The best thing to come out of World War II was the idea that there are universal human rights to which all human beings are entitled — without limitation.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. It wasn’t until 1950 that Human Rights Day was formally established, making today, December 10th, 2009 the 59th Human Rights Day.
family and education are featured human rights
reading in a tree
He’s known from a very young age that “people are not for hitting”. He has great empathy, which helps him to respect the rights of others. He understands the value of sharing, and helping others, even in adversity when there is a personal cost. He knows the value of sharing because he is a part of a greater community. I trust him not only to know what’s right, but to do what’s right.
I can’t begin to express how much I love and respect this young man who couldn’t wait to turn seventeen so that he would be old enough to donate blood.
technology causing change
In almost sixty years many of our governments seem to have forgotten the powerful words held in this document.
We are living in a period of enormous change. When I was a young child I remember going on a tour of a local university and seeing a gigantic room sized machine called a computer. You could ask it questions by punching holes in a piece of cardboard. How amazing was that?
Yet the world my child has grown up in has always had the internet. This technological marvel has created sweeping changes that have impacted on all our lives in many ways.
Our world is rocking still.
Change is never easy. Even good change, like marrying the person you want to marry, or getting the job of your dreams cause a great deal of stress. Because the internet changes are so sweeping and fast, many of us are having a hard time understanding what is really happening.
GNU Linux helped to start the ball rolling on a whole new way of thinking with Open Source software. I attended my first Ontario GNU Linux Fest this year, and it struck me how amazing this world was. There is a whole community of people creating computer software that is both free as in beer AND free as in speech. People are working at creating this stuff to share because they love it and because they know it is important. There is a whole new way of thinking.
Open source folk have two problems. The first is that they are trying to figure out ways to convince the world at large to accept this free software. I know this sounds crazy, but that is a serious problem, since the concept is so alien to the business models that have held sway for so long. The other problem is how they might monetize some of the work they do, because then maybe they will be able to afford to spend more time doing it. None of them are considering NOT doing what they do. They love it and they will continue to do it because it is good for them and the world. These guys aren’t just willing to do this work for free, they ARE doing the work for free.
Contrast this with the Copyright World War. This War is being waged on the citizens of the world by corporations seeking to control our culture. On one side you will find the open source type of people who use creative commons licensing to give away what they create, be it software or art. The other side of this war is a powerful group of media companies are attempting to coerce governments around the world to legislate anti-progress. Their objective is to undo the societal evolution that the internet has wrought. At the behest of these powerful special interests, governments around the world are negotiating an international trade treaty to redefine copyright to the specifications of the corporate interests. In spite of leaked documents and a growing unease expressed by constituents, not a single government involved has revealed what is being negotiated.
ACTA is this secret treaty.
The leaked ACTA documents are making it clear that this international trade agreement will not suspend many of the rights promised in this declaration.
A world where profit margins are considered more important than human rights is a giant step back.
Human Rights Abuses Have Not Gone Away
There are many other much worse abuses being perpetrated on citizens of the world today. The ACTA issue is small potatoes in comparison.
But.
The internet has already proved to be a powerful tool in not only educating people, but in helping in the fight for human rights in some of the most repressive areas of the world.
An extremely compelling reason for Net Neutrality.
On YouTube you can see an excellent Universal Declaration of Human Rights video recommended by Joan Vinall-Cox.
An insightful look at the human rights issue can be found in the blog One Day For Human Rights: To Care or Not To Care suggested by Sandy Nunn
In celebration of Human Rights Day everyone should take the time to read the declaration.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1
- All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
- Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
- No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
- No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
- Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
- All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
- Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
- Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.Article 12
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.Article 18
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.Article 21
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.Article 22
- Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.Article 28
- Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.Article 30
- Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Happy Human Rights Day.
Cory Doctorow”s boingboing column today mentioned Knowledge Ecology International’s Writers and Journalists Open Letter in Support of WIPO treaty for People who are Blind or have other Disabilities
This important open letter says in part:
“In 1985, WIPO and UNESCO published are report calling for a new treaty to solve this problem, and create a global system of distributing works to persons who are blind and have other disabilities. Today WIPO is considering just such a treaty. We urge every country to move swiftly to support and enact such a treaty, so that a person who is blind, or has other severe disabilities, can read what we write.”
