Fwd: Please Stand Against the New Copyright Bill

[Christopher Browne]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Mr Chris Aitken <chris-n/jUll39koHNgV/OU4+dkA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Colin McGregor wrote:
>> Here is the e-mail I received from my MP re: Bill 61. Sigh... not
>> exactly against the bill, but not exactly for it either...
>>
>
> This is probably going to piss off a lot of people, but I'm not (only)
> trying to be the devil's advocate here, so I'm going to ask anyway:
>
> Isn't all this about us wanting something for nothing? I mean isn't someone
> spending emotion, time, and money creating, developing and distributing
> something that we want it for nothing. And, yeah, I know a lot of what we're
> talking about is degrees. I mean when a single mother is fined thousands of
> dollars for downloading a few songs for her kid it seems extreme.
> Nevertheless, are we not still talking about someone wanting something for
> nothing?

For this to work, in the absence of formal payment mechanisms, yes,
indeed, there needs to be an "operating morality" where individuals do
not simply feed off the system.

> Just because you get away with compact cassette taping LPs in the seventies,
> burning CDs of LPs and CDs in the eighties, burning DVDs of movies in the
> nineties, and downloading songs via gtkpod to iPod in the 00s, is one
> entitled to this forever? Should we not be grateful we enjoyed the ride for
> forty years?

We've grown into having a system that has encouraged increasing
dishonesty, and unfortunately, a massive portion of the problem is at
the "recording licensing" level, that is, the very folks lobbying for
the rewrite.  I trust *them* even less.

> I know I sound like an idiot writing all this. I actually have read quite a
> bit of the articles and viewed youtube clips referred to in emails from tlug
> over the past few weeks, and even had a sit down with Charlie Angus. I just
> find it hard to make up my mind on all this. For instance, I have recently
> joined SOCAN and am writing and recording songs with a view to having them
> published and picked up by recording artists. I feel I should at least
> consider supporting the system that may (in part) support me some day.
>
> I'd be interested in your thoughts. Seriously.

I don't think you can expect to see two nickels to rub together under
the present regimen, and I would expect the revision being proposed to
lead to a *lowered* expectation.  Seriously.  :-)

Those that *really* profit from the present regimen are the "recording
licensors," where the artists only see a vanishingly small proportion.

The danger of the way things have been going is that there has been a
risk that artists might be able to sell their art directly, and leave
the licensors out of the equation.

Various artists have observed that they can make more money off
selling 10,000 CDs over the Internet than they would make if the
albums went through the likes of SOCAN and sold hundreds of thousands
of copies.

Of course, if bills like C61 go through, independent sales will be
curtailed because you'll be unable to play things on your
DRM-controlled devices that weren't bought through the DRM sellers
(e.g. - RIAA, SOCOM, and such).
-- 
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results."  -- assortedly attributed to Albert
Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists