If the Conservative government makes it a crime to put CD music onto iPod MP3 players, the government will be a laughingstock. Canadians in Yorkton-Melville regard the gun registry as an unenforceable, and intrusive law that makes criminals out of law abiding long gun owners. In the same way, removing Fair Use from Canadian copyright law will make criminals out of ordinary, law-abiding Canadians, and does very little to help the people the law is supposed to protect.
Yet that is what they are planning on doing, thanks to the lobby groups like CRIA who want Canada to have bad copyright laws like the United States and other countries who have ratified draconian WIPO anti-technology regulations.
Graham Henderson of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, one of Canada’s top lobbyists for stiffer copyright controls, notes that a variety of digital services have taken off in the United States and started to make up a large percentage of music revenues.
…
People are simply abandoning the marketplace altogether, and they’ve made the decision they’ll just download the music and worry about how the artist gets paid later.”
What Mr. Henderson is ignoring and not telling you, is that in Canada we have a levy on recordable media like CD-R discs, which get distributed to artists under CRIA’s control. You pay musicians when you buy a blank disc, even if you don’t put illegally obtained music on it. This used to be the agreeable method CRIA supported. Now they want more, and you can bet they won’t mind if the levy you pay stays in place too.
People are voting with their feet, and using means to get their music that doesn’t leave them with a Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) crippled product or service. Canada’s only major music download service that I’m aware of [iTunes not counted because it's global], is Puretracks. I tried it once, and it was junk – it required me to use a Windows Media DRM player, and so I refused to participate in their artificially complicated, and restricted marketplace. If I bought the same songs on CD, I’d currently be legally able to put them onto my computer and iPod, and make backups.
When you buy on Puretracks, you need to be a technical wizard practically to back up your music. A friend of mine who bought Puretracks music and backed up the music files like her other data, found they wouldn’t play on her new computer. She asked me why, and I had to explain that the DRM keys were lost on the old computer, and she’d have to contact Puretracks to see if they would allow her to access her purchased music again, or she’d have to re-buy all of the songs.
By comparison, DRM-free music I bought from Maple Music of the Arrogant Worms, is easy to back up, put on CD, and listen to on an iPod or any MP3 player. Groups like Bare Naked Ladies realized that CRIA’s push for DRM, and removal of Fair Use from the Copyright Act, is hurting artists’ success in the digital marketplace. If more bands were like the Arrogant Worms, and used DRM-free distribution to make money, more Canadians would use online music services.
[A] group of Canadian musicians, including the Barenaked Ladies and Broken Social Scene, have come out against the technological protection measures, arguing they actually stifle creativity and their relationship with consumers.
I’m writing my MP Breitkreuz.G@parl.gc.ca, and you can write yours too. Be sure to CC Hon. Bev Oda Oda.B@parl.gc.ca and Hon. Maxime Bernier Bernier.M@parl.gc.ca too.
–
Hat Tip to Slashdot.org
Trackbacks: Dan writes about this article, and has a funny graphic too. Pogge also has more.
Samantha Burns Open Trackback Tuesday.
–
It’s also worth noting that removal of Fair Use from the Copyright Act would affect bloggers in what content they have a right to quote or display on their blogs. Movies, photography, radio and television recordings would all be affected too.
My letter:
Dear Mr. Breitkreuz,
I’m writing concerning this story in the media cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/copyright-canada.html
If the Conservative government makes it a crime to put CD music onto iPod MP3 players, the government will be a laughingstock in the eyes of music consumers. Canadians in Yorkton-Melville regard the gun registry as an unenforceable, and intrusive law that makes criminals out of law abiding long gun owners. In the same way, removing Fair Use from Canadian copyright law will make criminals out of ordinary, law abiding Canadians, and does very little to help the people the law is supposed to protect.
As with previous emails on the topic of Copyright Act revisions, I offer you my expertise if you have questions regarding the technical nature of Digital Restrictions Management, and why there is an organization of professional Canadian musicians opposed to DRM, and the removal of Fair Use.
A short reply to acknowledge you received this letter, would be appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
[Saskboy]
Yorkton resident
[phone number]
www.abandonedstuff.comCC. Hon. Bev Oda, Hon. Maxime Bernier
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Todd | 15-Jan-07 at 9:39 am | Permalink
Good luck. The Conservatives don’t care about Canadians having access to items they already own. They just care about sucking more money out of Canadians and turning law-abiding citizens into criminals. Otherwise this bill wouldn’t have gotten to where it is now.
April Reign | 15-Jan-07 at 9:39 am | Permalink
Wasn’t there a court ruling just last year that upheld fair use in Canada?
Maybe the artists who really just want the fans to hear their music (ya ok they want to make money too) will band together and start their own company with liberal fair use policies.
Tories… stripping away your rights since Jan. 23, 2006
Giant Political Mouse | 15-Jan-07 at 10:41 am | Permalink
I couldn’t agree more. So much for the “less intrusive” or “libertarian” side of the new Conservative government.
Joseph Krengel | 15-Jan-07 at 11:13 am | Permalink
While I agree that the conservative plan is invasive and counter to the ideals of liberalism, the fact is that something has to change from the current system; and while government intervention is the least desirable impetus for change, it is better than nothing, no?