Cory sez,
doctorow Writers needed to sign onto letter in support of copyright treaty for blind/disabled access http://tinyurl.com/yeox3l3
PLEASE RT!
As a reader, I want to be able to read what I want to read. Not being able to would be… indescribably sad.
As a human being, I think that everyone should have access to the world’s knowledge.
As a writer, I hope that anyone wanting to read my words has the opportunity to read my words.
I’m no Cory Doctorow, but I too urge all writers to support this. Thanks!
Accessibility is necessary to build a healthy global community.
[And now back to working on my novel.]
Canadian copyright
Even though I didn’t have the time, I made the time to submit my own copyright consultation submission as a consumer and a writer.
Submissions to the Industry Canada copyright econsultation website were to be publicly posted to allow everyone who was interested to read all the submissions online.
It was excellent that the Canadian Government decided not only to ask for Canadian input, but to decide to share it. The very process bodes well both for transparency in government and for the future of democracy in Canada. I was happy to have the opportunity to say my piece; maybe my words might help shape the new copyright laws to create a better world for our children.
8.) Will my comments be made public or posted online? What if I don’t want my comments to be made public?
Your comments will be made public on the copyright consultation website. Please see the guidelines on how to participate for more information.”
Naturally I was surprised to read on Michael Geist’s website that SOCAN wanted special treatment for their copyright consultation submission. SOCAN wanted their say without having it posted on the copyright consultation web page along with the rest of us.
Why doesn’t SOCAN want their submission posted publicly?
We showed them ours, its only fair that they show us theirs. Simple reciprocity.
SOCAN’s “above the law” attitude disturbed me even before reading the submission. SOCAN is a royalty collection agency for “musical works”. According to Duhaime.org in Canada this means “One for the song and another for the recording (considered two different works).” SOCAN expects the world to follow the rules of copyright and make payments to them under those rules. Yet SOCAN doesn’t want to follow the rules of the Copyright Consultation.
If I was running the Copyright Consultation, I would be inclined to discount a submission from anyone who insisted on having special treatment. But apparently Industry Canada is more forgiving than I, so they effected a compromise: they put up a link so interested parties could get the PDF file emailed.
Every other submission can be read online without sacrificing personal identity or security. I don’t think it’s right that any Canadian citizen should be forced to give up their anonymity in order to be able to read the SOCAN submission or be forced to use a PDF.
Much as I dislike and distrust PDF files, if the provocation is great enough, I will break down and risk opening a PDF if I really need to see what’s inside. Because I care about the copyright process I wanted to know what SOCAN had to say. So I sent for the PDF and read it.
Now, I’m not a musician or a songwriter but after reading SOCAN’s submission I can understand why they might prefer this kept dark. There are some disturbing things in the SOCAN document, like the imperious tone which makes it sound less like a submission and more like issuing orders.
Mis-implication
SOCAN makes a concerted attempt to imply that Canada is bound by previous drafts of unpassed laws and treaties we have not yet signed. This is nonsense. It doesn’t matter how many lawyers worked on a document, or how much you like it, laws need to be passed and treaties ratified before they are binding on anyone.
best positioning Canada as a follower
I was surprised that SOCAN is touting a 70 years after the death of the creator clause as a supposed means of positioning Canada as a global leader. Maybe I lack the requisite imagination to see how jumping on the Disney bandwagon and following what other countries have done could possibly be extolled as leadership.
Interestingly enough, it doesn’t really make much difference to creators– after all, what does it matter to you if you’ve been dead fifty or seventy years? Rather than benefiting creators, this is a copyright provision which can only benefit those who make money from the creators.
1 strike and you’re out
SOCAN is also advocating the most draconian penalties of all… Notice and Takedown, which almost makes three strikes laws look benevolent.
SOCAN’s advocacy of DRM/TPM devices because “they help creators to monitor the use of their works and enforce their rights” is hard for me to understand. I’m curious about this because I’ve never heard of creators having control over DRM or TPM. My understanding is that these are copyright controls practiced by corporations rather than creators.
who does this submission actually represent?
