Times book editor David L. Ulin has written an opinion piece speculating on how the recent American economic, um, slowdown might actually be good for writing and publishing as we know it.

Some quotes of note:

"...publishers will scale back some of their higher-end advances, especially in regard to certain risky properties: books blown out of magazine stories, over-hyped first novels, multi-platform "synergies." At least, I hope that's what happens, because one of the worst trends in publishing -- in culture in general -- over the last decade or so has been its air of desperate frenzy, which far more than falling numbers tells you that an industry is in decline."

"...both publishers and writers have long since given themselves over to a blockbuster mentality, even in regard to books that wouldn't normally fit that mold. In recent years, this has meant an increased focus on "author platforms" (whatever they are), as well as a frantic embrace of all things new -- blogs, author websites, social networking -- as if this, rather than its contents, is what sets a book apart.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of new technology, new delivery systems, new venues where the conversation about literature might take place. But the unrelenting insistence on newness has led down any number of blind alleys..."

I'm not exactly sure how old this piece is because the Times seems not to date individual articles, but like cheese and a good cedar deck these thoughts are perhaps improved with aging.

Thanks to the professor for the link to this article.

recession-proof industry?

While it may seem a small number compared to what has befallen Wall and Bay Streets, a layoff of 16 people at Doubleday makes headline news in the New York Times.

Industry News -- Google settles

In an interestingly worded blog posting, Google announces the settlement reached between it, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) over the Google Book Search function on their search engine.

Relevant quotes:

"What makes this settlement so powerful is that in addition to being able to find and preview books more easily, users will also be able to read them. And when people read them, authors and publishers of in-copyright works will be compensated. If a reader in the U.S. finds an in-copyright book through Google Book Search, he or she will be able to pay to see the entire book online. Also, academic, library, corporate and government organizations will be able to purchase institutional subscriptions to make these books available to their members. For out-of-print books that in most cases do not have a commercial market, this opens a new revenue opportunity that didn't exist before."

...

"As part of the agreement, Google is also funding the establishment of a Book Rights Registry, managed by authors and publishers, that will work to locate and represent copyright holders. We think the Registry will help address the "orphan" works problem for books in the U.S., making it easier for people who want to use older books. Since the Book Rights Registry will also be responsible for distributing the money Google collects to authors and publishers, there will be a strong incentive for rightsholders to come forward and claim their works."

Other links of interest for this story:

Mercury News (Silicon Valley)

The Authors Guild

cnet news

digital-copyright.ca

market me this

Negative reaction to the introduction of Bill C-61 has been a fascinating exercise in hyperbole, panic and outright paranoia. Check out this posting on Michael Geist's blog for links, mostly to those folks agreeing with him, but not always.

I've been reading comment streams endlessly, and it amazes me how completely anti-Americanism has become the central focus of this issue. Despite a decade-long process involving endless public discussion between Canadians who genuinely disagree on the policy directions here -- in straight numbers you have the now close to 50,000 consumers on Geist's Facebook group versus over 100,000 professional creators and many others whose livelihoods depend on strong intellectual property protections. And let me qualify my "versus."

Anyone willing to dig into the heart of this discussion will soon see that these are not two bristling camps separated by a wide moat filled with alligators. The actual discussions and disagreements are complex, detailed and unpredictable, with folks moving back and forth between the two territories as though they were separated only by a friendly and cooperative border -- like, for instance, the border between Canada and the US. I am one of Geist's 50,000 and I regularly disagree with him, as I do right now.

Yet the leaders of the protest side of the discussion continue to sell their argument with the rhetoric of comic-book style revolution and resistance, which of course feeds the comments streams and heightens the paranoia. I suppose one can't resist evil without first casting someone in the role of evil-doer. Yeah, you see where I'm going with this. Aren't we all just a little bit tired of the encouragement to make our policy decisions based on fear? For all the Bush- and Harper-bashing going on in this debate right now, the anti-C-61ers actually remind me most strongly of kool-aid drinking neocons bent on saving the world from nuance.

