Broadcast This: ACTRA’s “Myths & Truths” debunked…

Broadcast This: ACTRA’s “Myths & Truths” debunked…
Jason Chesworth

Due to the overwhelming responses of yesterday’s post (ACTRA & the death of the mixed tape), I thought it would be useful to dedicate an entire post to the “Myths & Facts on the Proposed Changes to Canada’s Copyright Act”, which was the catalyst for this grassroots “membership awareness” that I’ve been squawking about for the past few months.

But first….another disclaimer (or three):

I supported ACTRA’s decision to strike in January 2007 because *we had to*. However, we (ACTRA members), weren’t the first to strike because we’re so feisty and principled and/or important to Hollywood…we were the first to strike because our IPA (Independent Production Agreement) was the first to expire. I wrote to ACTRA many times during the strike expressing my support and understanding that each creative union (WGA, DGA, SAG, AFTRA), would be facing the same issues as they negotiated their various agreements with producers.
Although I dearly wish that ACTRA (the executive) could move beyond begging for table scraps from Standing Committees on Heritage to fund our bleak industry, I do applaud the dedication of those actors within the ACTRA Council who are conversant on the issues and continue to fight on our behalf.
It’s the non-actors within the executive that I’m suspicious of…

The Becker Posner Blog: Are Newspapers Doomed?

The Becker Posner Blog: Are Newspapers Doomed?

Posner

A newspaper is a bundled product. A bundled product is one that combines a number of products the demands for which may be quite different–some consumers may want some of the products in the bundle, other consumers may want other products in the bundle. (Another good example is the Windows operating system, a bundle of a number of different programs.) Bundling is efficient if the cost to the consumer of the bundled products that he doesn’t want is less than the cost saving from bundling. A particular newspaper reader might want just the sports section and the classified ads, but if for example delivery costs are high, the price of separate sports and classified-ad “newspapers” might exceed that of a newspaper that contained both those and other sections as well, even though this reader was not interested in the other sections.

Broadcast This: ACTRA and the death of the mixed tape

Broadcast This: ACTRA and the death of the mixed tape
Jason Chesworth

Yes, another disclaimer….

*I’m not suggesting that artists shouldn’t get paid for their work, I’m suggesting that the current framing of the debate is short-sighted, lacking in a wider understanding of the current situation, and is just plain “bad business”.*

O, ACTRA wherefore art thou artistic sensibilities?

Despite the vast amount of information available on the proposed changes to the Canadian Copyright Act, (aka – The Canadian DMCA), I never cease to be surprised at the lack of understanding that artists have with regards to the new rules coming down the pipe for content creation (meaning: “art”).

A few months ago, I wrote a long open letter to ACTRA (a union to which I belong as a performer), and questioned the union’s position which overwhelmingly supports changes to the Copyright Act that they believe will enrich the finances of their membership. I wholeheartedly disagree with ACTRA…in fact…I believe that the proposed changes will become a major detriment to artists trying to create content while protecting only those at the top (read: broadcasters, big business and their lobby groups as well as internet service providers).

IT World Canada: Where is that “buy me now” button for Copyright?

IT World Canada: Where is that “buy me now” button for Copyright?
Russell McOrmond

Much of the copyright debate reads like fiction. People supposedly find content on the Internet which has a “buy me now” button and a “take without paying” button, and they choose the latter. The non-fiction version of this story is very different. For the vast majority of content which people can acquire illegally on the Internet, there is no way to purchase the same thing legally. It is very hard to share the “moral outrage” that some entertainment industry lobbiests have been exhibiting, especially since they made deliberate business choices which caused their problems to be far worse.

The Coast: Copyright Bill is plain wrong

The Coast: Copyright Bill is plain wrong
Jim Prentice and Bill C-61 are totally tasteless tubers
Bruce Wark

In honour of the International Year of the Potato, I planned to scribble an editorial this week lauding the humble spud. But then, Mrs. Prentice’s boy Jim—who obviously has mashed potatoes for brains—introduced his new copyright bill. It would place severe restrictions on our enjoyment of music and movies, TV shows, e-books and photos. So, fuck the tasteless tuber. This Upfront salutes the tens of thousands of outraged Canucks who are joining Facebook groups to fight the minister of industry’s stupid law before it gets passed, making all of us into lawbreakers.