The submission quotes SOCAN as having 35,000 members but the SOCAN website front page quotes “90,000 composer, author and music publisher members”.
That’s a pretty big discrepancy. I wonder which number is correct.
The submission seems to favor corporations holding copyright more than the creators of musical works. Personally, I’d want to hear from the actual creator membership before giving credence to this this submission.
Now having read the SOCAN copyright submission, it occurred to me that no one else would need to compromise their personal anonymity or their personal security to read this public submission if I posted it here:
SOCAN
C. PAUL SPURGEON
Vice-président, Services juridique et Chef du contentieux
Société Canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique
Vice President, Legal Services B General Counsel
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of CanadaSeptember 11, 2009
The Honorable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry
Industry Canada
C.D. Howe Building
235 Queen Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OH5The Honorable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage
Canadian Heritage
15 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A OM5SOCAN’S RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS ON COPYRIGHT MODERNIZATION
* INTRODUCTION
1. This Submission is presented on behalf of the members of The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada/Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique (“SOCAN”) in response to the Government of Canada’s National Consultations on Copyright Modernization, which were launched on July 20, 2009 (the “Consultations”).
2. This Submission provides SOCAN’s response to the following questions, which the Government of Canada has posted on the Consultations website:
I. How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?
II. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?
III. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?
IV. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?
V. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?
I. HOW DO CANADA’S COPYRIGHT LAWS AFFECT YOU?
HOW SHOULD EXISTING LAWS BE MODERNIZED?3. SOCAN is a Canadian owned and operated not-for-profit organization, which is directly affected by Canada’s copyright laws.
4. As we stated during the Toronto Town Hall Meeting on August 27, 2009, for over 80 years SOCAN and its predecessors have represented composers, lyricists, songwriters, and publishers of musical works from across Canada and around the world.
5. On behalf of our more than 35,000 active Canadian members, and members of affiliated similar societies from around the world, SOCAN collectively administers a specific copyright.
6. The copyright that we administer is the performing right in music and lyrics, which are commonly referred to as musical works.
7. The performing right is that part of copyright that gives owners of musical works the sole right to perform in public, to broadcast or communicate their works – or to authorize others to do so, in return for royalty payments.
8. These performing rights royalties are important to SOCAN’s members because they are risk-takers who do not get paid “up front” for writing songs. They are only entitled to receive copyright royalties if their song is actually performed or communicated by others.
9. The amount of copyright royalties our members receive is determined by the Copyright Board of Canada. This quasi-judicial tribunal balances the interests of both creators and users, and allows interested parties an opportunity to be heard in transparent public hearings.
10. We believe that Canada’s existing copyright laws should be modernized in a manner that balances the rights of SOCAN’s members and other creators with the needs of users of copyrighted works.
II. BASED ON CANADIAN VALUES AND INTERESTS, HOW SHOULD COPYRIGHT CHANGES BE MADE IN ORDER TO WITHSTAND THE TEST OF TIME?
11. A fundamental Canadian value is respect for the rule of law. To ensure that copyright law is clearly understood and respected, any changes to Canada’s Copyright Act must be technologically neutral, carefully drafted, and crystal clear. lf Parliament’s intent is ambiguously expressed in the legislation, confusion and costly litigation will result, and the marketplace will not function effectively.
12. SOCAN’s response to this question is presented under the following five subheadings:
1. The Making Available Right (“MAR”)
2. Bill C-6O’s MAR Provisions
3. Bill C-61’s Lack of MAR Provisions
4. The Need for Clarity in Copyright Act amendments
5. Technological Neutrality
1. THE MAKING AVAILABLE RIGHT (“MAR”)
13. The Making Available Right (the “MAR”) is defined in Article 8 of the World lntellectual Property Organization (the “WIPO”) Copyright Treaty as follows:
Wíthout prejudice to [enumerated provisions] of the Berne Convention, authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
14. lt is noteworthy that, during the past 4 years, the MAR for authors of musical works has been treated very differently in two Bills that died on the Order Paper
as a result of the last two Federal General Elections:An Act to Amend the Copyríght Act, First Reading on June 20, 2005 (“Bill C-6O”); and An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, First Reading on June 12, 2008 (“Bill C-61 “).
