Coalition Members

A list of the Appropriation Art signatories

Michael Geist: Government May Be Altering Copyright Submissions…

Michael Geist: Government May Be Altering Copyright Submissions Without Consent

The copyright consultation has one of its biggest days today with a major town hall in Toronto, a roundtable hours before, and increased media coverage. The consultation has attracted growing attention in recent weeks as the chart on submissions below demonstrates. There are now over 3,000 submissions with the overwhelming majority of them speaking out against Bill C-61, anti-circumvention rules, and for stronger fair dealing (earlier charts here, here, and here).

Unfortunately, the chart is not entirely accurate in part because the government has effectively been altering some of the submissions. This issue has arisen because of the large number of Canadians that have chosen to use the CCER submission form service. The service allows anyone to submit their comments by either using a form letter or modifying the content as they see fit. The government has decided to treat virtually all submissions from the CCER IP address as the form letter and simply added the relevant name to a single copy of the letter (the chart below reflects the fact that each letter is, in fact, an individual submission. Note that this is not limited to CCER, the government is doing the same thing for a form letter from the Canadian Private Copying Collective). I am reliably told that 10 to 20 percent of people who use the CCER site modify their submissions. The government’s approach has wiped out those modifications entirely by adding names to a letter that they did not sign.

The Guardian: Warning to copyright enforcers: Three strikes and you’re out

The Guardian: Warning to copyright enforcers: Three strikes and you’re out
Cory Doctorow

I think we should permanently cut off the internet access of any company that sends out three erroneous copyright notices. Three strikes and you’re out, mate.

Having been disconnected, your customers can only find out about your product offerings by ringing you up and asking, or by requesting a printed brochure. Perhaps you could give all your salespeople fax machines so they can fax urgent information up and down the supply chain. And there’s always the phone – just make sure you’ve got a bunch of phone books in the office, because you’ll never Google another phone number.

Call it a modest proposal in the Swiftian sense if you must, but I’m deadly serious.

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…

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 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.

Strange Glue: Broken Social Scene Stand Against Canadian Government

Strange Glue: Broken Social Scene Stand Against Canadian Government
Aidan Williamson

Hot on the heels of the news that the Canadian government plan to resurrect their version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act the very people it claims to protect are speaking out, the musicians.

The proposed bill has received huge amounts of criticism for attempting to override the “fair usage” right to backup, copy, cite and analyse commercial works. Such a move will leave works such as mashups and satire in the legal black area should they fulfil the criteria of “distorting or mutilating a copyright performance.” Even more worryingly, the law could make it illegal for those purchasing albums legally to copy them to their digital music players.

Kingston Whig Standard: Big Brother Will Be Watching

Kingston Whig Standard: Big Brother Will Be Watching
ST. CATHARINES STANDARD

Proposed legislation is going to make Canada a nation of criminals. Last week, Industry Minister Jim Prentice introduced changes to the federal copyright act that will make it illegal to download music or movies from the Internet without paying for them.

Artists deserve fair compensation for copyrighted material. They worked hard to share their creativity with their fans, and should be paid for it. But this legislation will prove ineffective in achieving that end.

Start with the problem of enforcement. Will the state now have the authority to monitor our computer activity in search of file downloaders? That is an intrusion into our freedom and privacy that is on the edge of a slippery slope.

Next Page »