The Charlatan: Copyright or wrong?

The Charlatan: Copyright or wrong?

The new proposed copyright legislation is stiff – so stiff that it fails to meet the needs of the average person in today’s digital society.

The real problems with Bill C-61 are deeper than the potential attention-grabbing $500 to $20,000 fines that threaten those who download.

The illegal downloading sections of the bill serve as a convenient focal point used to divert attention from farther-reaching aspects of the proposed copyright law.

A good look at the bill shows exactly how counter-intuitive to technological advancement it is and how much it will cripple an Internet-driven media landscape that currently allows public access to more information than imaginable.

Wired: I’ve Seen the Future, and It Has a Kill Switch

Wired: I’ve Seen the Future, and It Has a Kill Switch
Bruce Schneier

It used to be that just the entertainment industries wanted to control your computers — and televisions and iPods and everything else — to ensure that you didn’t violate any copyright rules. But now everyone else wants to get their hooks into your gear.
OnStar will soon include the ability for the police to shut off your engine remotely. Buses are getting the same capability, in case terrorists want to re-enact the movie Speed. The Pentagon wants a kill switch installed on airplanes, and is worried about potential enemies installing kill switches on their own equipment.
Microsoft is doing some of the most creative thinking along these lines, with something it’s calling “Digital Manners Policies.” According to its patent application, DMP-enabled devices would accept broadcast “orders” limiting capabilities. Cellphones could be remotely set to vibrate mode in restaurants and concert halls, and be turned off on airplanes and in hospitals. Cameras could be prohibited from taking pictures in locker rooms and museums, and recording equipment could be disabled in theaters. Professors finally could prevent students from texting one another during class.

hughmcguire.net: Copyright conflicts & Canada’s media

hughmcguire.net: Copyright conflicts & Canada’s media

You know one of the problems about this whole copyright debate is the massive conflict of interest in reporting it in our media companies, which also happen to be our ISPs. Canada’s top 6 ISPs, in order of customer base, are: Bell Sympatico, Shaw, Telus, Rogers, Vidéotron, Cogeco. Looking at what these companies do other than provide your Internet:

Sympatico is owned by BCE, which also owns a big stake in CTV Globe Media, representing: Canada’s biggest private TV network (CTV), Canada’s biggest national newspaper (Globe and Mail), and 35 radio stations across the country.
Shaw – mostly a tech company.
Telus – mostly a tech company.
Rogers owns magazines (including Maclean’s and Canadian Business), TV stations including CityTV and RogersTV.
Videotron is owned by Quebecor, which owns scores of newspapers across the country (including Journal de Montreal and the Toronto Sun) numerous magazines in Quebec, the TVA television network, Archambault record stores, Videotron video rental stores, and a number of book publishers.
Cogeco – mostly a tech company.

Arrow Lakes News: Copyright bill’s fine print makes for a disturbing read

Arrow Lakes News: Copyright bill’s fine print makes for a disturbing read
Michael Geist

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark copyright decision in a battle between the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario legal bar association, and CCH Canadian, a leading legal publisher. The court was faced with a dispute over an old technology – photocopying in a law library – and in a unanimous decision it ruled that the underlying purpose of copyright law is to serve the public interest. That interest, reasoned Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, is best served by balancing both user rights and creator rights.

Earlier this month Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Canadian Heritage Minister Josee Verner delivered what amounts to a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court’s copyright vision of public interest and balance. After months of internal discussions (though precious little public consultation), the government unveiled its much-anticipated copyright reform bill.

Vancouver Sun: Problems with Bill 61’s approach to copyright

Vancouver Sun: Problems with Bill 61’s approach to copyright
Letter

I found the letter about copyright law from John Winter, of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce (June 20), rather confusing.
It seems to me that reaching new markets is already happening. The way we enjoy our culture has changed vastly in the last 10 years, and companies like Apple have done a great job of reaching new markets within the bounds of today’s Copyright Act. Plenty of businesses have adapted their business models. In fact, the companies screaming loudest for change to the legislation seem to be the ones most resistant to changing their business models.

Next Page »