Comments on: Bill C-32: The Latest Attempt to Amend the Copyright Act http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/intellectual-property/bill-c-32-copyright-amendment/ Information Society through the Prism of Law Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:18:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jeremy Costin http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/intellectual-property/bill-c-32-copyright-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-10251 Jeremy Costin Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:28:10 +0000 http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/?p=276#comment-10251 Ian, I actually started looking into some buttons better than the Digg one I've got. The question is whether to go with one of those all-inclusive list/menu buttons, wordpress plugins, or stuff directly from FB/Twitter (so far, the Wordpress plugins are looking best). Sorry about the cut-and-paste; does your iPad allow it? ;P And yeah... if iTunes is still using DRM, it will be illegal to rearrange the ones and zeroes you've rightfully purchased. You'd have a greater legal right to buy an original Monet, cut it into squares, and rearrange the squares, than you do to copy the latest Paris Hilton DVD to your iPad. Ian, I actually started looking into some buttons better than the Digg one I’ve got. The question is whether to go with one of those all-inclusive list/menu buttons, wordpress plugins, or stuff directly from FB/Twitter (so far, the WordPress plugins are looking best). Sorry about the cut-and-paste; does your iPad allow it? ;P

And yeah… if iTunes is still using DRM, it will be illegal to rearrange the ones and zeroes you’ve rightfully purchased. You’d have a greater legal right to buy an original Monet, cut it into squares, and rearrange the squares, than you do to copy the latest Paris Hilton DVD to your iPad.

]]> By: Ian Wojtowicz http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/intellectual-property/bill-c-32-copyright-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-10250 Ian Wojtowicz Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:19:05 +0000 http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/?p=276#comment-10250 So you're telling me that if I buy some bits from, say, the iTunes Store, that it will be illegal for me to rearrange those bits? Where's the "Add this to Facebook" link? Or the "tweet this" button? Are you going to make me copy and paste? So you’re telling me that if I buy some bits from, say, the iTunes Store, that it will be illegal for me to rearrange those bits?

Where’s the “Add this to Facebook” link? Or the “tweet this” button?

Are you going to make me copy and paste?

]]> By: Theresa http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/intellectual-property/bill-c-32-copyright-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-10247 Theresa Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:10:30 +0000 http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/?p=276#comment-10247 Interesting analogy. I realize that legislators are not often the best and the brightest. I concede that it is a vastly difficult and nuanced undertaking to mediate between the needs of artists, consumers, and commercial enterprises in order to maintain that proper balance between mobility of ideas and rewards for ingenuity and creative effort. However, this kind of licensing arrangement relies heavily on technological forms of security, and upon the legal system's ability to comprehend and police the consumer's treatment of those security devices. Making it a criminal matter is, in my opinion, wrong-minded. More importantly it is likely to inflame the sentiments of the large pool of copy-lefties and hacker types against the legislation. I believe such a system will only make things more difficult for people practising format change for a very short period of time before they are by-passed by hackers for the cause. The commercial enterprises will find their security measures breached, and the legal system will find enforcement of those breaches a practical impossibility. That is one of the problems with passing laws that criminalize activities that the demos does not think of as illegal, and that it regularly practices. Large-scale civil disobedience will always make such laws irrelevant and perhaps ridiculous. However, this has consequences for the consumer as well. The music industry, for example, is adapting to widespread digital music sharing by altering their profit strategies. If you think you are hearing more heavily engineered, formulaic pop on the radio now than in any other decade, you are right. If you note that, more than in any other decade, merchandising and the sale of the artist as a "brand" are rampant, you are not imagining it. In short, what is now being rewarded within the big firm music sector is not creative musical effort: it is sound engineering and marketing savvy. There is another type of music industry gaining momentum, however. It is empowered by lowered cost of sound production, and the availability of virtually free web distribution. Almost anyone can afford a home music studio, and many can afford a very good one. Music inspired by a desire to create a song (not by a desire to replicate a hit) is being made and distributed now more than ever before. You have to wade through a lot of crap, but the impulse to create music is alive and well, and artists can by-pass what Joni Mitchell called "the star-maker machinery behind the popular song." So let the big music machine make money churning out merchandise and licensing their "brand" of artist. They are unlikely to make the big returns they want off of music sales, and this legislation will not help them realize that greedy little dream, but they will still make money. And artists will still make music. Looking at IP industries in general, I do not believe there are many instances where digital security has prevailed against a pool of motivated geeks and a body of civilly disobedient consumers. This statute is more likely to create motivation for its own violation than for compliance. Interesting analogy. I realize that legislators are not often the best and the brightest. I concede that it is a vastly difficult and nuanced undertaking to mediate between the needs of artists, consumers, and commercial enterprises in order to maintain that proper balance between mobility of ideas and rewards for ingenuity and creative effort. However, this kind of licensing arrangement relies heavily on technological forms of security, and upon the legal system’s ability to comprehend and police the consumer’s treatment of those security devices. Making it a criminal matter is, in my opinion, wrong-minded. More importantly it is likely to inflame the sentiments of the large pool of copy-lefties and hacker types against the legislation. I believe such a system will only make things more difficult for people practising format change for a very short period of time before they are by-passed by hackers for the cause. The commercial enterprises will find their security measures breached, and the legal system will find enforcement of those breaches a practical impossibility. That is one of the problems with passing laws that criminalize activities that the demos does not think of as illegal, and that it regularly practices. Large-scale civil disobedience will always make such laws irrelevant and perhaps ridiculous.

However, this has consequences for the consumer as well. The music industry, for example, is adapting to widespread digital music sharing by altering their profit strategies. If you think you are hearing more heavily engineered, formulaic pop on the radio now than in any other decade, you are right. If you note that, more than in any other decade, merchandising and the sale of the artist as a “brand” are rampant, you are not imagining it. In short, what is now being rewarded within the big firm music sector is not creative musical effort: it is sound engineering and marketing savvy.

There is another type of music industry gaining momentum, however. It is empowered by lowered cost of sound production, and the availability of virtually free web distribution. Almost anyone can afford a home music studio, and many can afford a very good one. Music inspired by a desire to create a song (not by a desire to replicate a hit) is being made and distributed now more than ever before. You have to wade through a lot of crap, but the impulse to create music is alive and well, and artists can by-pass what Joni Mitchell called “the star-maker machinery behind the popular song.”

So let the big music machine make money churning out merchandise and licensing their “brand” of artist. They are unlikely to make the big returns they want off of music sales, and this legislation will not help them realize that greedy little dream, but they will still make money. And artists will still make music.

Looking at IP industries in general, I do not believe there are many instances where digital security has prevailed against a pool of motivated geeks and a body of civilly disobedient consumers. This statute is more likely to create motivation for its own violation than for compliance.

]]> By: Jessica http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/intellectual-property/bill-c-32-copyright-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-10245 Jessica Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:28:36 +0000 http://weblawg.costinmedia.com/wp/?p=276#comment-10245 I remember being told that if it was illegal to buy something on cd and put it on your iphone and vice versa and couldn't believe how ridiculous it sounded. I thought it was a GREEDY JOKE. I remember being told that if it was illegal to buy something on cd and put it on your iphone and vice versa and couldn’t believe how ridiculous it sounded. I thought it was a GREEDY JOKE.

]]>