The Guardian: Copyright law should distinguish between…

The Guardian: Copyright law should distinguish between commercial and cultural uses
Cory Doctorow

In theory, there’s just one set of copyright rules and they apply to everyone, from Sony Pictures to your neighbour’s eight-year-old who wants to photocopy his Spider-Man comics and sell them to the other kids.

Regardless of who wants to make a new Spider-Man comic, movie or other derivative work, that person has to hire a lawyer, have that lawyer call up Marvel Comics, set up a call or a face-to-face, negotiate a contract, sign it, pay a fee, and report on their ongoing uses, opening their books for auditing and inspection.

Sony Pictures can do this. It can send lawyers to Marvel and Marvel will send its lawyers back to Sony. Everyone gets to sit at a long table and hammer out the deal, then they issue a press release and go into production.

But little Timmy can’t do it. He never could. And yet when you talk to comic book creators, they’ll tell you that they got started by drawing copies of other peoples’ work.

Wikinomics: New Kids On The Block Hit #1

New Kids On The Block Hit #1, Neon Pink is all the rage, Maple Leafs make the playoffs
Ian Da Silva

Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it? Remember the good ol’ days? I sure do, and so does my “favourite” organization – the MPAA, for they seem to still be living in this fabled period of time…

This post was inspired by the coincidence of two pieces of related news that really got my attention yesterday – the admission of a very significant error by the MPAA and a blog post that I read, highlighting the potential for an increasingly affected Net Generation to exert their influence in the next Canadian federal election.

In a report released Tuesday, the MPAA revealed that a major statistic from its groundbreaking 2005 study proclaiming that college students were stealing nearly half of their industry’s revenue was wrong – nearly 300% wrong. The original report claimed that 44% of the motion picture industry’s domestic revenue losses were a result of illegal downloading over campuses’ high speed networks. While skeptics knew that 44% seemed quite high, students were an easy target, and the study was used to encourage (and almost legally mandate) that colleges across the US beef up their anti-piracy efforts. Yesterday’s release proves that the skeptics were right and that such gaping losses were NOT caused by student downloads (but rather by a stone-aged business model – sorry, I couldn’t resist interjecting my two cents) and that the true figure is actually closer to 15%, with “human error” to blame for the discrepancy.

Online Media Daily: MPAA Admits Stats Inflated…

Online Media Daily: MPAA Admits Stats Inflated As Congress Considers Copyright Protection Bill
Wendy Davis

THE STUDY COST $3 MILLION, took 18 months and encompassed 22 countries. Its conclusion–that college students account for 44% of movie industry losses due to piracy–has been the centerpiece of lobbying efforts for the last two years by the Motion Picture Association of America.

There’s just one problem: It’s wrong.

Now, with Congress poised to consider a bill forcing colleges to explore filtering copyrighted material from their networks, the MPAA has re-examined the numbers and determined that college students account for only 15% of losses.

ARS Technica: Proposed EU ISP filtering and copyright extension shot down

Proposed EU ISP filtering and copyright extension shot down
Jon Stokes

All that talk of striking a “balance” between access and intellectual property, and the negative reference to industry tactics that “criminalize” consumers spawned a flurry of lobbying activity, and by the time the dust settled lobbyists had succeeded in getting the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research, and Energy (ITRE) to submit an amendment to the draft report urging European ISPs to implement filtering mechanisms for the purpose of copyright enforcement.

The European recording industry followed up this move with another amendment, proposed last week, to extend EU copyright terms to match those of the US (the author’s life plus 70 years).

The EFF’s Danny O’Brien sent a heads-up to BoingBoing that, as of today, the Culture and Education Committee rejected all of the proposed filtering and copyright extension amendments. Clearly, they’re not going to let the ITRE or the European recording industry push them around, which is great news for Europeans. Now if we could only get the US Congress to show as much spine as the French (ouch).

Michael Geist: The Copyright MPs

Michael Geist’s: The Copyright MPs

Industry Minister Jim Prentice has understandably been the focal point of the Canadian DMCA given that it is his bill and his call as to whether the government will proceed with anti-education, anti-consumer, and anti-business copyright legislation. While every MP should be paying close attention to copyright – anecdotal evidence suggests that the majority of MPs from all parties have heard from constituents about the issue – there is a subset that should be particularly concerned.