2. BILL C-60’s MAR PROVISIONS
15. When Bill C-60 was tabled 4 years ago, the former government made it clear that its proposed MAR amendment was not intended to create a new right for authors, including SOCAN’s members. lnstead, the MAR amendment was intended to clarify an existing right:
Bill C-60 amends the Copyright Act to implement the copyright protections required by two World intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).
Amendments in this regard are as follows..
-the existing exclusive communication right of authors is clarified to include control over the making available of their material on the internet ‘
(emphasis added)
16. The existing exclusive communications right of authors appears in the Copyright Act (the “Act’) under the heading “Copyright in works”, where paragraph 3(1)(f)states:
For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right…in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication… and to authorize such acts.
(emphasis added)
17. Subsection 1(2) of Bill C-60 specifically provided for the MAR for authors by including the following language:
a person who makes a work or other subject-matter available to the public in a way that allows members of the public to access it through telecommunication from a place and at a time individually chosen by them communicates it to the public by telecommunication;
18. ln contrast to the Bill C-60 provisions tabled in 2005, when Bill C-61 was tabled in 2008, it did not specifically provide for the MAR for authors.
——————————————————————————————————–
1.Bill C-60 Backgrounder.
This and other government statements at the time regarding the clarification of an existing right followed the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association (the “CBA”) and the Intellectual Property lnstitute of Canada (the “IPIC”) Joint Copyright Legislation Technical Committee. ln particular, the CBA/IPIC Joint Copyright Legislation Technical Committee recommended that the Act be amended to clarify that an exclusive right of”making available” is included as part of the right to communicate the work to the public, and that this change be made by way of “clarification” to avoid problems with existing licensing arrangements.
——————————————————————————————————–
3. BILL C-61’s LACK OF MAR PROVISIONS
19. Bill C-61 included specific language to create the MAR for performers and makers of sound recordings but, unlike Bill C-60, contained no such language regarding the MAR for authors.
20. lf Parliament amends the Act to specifically provide a MAR for performers and sound recording makers only, the absence of a similar specific MAR for authors could create uncertainty, give rise to a judicial distinction, or enable litigants to argue that Parliament only intended to create a MAR for performers and sound recording makers – and not authors.
2.1 Second, as discussed above, the striking contrast between Bill C-60 and Bill X-61 cannot simply be ignored. And those who choose to challenge SOCAN will stress the importance of this contrast noting the fact that the former Liberal Government included MAR wording for authors when it tabled Bill C-60 in 2005, whereas the current Conservative Government did not include MAR wording for authors when it tabled Bill C-61 in 2008.
22. Due to this inconsistent treatment of the MAR for authors, SOCAN is concerned that confusion and costly litigation could arise if new legislation does not adopt the original Bill c-60 approach and clarify that the existing exclusive communications right of authors includes the MAR.
4. THE NEED FOR CLARITY IN COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENTS
23. lt has been SOCAN’s experience that, when Parliament enacts legislation that is not crystal clear, costly litigation and appeals result.
24. For example, in 1989, the legislation that implemented the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement amended the Act to provide copyright owners with the right “to communicate to the public by telecommunication”. Although the amendment was intended to cover all communications of any kind whatsoever, the courts held that the statutory language was not sufficiently clear.
25. As a result, SOCAN became embroiled in several costly hearings, law suits, and appeals(2). Eventually, it became necessary to obtain another statutory amendment, Bill C-88, which Parliament enacted in 1993.
26. lf Parliament does not provide clear statutory guidance to the Courts, SOCAN fears that we may once again become embroiled in time-consuming, costly litigation.
——————————————————————————————————–
(2) See CTV Television Network Ltd. v Canada (Copyright Board), [1993] 2. F.C. 115(Federal Court of Appeal) and Canadian Cable Television Assn. V. Canada (Copyright Board) , [1993] 2 F.C. 138, (Federal Court of Appeal)
——————————————————————————————————–27. To ensure there is no confusion regarding the MAR for authors, SOCAN recommends that the Bill c-61 approach not be adopted. ln our opinion, Bill c-61 (if reintroduced) needs to be changed if MAR for authors is to be recognized, without question, as already forming part of the Act.