I'll end this posting with a question -- a genuine, non-partisan musing on where we are and where we might go:

Bill C-61 has a lot to say about digital locks and their circumvention. There is a whole segment of society -- the open access folks -- who think digital locks are the way of the past, who wish we could all just get along without having to lock our stuff up all the time. More often than not, I find myself hanging out with the free access folks -- if you haven't downloaded my freely accessible novel yet, please do so here -- because I can see that a trend toward mutual respect between creator and consumer is making digital locks unnecessary.

My response to laws protecting locks is to think "Okay, fair enough -- but I probably just won't buy locked stuff. Either that, or I will demand that the value I get from the product is greater than the inconvenience of the lock." I make free consumer decisions about these kinds of things and, more and more, so do a lot of folks. Here's the question -- if the market is encouraging the voluntary removal of unnecessary locks, then what difference does it make if we have a law protecting necessary locks?

Please try to answer the question without using the term "police state."

take my book, please

PLEASE NOTE: The free download offer in this old posting is no longer happening.

As announced in an essay in the Globe and Mail Book section, and Straight Goods online magazine, I am hereby offering my novel The Uninvited Guest (published by Nightwood Editions) as a free downloadable PDF file. The book, short-listed for Canada's prestigious First Novel Award, is about totalitarianism, freedom and the many games in between.


Please just click on the cover image or link below to begin the download (free downloads thanks to freepdfhosting.com).





The Uninvited Guest (double page spread)


The Uninvited Guest (single page layout)


This download is FREE -- but it cost me time and money to write the novel, and the same goes for all my books, past and future. If you appreciate The Uninvited Guest, and would like to support my writing, become an arts patron by sending a donation in the amount of your choosing. To donate online, simply click the secure button below, or in the right hand menu on my homepage, and PayPal will guide you through the process.

You can also be supportive by going to your local excellent bookstore (in Canada) and buying the physical book, or any other Nightwood Editions book. There are also traditional links to my books in online stores in the homepage menu.


The Uninvited Guest -- shortlisted for the 2007 Amazon.ca/Books in Canada First Novel Award


"Satisfying and resonant... John Degen has written a very fine book -- rarely is an uninvited guest so enjoyable."
- Steven Galloway, author of The Cellist of Sarajevo, in The Globe and Mail


"Degen finds us when we are mortal, when we are brave, when we are victorious..."
- Claudia Dey, author of Stunt


"I enjoyed this book because I've lived the inside story. The Uninvited Guest offers a fictional and philosophical lens on a wide range of subjects from the lives of professional hockey players to the keepers of the Cup to Eastern European history to storytelling, and blurs the whole spectrum together in a finale full of love, community and companionship."
- Igor Larionov, three-time winner of the Stanley Cup


I want to thank Silas White, my publisher, and the team over at Nightwood Editions for agreeing to this download, and for producing a very attractive PDF. And thanks to all the wonderful booksellers across Canada who are still stocking the physical book.

And, please note, the text in this PDF file is:

Copyright John Degen 2006. You are permitted to read this book on-line and download a copy for your personal use and enjoyment. If you think this is a book you would like to share with friends, please send them the link to this blog. Their eyeballs help my career. If you would like to use it for another purpose, even a non-commercial purpose, please get a licence. You can get a licence by contacting Access Copyright at http://www.accesscopyright.ca/. You may also contact me directly at the link in the right hand menu.

Thanks to Flickr for hosting the cover image.


Copyright 2008, John Degen. To reproduce or distribute, visit: johndegen.icopyright.com

Nancy Fleming

The Globe and Mail today has published Noreen Shanahan's very comprehensive look back at the life of Nancy Fleming, former Executive Director of the Book and Periodical Council, and one of the great builders of our culture. Ms. Fleming passed away last month after a long illness.

As executive director of the Toronto-based Book and Periodical Council, she left behind a legacy that includes Freedom to Read Week, the Canadian Children's Book Centre, Access Copyright, the Canadian Copyright Institute, Give the Gift of Literacy, and everything from the Book Industry Freight Plan for book shipments to the royalty payments of the League of Poets. A certifiable bookworm, her own shelves bulged with hundreds of books.

Canada's readers, writers, booksellers, librarians and publishers will miss her principled leadership.

stunted

Next week marks the launch of Stunt, the first novel by Toronto playwright, poet and advice-lady Claudia Dey. My free copy of the book has strangely not yet arrived in the mail, so I can't pass judgement on what will surely be some crazy-ass fantastic writing.

For a tiny preview, check out this short interview with Claudia Dey at Toronto's formidable online literary magazine, The Danforth Review. Here's an excerpt from the interview:

"If the city of Toronto was a brain, the island would be its wildest thought. I lived on Toronto Island for various periods throughout the writing of the book. I found the island culture to be its own peculiar, dream-like construction. We do not wake up in the city to a horse or a parade of children on stilts walking by. I needed a setting that was fit for daring (and some apocalyptic underwater sex.)"

And since it's public knowledge that I have spent some time on Toronto Island with Claudia Dey, let me get right out in front of the tabloid rumours and say the only thing in that quote I remember about our time together was the horse.

Night Work

(cover image courtesy Brick Books)

I wrote a review of Night Work: The Sawchuk Poems, by Newfoundland poet Randall Maggs. It was the cover piece in The Globe and Mail Book section this past weekend. You will still be able to read it online for a little while yet:

Night Work

time to refocus

I've had some interesting phone calls and e-mails in past days that suggest to me some folks in Ottawa have begun to take a longer look at the professional creator position on copyright. As a key stakeholder in copyright, creators are happy when our concerns are not summarily dismissed.

We'll no doubt go into all this in even greater detail in coming weeks, as it looks again like no bill is on the way in the immediate future. To those relatively new to this process of copyright reform, "no new bill" is also known as "just another day." Before we do advance the discussion, I wonder if it's possible for us to pull back and redefine one fairly important thing.

When I call for a bill, I'm calling for a bill. Not a law, and certainly not "the Canadian DMCA," whatever the heck that's supposed to be. It has become very tiring discussing copyright reform in very public places, calling (in fact) for greater public discussion with less rhetoric, and then always being expected to support some entirely fictional rhetorical position. Hey, you're that guy who's in favour of the Canadian DMCA!

Really? Am I? Because I thought I was in favour of strong and essential copyright protection for professional creators. That's why I belong to the Creators Copyright Coalition, and that's why I'm asking for a table to sit down at so I can defend the professional creator position.

Here's a comment I read on Michael Geist's blog, from the ubiquitous "anonymous":

... who is left out there in favour of a Canadian DMCA? American lobbies, CRIA, 100,000 fundamentalists, John and .... anybody else?

And here's Michael Geist himself commenting on the stalled legislative process:

"Rumours tonight indicate that the government has again decided to delay introducing the Canadian DMCA."

Dr. Geist is fond of asking politicians to take pledges. I think such pledges are kind of silly, and even potentially destructive to true democracy. I prefer to allow my legislators the freedom to make mistakes, but ask them to try hard not to. But here's a pledge I support. I hereby pledge never to use the term Canadian DMCA again in this or any other discussion. It's an easy pledge for me to take, because I despise the term and feel it has no meaning or bearing on this discussion.

I don't expect anyone else to take this pledge, but those who do win my everlasting respect.

we need a table

I’m sitting on a Via train, heading back to the snowy wilderness that is Toronto, after a day of meetings with the Canada Council for the Arts in Ottawa. More on the CC at a later date.

This meeting and others like it are the reason I’ve been so silent on the blog, though I assure all commenters I’ve been reading and chuckling at your various smiley face emoticons and winks.

A couple quick notes of interest related to the copyright debate and the state of the cultural sector in Canada.

Firstly, as this train speeds through the cold Ontario night, I note with some small discomfort that all the members of the “creator” class who attended the Canada Council meetings are riding with me here in the Comfort section of Via, while all the members of the “producer” class are riding up front in Via One, enjoying a complimentary dinner and drinks. We’re also drinking back here in coach, but we pay by the glass.