Purple Library Guy | 15-Jan-07 at 11:33 am | Permalink
I always start to wonder when I see someone say “the fact is”. Why is it a fact? So some big corporations want things to be different. Big corporations always want lots of stuff to be different, and the more we give them what they want, the more *$@#ed up everything gets. It isn’t a fact that things have to change just because the RIAA or its Canadian finger wants them to.
Erik Abbink | 15-Jan-07 at 11:39 am | Permalink
“What Mr. Henderson is ignoring and not telling you, is that in Canada we have a levy on recordable media like CD-R discs, which get distributed to artists under CRIA’s control.”
Yes, but only distributed to the big shot artists. Over the years I’ve participated in several CD recordings but never ever received anything from the CRIA. Yet, when I buy some CDs to records something on myself (my own work, my own playing; for demo purposes) I still have to pay the levy.
Make no mistake; only very little money paid ends up in the pocket of the artist. It’s mainly the industry that’s lobbying, not the artists. And, naturally, they are lobbying for themselves, not for the artists.
And the very few people who do end up with a substantial amount after all (think pop stars), do we really need to feel sorry for them?
Joseph Krengel | 15-Jan-07 at 11:46 am | Permalink
I always start to wonder when I see someone say “the fact is”. Why is it a fact?
Because intellectual property is, as a result of new technology no longer protected in the slightest. That is why it is a fact. If I were to write a hit song and record it, my rights to the recording would be almost worthless.
Don’t think that just because I think this is a problem that I’m some hack for the recording industry mind you; my interest in intellectual property law is a philosophical one… I wrote about this on my blog earlier today if you want a clearer picture of what it is I am saying.
Canada’s Debate » What is Fair Use | 15-Jan-07 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
[...] Given my earlier post, and my participation in a related discussion over at Abandoned Stuff I figure I should explain what exactly “Fair Use” is, at least so far as I understand it. [...]
Dwight Williams | 15-Jan-07 at 9:00 pm | Permalink
Those musicians spoken of earlier are already banding together. Among those leading that charge is Steven Page of BNL.
http://www.musiccreators.ca/
I wrote an e-mail to my MP the other day. Got a form letter “thank you” back, and not much else thus far. But at least it got that much attention. It’s a start as “clue by fours” go.
Saskboy | 15-Jan-07 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
Bang on Todd, but I have to give some of that credit to lobby groups like the CRIA too. Ditto GPM, and Purple Library Guy.
April Reign, as Dwight mentioned, there is a lobby group http://www.musiccreators.ca/ , although they don’t directly sell using that org. eMusic is a DRM free distributor besides Maple Music.
==
Erik “levy on recordable media…
only distributed to the big shot artists. Over the years I’ve participated in several CD recordings but never ever received anything from the CRIA. Yet, when I buy some CDs to records something on myself (my own work, my own playing; for demo purposes) I still have to pay the levy.
Make no mistake; only very little money paid ends up in the pocket of the artist. It’s mainly the industry that’s lobbying, not the artists.”
I was aware of that, but thank you for offering the view from the grassroots. I thought it would be better if an actual musician tore into the current levy, than me. The levy is set up to presume guilt, and that is usually a bad thing, especially when implemented in the marketplace. After all DRM is all about assuming the user is a criminal looking to make a copies to sell. The industries using it though, have extended DRM to using it as a way to turn purchased goods into “rented” services the consumer doesn’t have a right to keep using personally, indefinitely .
Saskboy | 15-Jan-07 at 10:56 pm | Permalink
“the fact is that something has to change from the current system; and while government intervention is the least desirable impetus for change, it is better than nothing, no?”
PLGuy answered that well enough. But you go on…
“Because intellectual property is, as a result of new technology no longer protected in the slightest. That is why it is a fact.”
Sorry, that’s an opinion that you’re not protected by current copyright law. My opinion is that the Copyright Act protects Canadian artists enough as it stands. Some modernizations could be made so long as they don’t stop people from tinkering with music, movies, and software they buy.
Look for Timberland to be sued by a European artist for stealing the music to a Nelly Furtado song. They can sue because of copyright law protecting the content for the writing artist.
“If I were to write a hit song and record it, my rights to the recording would be almost worthless.”
It wouldn’t be if you sold the song for $0.99 on your website, and sold 200,000 copies of it over the years. As the law stands, if someone else starts selling your song, you can sue them, and should win. Even a 50% cut of $200,000 over 2 years is a great earning, unless you waste it. And it’s probably about all you can hope for if you get into a bad contract with a music label where you may even get less for online downloads than you do from CD royalties like Weird Al Yankovic.
ScruffyDan | 16-Jan-07 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
as usual great minds think alike.
http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=629
Hodson Report » It’s more than DRM | 16-Jan-07 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
[...] In his piece he starts of with: If the Conservative government makes it a crime to put CD music onto iPod MP3 players, the government will be a laughingstock. Canadians in Yorkton-Melville regard the gun registry as an unenforceable, and intrusive law that makes criminals out of law abiding long gun owners. In the same way, removing Fair Use from Canadian copyright law will make criminals out of ordinary, law-abiding Canadians, and does very little to help the people the law is supposed to protect. [...]