We are of the view that language appropriate for this purpose can be derived from the Bill C-60 definitional provision mentioned above to clarify the meaning of the section 3(1)(f) communication right (either in section 3(1)(f) itself or in section 90), together with clear wording to establish that the meaning has always been the case (and not just dating from the coming into force of this Bill). For example, an amended section 3(1)(f) could read as follows:
(f) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication; for greater certainty it is deemed always to have been the law that a person who makes a work available to the public in a way that allows members of the public to access it by telecommunication from a place and at a time individually chosen by them communicates it to the public by telecommunication.
In our opinion, this clause (or one of similar import) would confirm that the right of communication to the public by telecommunication in our Act includes, and has always included, the MAR right for authors.
28. To make certain that the problems that arose in 1989 are not repeated in 2009, SOCAN submits that amendments to the Act should include the foregoing language recommended above.
5. TECHNOLOGICAL NEUTRALITY
29. To ensure Canada’s copyright laws can withstand the test of time, they should not be confined to the technology that exists when they are enacted.
30. For example, when the Act was amended in 1997, it created a private copying levy to compensate right holders when Canadians make copies of their work for personal use. However, the courts have interpreted the wording to only apply the levy to blank media like audio cassettes, Mini-Discs and CD-Rs. A decade later, the amendments have not kept pace with changes in technology because this particular kind of blank media technology is no longer popular. lnstead, Digital MP3 players like the iPod have become the overwhelming medium of choice for copying and storing music.
31. lt is therefore clear that the copyright amendments enacted in 1997 have not stood the test of time, and the Act must be updated to deal with private copying technologies in the digital age today, and tomorrow. Canada’s laws must be expressed in such a way as to be “technology neutral”.
32 SOCAN is a member of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (the “CPCC”). We strongly support the CPCC’s efforts to ensure the Act’s private copying provisions are technologically neutral so they can stand the test of time.
III. WHAT SORTS OF COPYRIGHT CHANGES DO YOU BELIEVE WOULD BEST FOSTER INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY IN CANADA?
33. To best foster innovation and creativity in Canada, Parliament must ensure that those who innovate and create are fully compensated when their works are used.
34. Therefore, copyright amendments must not set up unwarranted exemptions, or otherwise limit, the copyright royalties paid when the musical works of SOCAN’s members are performed or communicated.
35. lf you deprive SOCAN’s members of copyright royalties, you are basically asking over 35,000 Canadian individuals to take risks and work for nothing. That’s not
realistic, and it’s not fair.36. Canada’s copyright legislation creates certain exclusive rights for rights holders. However, the Act also deviates from these exclusive rights because some uses of works are permitted without the rights holder’s authorization, or without remuneration. These deviations are called ”exceptions”. ln other cases, authorization is not required, but creators and other rights holders are entitled to remuneration.
37. There is a fundamental difference between:
(1) the creators’ exclusive right to authorize the use of their works;
(2) the creators’ right to remuneration when they do not have the exclusive right to authorize the use of their works; and
(3) exceptions, where creators have neither the right to authorize the use of their works, nor the right to remuneration.
38. SOCAN submits that stripping creators of their rights is contrary to longstanding international norms and treaties to which Canada is a Party.
39. For example, Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention For The Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Text 1971) (the “Berne Convention”) creates the following three-step test:
It shall be a matter of legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
(emphasis added)
Moreover, Article 11bis (2) of the Berne Convention states:
It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which the rights mentioned in the preceding paragraph may be exercised, but these conditions shall apply only in the countries where they have been prescribed. They shall not in any circumstances be prejudicial to the moral rights of the author, nor to his right to obtain equitable remuneration which, in the absence of agreement, shall be fixed by competent authority.
(emphasis added)
40. Likewise, Article 13 of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) includes the aforementioned Berne Convention’s three-step test, which must be respected by any limitations or exceptions to the exclusive rights of SOCAN’s members and other rights holders:
Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to:
- certain special cases
- which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and
- do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.
