Fwd: Please Stand Against the New Copyright Bill

[Scott C. Ripley]

> I'm not sure that was explained well.  Like I said, read the article.

i wouldn't have commented if i hadn't read your article...

> Not really.  I'm far more concerned at the low royalty rates paid to 
> authors: an author writes the book, but the vast majority of the money 
> goes to the big corporate publisher.  I also elude to this in the article.

big companies do make a lot of money off of creative people (musicians, 
authors, etc.) by means of record contracts, publishing contracts, etc.

i do imagine that for most creative people, the contracts favour the big 
companies, and it's only the truly big stars who can negotiate more 
favourable arrangements...

however, imagine a world where:

- there are no more traditional book publishers or record companies:
     - authors/musicians/film-makers/etc. are able to publish/distribute
       their own music/books/films leveraging the internet
     - marketing of their books/music/films is accomplished via the internet:
         - social networks, youtube, internet radio, and
           other not yet-created mechanisms

it seems reasonable to me that these authors/musicians/film-makers/etc. 
should have the right to "control" (define control: take action against people 
who don't have the right to distribute) their work...

so if i write a book and i'm making it available for purchase at a 
reasonable price in a e-book format on my web site (no DRM) and some 
person decides to make a copy of it available for free - thus robbing me 
of the way that i'm feeding my family - i hope i would be able to take 
some sort of legal action to restore my revenue stream.

(and to be clear, i think:
   - DRM sucks
   - purchased music/video/e-books, etc. should be transferable
     from device to device for personal use by the individual who bought
     them
   - like any legislation, there are aspects of Bill C-60 that i'm fine
     with and other aspects that i take issue with
   - the suggestions for improving C-60 on:
       http://www.digital-copyright.ca/billc60/Consumer_Fact_Sheet.shtml
     seem reasonable to me)

Scott






On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Ken O. Burtch wrote:

>
> I don't think I can write a convincing reply, but you asked how I felt about 
> the impact of electronic copies of my book.  Colin could probably argue it 
> better.
>
> I once slid my car into a ditch and walked down the road for help.  The 
> farmer said he'd pull me out if I paid him $20.  When I didn't have that much 
> money, he took down my drivers license and threatened to take me to court if 
> he helped me and I didn't pay him.  I don't want to live in a world like 
> that, where people are vicitmized in the name of turning a profit.
>
> As I wrote in the article, there is a difference between making something 
> freely available and being paid for your effort.  My book IS freely 
> available, legally or not, on file sharing servers.  I'm earning acceptable 
> royalties from book sales.  Why would I want to charge somebody 15 cents 
> every time they quoted an example from my book, or giving examples about what 
> a great book it was to their friends?  That's part of what this bill is 
> about.  It's not just about electronic copies. We're already paying money to 
> music companies when we burn our Linux DVD's and that makes me ashamed of 
> being Canadian.  And does anyone remember the DVD decryption fiasco fueled by 
> corporate greed and the DMCA?
>
> In the IT industry today, people are often overworked and underpaid and 
> underappreciated.  Everyone wants to make more money, get more respect.  But 
> it seems to me that earning a living and charging for electronic copies are 
> two entirely different issues.  Do I want to earn money to pay for my food 
> and rent during the time I wrote my book? Sure.  Do I think the best revenue 
> stream is to launch an attack on the changing nature of technology and create 
> laws that pimarily target the poor?  Not really.  I'm far more concerned at 
> the low royalty rates paid to authors: an author writes the book, but the 
> vast majority of the money goes to the big corporate publisher.  I also elude 
> to this in the article.
>
> I don't see free electronic copying as an attempt to exploit creative people. 
> The bill is not an attempt to help people to earn a living.  It's a money 
> grab by the rich targetting the poor that will leave Canada in the electronic 
> dark ages, a legal morass.  In my opinion, the bill will actually cost 
> authors like me money.
>
> I'm not sure that was explained well.  Like I said, read the article.
>
> Ken B.
>
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Scott C. Ripley wrote:
>
>> 
>> Ken,
>> 
>> as an author of a book...
>> 
>> are you fine with someone making (or do you make?) an electronic copy 
>> freely available?
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Ken O. Burtch wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> See my Lone Coder blog, "If Free is Illegal, Who is the Pirate?"
>>> (http://www.pegasoft.ca/coder/coder_august_2007.html) for a detailed look 
>>> at why getting something for nothing isn't stealing.
>>> 
>>> Ken B.
>> --
>> 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
>> 
> --
> 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
>
--
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