Secondly, I report with delight that I ran into Phillip Smith of Community Bandwidth at the station, and he is sitting across from me right now – the “Your Whole System Sucks” sticker on his laptop is almost touching the Captain Copyright sticker on my laptop. Beside me is Amela Simic, writer, translator and Executive Director of the Playwrights’ Guild of Canada. Phillip, Amela and I had a quick talk in the station about the upcoming copyright bill, and all the various sides and interests involved, and despite Phillip’s peg-leg and eye-patch, we’ve managed to be nothing but civil with each other.

This convinces me, again, that Russell McOrmond is probably absolutely correct that most of our disagreements might just boil down to semantic misunderstandings, and that if we could just get everyone sitting around one big table with microphones, we’d have this thing all negotiated and worked out, with fairness for all, in no time. The government could watch over this process, and we’d even then allow them to take all the credit for the incredibly wise bill that comes out of it.

I know some government types regularly troll around this blog, looking to see which way various winds are blowing, so this message is for you:

Get us a table and some microphones, some translators (French/English and Tech/Analog), and then sit back and watch the magic. Of course, someone’s going to have to go and get the producers and publishers from first class.

lock up the artists, UPDATE

I want to quickly recognize I have come late to the CMEC discussion -- creative work getting in the way of fighting for my creative work.

Chris Moore and Julianna Yau have great responses as well. Of course, Howard Knopf also disagrees, but in a very Dirty Harry, lawyerly way. And I'm not sure he understands the concepts of text and curriculum in the same way I do. Fair enough.

lock up the artists, but first overthrow them

Hey, I see an act to amend the copyright act is on the order paper for Parliament today. So, I didn't miss much on my week away from the wars. That's good, because I've had a shocking realization.

I spent most of last week across the border in the United States, researching and writing a novel partly set there. Buffalo, NY -- is there a prettier city between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario? I don't think so.

Still, I had not realized just how horrible a toll the American Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) has taken on that country. Last Wednesday, the streets of Buffalo flooded with water and ice jams from the Niagara River, decades old pine trees fell all over the city, power lines collapsed leaving tens of thousands without electricity on one of the coldest days of the year. What caused all this? The DMCA. It must have, yeah, since it's the symbol of all that is evil and corporate in the world these days.

I had hoped for calmer rhetoric on my return. Oh well. Now I just hope Prentice's Act today does not contain the letters DMC and A in that order, because I don't think I can spend another day dodging power lines and trees.

So, what in the rhetoric saddens me today? I'll focus on two things:

First The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) released a statement on what they'd like to see in the Copyright Act. This is their right, and strangely, I feel no need to question whether or not CMEC truly represents to folks they claim to represent in this statement. I'm pretty sure they do represent the majority opinion in their sector. Hell some of what they say represents my opinion well, and I disagree with them.

Take this part, for instance (the first sentence):

In the federal government’s attempt to modernize our country’s copyright laws, it must address the educational use of the Internet.

Couldn't agree more. Yay CMEC. Unfortunately, after that, it gets a bit murky:

Teachers, students, and schools — elementary, secondary, colleges, and universities — need an amendment to the Copyright Act allowing them to use material on the Internet that is publicly available for anyone to use, without being afraid they are breaking the law.

The problem with this statement is that it's not true. No amendment is necessary. Teachers, students and schools have all sorts of existing provisions under copyright for use of material on the Internet. In this way, they are no different from any other citizen, including artists, who all enjoy the same provisions. Furthermore, when educational institutions sign license agreements with copyright collectives like Access Copyright, they then also gain the right for use above and beyond the standard provisions -- commercial use, such as planned curriculum, is completey covered by a simple and affordable license that guarantees the creators of the work are paid for that use. Keep in mind, students pay a tuition fee (or taxes through their parents in the case of K-12) for these materials, and teachers are paid to deliver them. The licensing and delivery structure already exists. No amendments are necessary. All that is required is that CMEC agree that part of their educational budgets should go to paying original creators for the planned classroom use of their work.

They clearly do not agree on that point, since they propose that any creator who does not want their work used without compensation by the educational sector, should lock it away from the public on the Internet or exempt it from use in schools:

rights holders can opt out of the amendment by using passwords or technology that limits access or use of the Internet material. Rights holders can also opt out by informing Internet users that the material cannot be used for educational purposes.

CMEC writes books, magazines, and even e-mail messages, are automatically protected by copyright by the simple acting (sic) of creating them as though this is a bad or restrictive thing. Me, I celebrate the "automatic" nature of copyright as an important individual right in our society. Planned educational use of anything -- blackboards, teachers, chairs, carpeting, and yes, unlocked material on the Internet, should be paid use. Rather than expecting professional artists and creators to subsidize educational budgets, we should all be asking for government to give our educational system higher budgets. On the Parent Council at my kids' school, I raise the budget point all the time. You should too.

My second concern today is that the CCC statement, researched and written in good faith by duly constituted and governed professional associations of professional artists is being attacked not just on the merits of its recommendations, which would be a valid and "fair" attack. Instead, for some reason I simply can't fathom, the "fair-minded" rhetoricians who disagree with the CCC are questioning that group's authority to speak for its members, and in one really quite low and disturbing swipe, it is suggested that presumably enlightened artists storm the Parliaments of these groups and overthrow them in the name of "fairness."

If you are in this sector, you are likely a member of one or more of these groups. They are doing this lobbying in your name. Ideal would be if the members of these associations took over the executives to ensure that they lobbied for more forward-facing policies that embraced rather than tried to harm new media.

Interestingly, it is the members of these organizations who currently populate their executives. Merely suggesting otherwise don't make it so.

40,000 Facebook clickers = an authoritative and clear-headed protest movement.

Groups representing upwards of 100,000 working, professional artists who have a real economic interest in copyright reform = a cabal of evildoers performing evil in their members' names.

You know who I blame for this nasty political turn in the argument? The DMCA.

blame the artist, part 3 -- the evil that is Celine

Technology columnist Mathew Ingram over at the Globe takes an increasingly familiar "fair and balanced" approach to the copyright question on his Globe-sponsored blog, Ingram 2.0.

Yesterday's release of some new stats by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry suggesting worldwide sales of CDs are markedly down and that climbing digital music sales are certainly not making up the industry shortfall is an occasion for derision of the usual suspects -- dumb, retrograde, bullying record companies, and of course, the artists themselves.

Ingram's fact-based attack focuses on the important stuff, such as the IFPI's name, which he believes "harkens back to the earliest days of recorded sound, when discs played at 78rpm and weighed about a pound each." He then takes a swipe at the recent CCC position paper, occasionally worried (and unfortunately honest) rockstar Trent Reznor, and the Songwriters Association, claiming, I gather, that any call for increased ISP responsibility for what goes on through their tubes is akin to making ISPs the copyright police. By that logic, making big industry responsible for what comes out of their chimneys turns them into the environment police.

"So what is the IFPI's response," Ingram asks, and then answers "-- to call on the music industry to become more competitive, or to experiment with different business models? Hardly."

I see Ingram's point here. Actually discussing experimentation and competitiveness just confuses the issue. From the hilariously-named IFPI's own release about their report:

"The report outlines the prospects and challenges for digital music as record companies move from a single format world to one of hundreds of formats and digital products. It shows experimentation with new revenue streams, including advertising-supported models and partnership with social networks. It also outlines the work record companies are doing in artist development and marketing of talent in the digital environment."

And in case we didn't understand Ingram's opinion from his reporting, he then points us in the direction of the comment stream following the Globe's report on the IFPI release, which is full of wonderful logic such as:

"As almost every statistic ever quoted by the recording and movie industry associations has effectively been pulled out of their nether parts (and has shown to be wrong), I'll guess that these numbers are wrong as well..." - unabashed opinion

"i don't think Celine Dijon is sleeping on the street and live on white bread.. maybe singers should make money by actually singing live shows at restaurants as opposed to sitting in their mansions, collecting royalties..." -- brokeback mountain

"Sales are down because: 1. Most top-40 music is useless with the sappy Celine Dion & rap that rhymes with crap as prime examples." -- THX 1138

So, apparently, this is all Celine Dion's fault. Surprised? I'm not. I've always been suspicious of that woman.

read a banned book in February

I'm Chair of the Book & Periodical Council, who are responsible for this very important freedom of expression promotion each year. I was reminded FTR Week is approaching fast while browsing a copy of Nabokov's Lolita at the U of T bookstore on my lunch-hour walk.