41. On July 27, 2000, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Panel Report entitled United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act(3). The WTO Panel considered the aforementioned Article 13 of the TRIPS and concluded that an exception in the US Copyright Act was inconsistent with provisions of the Berne Convention, which had been incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement.
42. The WTO Panel therefore recommended that the Dispute Settlement Body ask the United States to bring its copyright exception into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel further noted that:
. . .in cases where there would be a serious loss of profit for the copyright owner, the law should provide him with some compensation (a system of compulsory licensing with equitable compensation).4
43. It should also be noted that, under the heading “Limitations and Exceptions”, Article 10 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty states:
(1) Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to authors of literary and artistic works under this Treaty in certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
(2) Contracting Parties shall, when applying the Berne Convention, confine any limitations of or exceptions to rights provided for therein to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
The Agreed Statement concerning Article 10 states:
It is understood that the provisions of Article 10 permit Contracting Parties to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in their national laws which have been considered acceptable under the Berne Convention. Simílarly, these provisions should be understood to permit Contracting Parties to devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital network environment.
It is also understood that Article 10(2) neither reduces nor extends the scope of applicability of the limitations and exceptions permitted by the Berne Convention.
44. The regime that applies to SOCAN is preferable to exceptions because it strikes an equitable balance between the rights of creators and the needs of users, and it enables Canada to respect its international treaty obligations. This regime allows composers, lyricists, songwriters, and their publishers, through their collective SOCAN, to decide, on their own volition, to donate the use of their works to a particular user, for a particular purpose.
45. ln the event SOCAN is not prepared to forego remuneration, and SOCAN and a user are unable to agree on a royalty, the Copyright Board of Canada provides a fair mechanism to set the royalty and balance the rights of users and creators.
46. Moreover, the Act already recognizes that exceptions are not appropriate where licenses are available from a collective society. For example, subsection 30.9(6)
of the Act limits the ephemeral rights exception for sound recordings “if a license is available from a collective society to reproduce the sound recording, performer’s performance or work”. This balanced mechanism is preferable to outright exceptions which deprive creators of remuneration when their works are used.
47. As a Party to Berne and the WTO TRIPS treaties (and a potential Party to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty), we submit that Canada must fully respect the foregoing 3-step test regarding any existing or proposed copyright limitations and exceptions.
48. ln accordance with Canada’s copyright treaty obligations, SOCAN hereby opposes any attempts to promote exceptions at the expense of creators’ rights, including the right to full compensation for the use of musical works.
IV. WHAT SORTS OF COPYRIGHT CHANGES DO YOU BELIEVE WOULD BEST FOSTER COMPETITION AND INVESTMENT IN CANADA?
49. To foster competition and investment in Canada, the Act must enable creators to defend their works from exploitation without compensation. Digital Rights Management measures play an important role in this regard because they help creators to monitor the use of their works and enforce their rights.
50. The term Digital Rights Management (“DRM”) normally refers to the following two distinct measures:
. Rights Management lnformation (“RMI”); and
. Technological Protection Measures (“TPMs”).
51. A good definition of RMI appeared in Section 41.21 of Bill C-61:
“rights management information” means information that
(a) is attached to or embodied in a copy of a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording, or a sound recording, or appears in connection with its communication to the public by telecommunication;
and(b) identifies or permits the identification of the work or its author, the performance or its performer, the sound recording or its maker or the holder of any rights in the work, the performance or the sound recording, or concerns the terms or conditions of the work’s, performance’s or sound recording’s use.
52. This definition reflects the provisions of Article 12 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which states:
(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention.
(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority;
(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.
(2) As used in this Arficle, “rights management information” means information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public.
53. SOCAN licenses the world’s music repertoire and we encourage the lawful use of music. To identify whose musical works are used so that we can distribute the royalties we collect to individual creators, we rely on RMI. No invasion of privacy is required to fulfill our identification requirements, because we do not need to know which particular musical work was lawfully used by a particular individual.
54. To ensure creators can monitor the use of their works and enable them to enforce their rights, the Act should implement the RMI provisions of Article 12 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and provide meaningful and efficient legal remedies.
