The Creators' Copyright Coalition has released their platform. It's not yet up on their website, but copies are circulating in email.
Highlights include ratification of both WIPO Internet treaties, reversing the Théberge decision by granting a new exclusive right on transfer of medium (which would obviously also affect format shifting), and many other issues of interest to our community. While the preamble for this platform seems more reasonable, the recommendations are very similar to the platform offered by the French-language groups represented by DAMI©.
The following is their press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2008
TORONTO: Canadian artists have released their platform on copyright reform in anticipation of the Canadian government's expected new copyright legislation. You will find it attached.
The result of months of research and study, the Creators' Copyright Coalition position paper outlines the reforms that creator groups would ideally like to see in Canadian law.
Members of the CCC believe that the making of art and contemporary Canadian culture is a vital part of life, and an essential ingredient of the information economy. If the new copyright reforms enhance and protect the rights of creators, then it will encourage art, contribute to our culture and enrich the lives of all Canadians.
"Without protection for performers and creators, we risk more than harming our international reputation, we risk damaging our industry at large. It's in the public interest that artists and their work be protected so they can earn a living wage and contribute to our culture and economy," said Stephen Waddell, ACTRA National Executive Director.
John Degen, novelist and Executive Director of the Professional Writers Association of Canada: "I believe Canada can have a strong copyright law protecting the work and careers of all professional creators, while fairly and reasonably addressing the concerns of both corporations and consumers. The CCC statement is meant as a step in that direction."
Stan Meissner, songwriter, past president of the Songwriters Association of Canada: "While the digital age has offered music creators wonderful opportunities, it is clear that the rampant unpaid online consumption of music and other content has had a devastating effect. We need up-to-date copyright legislation that will protect the value of our rights, ensuring us a future where creators will be compensated for the use and enjoyment of our work."
Bill Freeman, the chair of the CCC, said: "Creators have been waiting far too long for copyright reform. It is time to protect the rights of all authors and performers in the Internet age."
The Creators Copyright Coalition (CCC) is an alliance of 16 professional associations of individual creators and performers and copyright collective societies active in the theatre, the visual arts, the applied arts, literature, music, recording and audiovisual (radio, television, film and commercials). Together these 16 associations and collectives represent more than 100,000 creators (authors and performers) who are copyright owners.
Contact:
Bill Freeman, Chair, CCC, 416 203-2956
John Degen, PWAC: 416- 504-1645
Interesting
I'm only going to look at the principles part here, because it's useful to examine them without looking at the actual recommendations that presumably follow from them.
The first sentence :
Umm, I don't think so, actually. "Use" is not one of the rights granted to copyright holders and never has been. Traditionally, we get to use our copies of works as we see fit, subject to certain limitations. Interestingly, this seems to be the only mention of "control". From here on, it's pretty much all about the money.
At least the paper clearly identifies that the "intermediary" position is not the same as the "creator" position.
It's interesting to contrast with the section bemoaning that users (also known as "owners of copies") actually get considered - . Actually, of course, copyright has always been recognised as a careful balance, it's just that until recently it was really only the educators and librarians who were fighting by proxy for users rights. Of course traditionally copyright didn't say what I could or couldn't legally do at home, either.
Personally, I disagree with the - - I create copyrighted works for a living, but I'm not an independent entrepreneur (proof by counter-example). I work for a company and they pay me a salary. In return for that, they get all the economic rights to my work and I waive my moral rights. It's unfortunate that this point is second in a list where each point seems to rely on the previous one for its validity. The next is but that assumes that the previous is true. The next one then relies on this one. It's A implies B implies C implies D... In this way, that second is relied on for the third through sixth, so if the second one isn't in fact true, the third through sixth also fall.
This one : is also arguable. Who's to say what these rewards are supposed to be for ? Are we to assume that only people who've already earned money from work are going to produce the rest of our culture ? That makes no sense. I'm not even sure that the first part is true - do we really have a right to earn a living in any manner we choose ? If I chose to build a business selling email access, is the government supposed to step in and ensure that it's viable ? I don't think so. Personally, I prefer the US approach where "ensuring that creators get paid" is a means to the end of "ensuring that lots of works get created" (actually "to promote the progress of [...] useful arts").
The list of statements that they want "reaffirmed" is also interesting, not least because I suspect that "reaffirm" is used very deliberately to imply that they're not asking for anything new when that's not actually the case.
Is it, though ? I don't think so. All the talk of "balance" isn't a recent phenomenon. Copyright has always been recognised as a precarious balance between this objective and that of wide access to cultural works. Neither should override the other. Hmmm. Maybe this is at the root of why John Degen takes issue with groups that want to preserve this balance saying that they advocate "fair copyright".
Another new one. The Copyright Act (except where it mandates collective licensing) just gives creators a position where they can negotiate for what they consider to be fair remuneration by granting them certain monopoly rights. Nothing says that whatever remuneration they manage to obtain has to be "just".
. This one is interesting. I'm really not sure what it's saying. I think this is supporting the idea of "protection from TPMs" i.e. that you shouldn't be allowed to use TPMs to prevent somebody from exercising their fair dealing rights, but there seem to be other ways of reading it. I didn't see where this is reflected in any of the recommendations, so apparently it doesn't mean much :-)
So who is supposed to defend these rights ? Who should pay to ensure that you get the money you're due ? In general, I prefer leaving the defense of rights to the people who hold those rights, because they're in the best position to decide (a) whether they want them defended or not and (b) how much it's worth to defend them. This is expecially true when the answers to these questions vary widely, as is the case here (e.g. the paper already told us that some creators don't want these rights defended at all).
Read with authors in mind..
They have now published a PDF on their website in their documents section.
One recommendation is to read this with the authors in mind. It suggests that it is 16 different groups, while there is some overlap between groups that represent creators and collective societies which represent specialized business models for those same creators. As an example, both CAR/FAC and CARCC are listed, with the first being a group representing visual artists and the second being a collective society to collect royalties for specific uses of works whose copyright is held by the same visual artists.
With the major influence of executives representing a single business model, some of the recommendations (IE: imposing that business model on all creativity covered in the act, as suggested in their section under private copying) is not surprising.
We need to ensure that politicians recognize this influence, and don't confuse this platform as widely representing the interests of creators who wish to explore a full spectrum of methods of production (including peer production which requires a waiving of some moral rights, something CCC and DAMIC want to legally prohibit), distribution (including peer distribution, something made less viable by the CCC/DAMIC ISP-liability suggestions) and funding (including alternatives to royalty collection).
It is interesting to note that some of the rights which CCC wants revoked or redirected to themselves are those of competing copyright holders, and not just of intermediaries and audiences.
Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.