Visit the Freedom to Read website today, and check out their list of challenged books. Pick one for your February reading and sink luxuriously into the irony.

Perhaps you'd enjoy Lives of Girls and Women by the notoriously subversive Alice Munro, which was removed from various Canadian high school reading lists in 1982 after parents objected to the “language and philosophy of the book.”

Oh, the 80s. A simpler time.

one (large) group of professional artists positions itself

To see the full CCC statement, please follow this link.

COPYRIGHT REFORM KEY PROTECTION FOR CANADA’S ARTISTS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2008

TORONTO: Canadian artists have released their platform on copyright reform in anticipation of the Canadian government’s expected new copyright legislation. You will find it attached.

The result of months of research and study, the Creators’ Copyright Coalition position paper outlines the reforms that creator groups would ideally like to see in Canadian law.

Members of the CCC believe that the making of art and contemporary Canadian culture is a vital part of life, and an essential ingredient of the information economy. If the new copyright reforms enhance and protect the rights of creators, then they will encourage art, contribute to our culture and enrich the lives of all Canadians.

“Without protection for performers and creators, we risk more than harming our international reputation, we risk damaging our industry at large. It’s in the public interest that artists and their work be protected so they can earn a living wage and contribute to our culture and economy,” said Stephen Waddell, ACTRA National Executive Director.

John Degen, novelist and Executive Director of the Professional Writers Association of Canada: “I believe Canada can have a strong copyright law protecting the work and careers of all professional creators, while fairly and reasonably addressing the concerns of both corporations and consumers. The CCC statement is meant as a step in that direction.”

Stan Meissner, songwriter, past president of the Songwriters Association of Canada: “While the digital age has offered music creators wonderful opportunities, it is clear that the rampant unpaid online consumption of music and other content has had a devastating effect. We need up-to-date copyright legislation that will protect the value of our rights, ensuring us a future where creators will be compensated for the use and enjoyment of our work.”

Bill Freeman, the chair of the CCC, said: “Creators have been waiting far too long for copyright reform. It is time to protect the rights of all authors and performers in the Internet age.”

The Creators Copyright Coalition (CCC) is an alliance of 16 professional associations of individual creators and performers and copyright collective societies active in the theatre, the visual arts, the applied arts, literature, music, recording and audiovisual (radio, television, film and commercials). Together these 16 associations and collectives represent more than 100,000 creators (authors and performers) who are copyright owners.

blame the artist UPDATE

In an earlier post, wondering about certain professional creators championed by the "Fair" copyright crowd, I wrote:

*************

Does Stephen (sic) Page of the Barenaked Ladies ever lie in bed at night and worry even a little bit about how he -- or better yet, other, lesser known, perhaps just-starting-out musicians -- will survive, professionally, in a marketplace that shows increasing unconcern for his livelihood?

I wonder.

If he does, he's one smart dude because he's not talking about those worries out loud.

*************

I now offer this clarification -- yes, it appears Steven Page (sorry for the original misspelling) does worry along those lines. In fact, in 2005, he worried so much that he prominently signed his name to a brief in the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al v. Grokster, Ltd. et al, Supreme Court of the United States case (decided in favour of MGM and related artists). This brief was written in support of MGM's position against Grokster, which was that the file-sharing site's primary business model was:

"distribution of software that was designed and is overwhelmingly used to infringe copyrighted music and movies on a massive scale."

and that:

"this defies the fundamental principle -- enshrined in the Constitution itself -- that creative output is a necessary part of this country’s economic and cultural “Progress,” and that such “Progress” will cease if creators and the technical teams that support them cannot earn a livelihood through their creative efforts."

I congratulate Mr. Page on walking the fine line available to artists who simultaneously respect their audience and yet demand legal protection for their livelihood.

Also, if it's not too much trouble, I see that Sheryl Crow is one of the co-signors, and I was just wondering... nevermind, wrong time and place.

Thanks to Warren for the tip.