The Copyright MPs are a group of 27 MPs (nine percent of all MPs) who share two key attributes – they won their riding by 10 percent or less in the last election and their riding is home to a university. The combination is important since it is these MPs – not the very safe Jim Prentice – who will face the consequences of the Prentice bill that will harm a generation well versed in digital technologies, social networks, and the Internet. In some ridings, less than 1,000 votes – roughly the size of some large first year courses – is needed to swing the entire riding. In all, there are 10 Conservatives, 11 Liberals, 4 NDP, and 2 Bloc. Who are the Copyright MPs?

Michael Geist: My Fair Copyright for Canada Principles

Michael Geist: My Fair Copyright for Canada Principles

With the continued interest in Canadian copyright reform – the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group has grown to over 38,000 members and the local chapters across the country are gaining significant momentum – the most frequently asked question I receive is “what do you think fair copyright reform looks like?” In other words, we know that tens of thousands of Canadians oppose a Canadian DMCA, but what kind of reform would or should they support?

Many groups have already responded to this question – librarians, teachers, universities, musicians, artists [Appropriation Art], consumer interests, and some large businesses opposed to a Canadian DMCA among them. Although the optimal approach would be to launch a public consultation on the issue, there is reason to doubt that the government will do so. In that case, I would point to eight key principles that should be addressed to maintain a balanced, fair approach to Canadian copyright law.

The Gazette: Canada considers copyright laws

The Gazette: Canada considers copyright laws
Sarah Berman

New copyright laws severely limiting the use of digital media could be hitting the Canadian Parliament table as early as Jan. 28.

From reproducing academic materials, to ripping music to your computer, to taping your favourite television shows, critics speculate a crackdown on a wide range of day-to-day student activities.

The legislation, put forth by the federal government, has been opposed by many members of the academic community, including the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS).

“Over the past 20 years, amendments to copyright law have tightened restrictions, making it harder for end-users and more profitable for large corporations,” Ben Lewis, national treasurer for CFS, said.

CFS is concerned because the government has offered no public consultation on the issue, but has consistently met with American representatives behind closed doors. This suggests American-style regulations will be brought forward in Parliament over the next couple of weeks.

William Patry:The Natural Rights Issue

William Patry:The Natural Rights Issue

Claims that copyright involves human rights or is a property right are based on the theory that copyright is also a natural right — a right that exists independent of legislative enactment, even if there are legislative enactments. In the United States, copyright is not a natural right, since the Supreme Court has said so twice, first in 1834 in Wheaton v. Peters, and then in 1932 in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal. Yet, rhetoric based on a natural rights basis for copyright are behind all the claims that those who use copyrighted works without permission are thieves or pirates. If copyright is instead a limited privilege that parcels out limited control to copyright owners, one might view issues differently.

Montreal Gazette:Clashes likely to redefine Canadian identity

Montreal Gazette:Clashes likely to redefine Canadian identity

Facing election jitters, federal government listens intently to debate on these issues

Roberto Rocha

In the future, people may look back at 2008 as the year that redefined Canadian identity.

Two major clashes are predicted for this year, which might change how Canadians enjoy popular culture and what they enjoy. One fight is over copyright reform. The other concerns the regulation of Internet content.

And the federal government, feeling the election jitters, is listening intently to both sides.

On one side of the copyright war, consumers and academics say that stronger copyright laws will curtail digital freedoms to appease powerful U.S. record labels and film studios. Their opponents in industry say better copyright rules will protect artists from piracy and better defend Canadian cultural identity.

“Copyright on the Internet is a kitchen table issue for many Canadians, and MPs will have to start answering hard questions about it in their ridings,” said Evan Prodromou, a local programmer and organizer of the Montreal consortium against copyright reform.

Willaim Patry: Appeals to Human Rights…

Willaim Patry: Appeals to Human Rights: The Next Battlefield?

In yet another sign that the water will never be safe when it comes to proposals to grant copyright owners ever greater rights beyond the current Incredible Hulk level, the groundwork is being laid for a new source of law: human rights. In this battle, the push may be limited to individual copyright owners, although recently at an International Governance Forum meeting in Rio on the proposed broadcast treaty, a speaker from the Council of Europe, billed as an “international human rights attorney” stated that intellectual property rights are human rights. I confess to being moved to tears by European human rights attorneys taking up the cause of very large U.S. broadcasting corporations: Donald Rumsfeld was so wrong.

Next Page »