55. Second, with respect to TPMs, SOCAN does not rely on these measures because our mandate is to license the world’s music repertoire and collect royalties in accordance with tariffs set by the Copyright Board of Canada. However, we support the right of copyright owners to use TPMs to protect their works if they so desire. We therefore submit that the Act should be amended to fully implement Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which states:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.
56. Third, with respect to both DRM and TPMs, SOCAN submits that, in accordance with Article 14 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, the Act should be amended to ensure that all enforcement procedures permit effective action against any act of infringement, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements, and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements.
V. WHAT KINDS OF CHANGES WOULD BEST POSITION CANADA AS A LEADER IN THE GLOBAL, DIGITAL ECONOMY?
57. To best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy, the Act should be amended to recognize the major role that lnternet Service Providers (“ISPs) play in facilitating copyright infringement.
58. Bill C-61 attempted to clarify the liability of ISPs by adopting a “notice and notice” regime. SOCAN submits that Bill C-61 did not fully recognize the role that ISPs play in copyright infringement, and the fact that ISPs now openly market their services and charge higher prices based on bandwidth and their customers’ ability to “download high quality music files, stream video, or play games”.’
59. To best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy, SOCAN therefore submits that Parliament should enact a “notice and takedown” regime.
60. Second, Parliament should extend Canada’s copyright term from 50 years to 70 years after the death of the author.
61. Under section 6 of the Act, the general term during which copyright subsists is the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and a period of 50 years following the end of that calendar year.
62. Human longevity has increased since the 19th century when the 50-year term was established, and many countries have extended the term of copyright protection to reflect the fact that people now live longer. For example, European countries provide for a minimum term of 70 years following the death of the author.
63. To best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy, SOCAN therefore submits that Canada should also extend the Act’s copyright term from 50 years to 70 years, in order to bring Canada in line with many of its major trading partners.
VI. CONCLUSION
64. SOCAN welcomes this opportunity to participate in the Consultations and provide our preliminary views regarding copyright reform. We will provide further
——————————————————————————————————–
See http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpint.NewAccess.page?userType=NEW——————————————————————————————————–
submissions once the legislation is tabled and it is referred to a parliamentary committee.
65. with respect to the parliamentary committee that will consider this legislation, SOCAN notes that, pursuant to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, the jurisdiction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage includes the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to copyright.
66. ln 1996-1997, when the last major legislative amendments were made to the Act, the legislation (Bill C-32) was considered by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. SOCAN submits that this Standing Committee should again have sole responsibility, or its members should play an equal role on any House of Commons Committee that considers amendments to the Act.
67. We look forward to working with Ministers, their officials, and Members of Parliament to ensure that the Consultations lead to the enactment of modern legislation in 2010.
Yours truly,
C. Paul Spurgeon
CPS/jb
SOCAN’s Response to the National Consultations on Copyright Modernization Page 13 of 13
September 1 1, 2009 ”
[If you would like to read the original PDF without having to give up your email address, you can now find it at: p2pnet: Secret SOCAN copyright doc online]
[P.S. Being new to contemplation of copyright issues, and a non-lawyer, I can sometimes intuitively figure things out. There are so many things at play here that I was unaware of. Please read Howard Knopf's Excess Copyright Blog for a far better understanding of the issue.
--Laurel L Russwurm. December 9, 2009]
Inconstant Moon cover art
What I said was,
“No, I don’t have time…. because the novel isn’t done yet.”
He went on to express surprise that I wasn’t as predictable as he thought. Hah! Thought he had >me< pegged, did he? Well.
Uh. Here I am, writing a blog post.
[It's rough to be so predictable. But I should have learned by now that the greatest kid in the world is pretty much always right.]
I think I’m about half way through the outline (although it’s hard to tell since its so badly in need of rejigging just now. The characters have been asserting themselves with some force.)
But I plan on working my fingers to the bone for the rest of the month and see how much I can get done. Hey, its the weekend, and I vow not to do another blog post (after this one) before December.
Really.
I will be back to blogging (guilt free) come December, but I will keep going on the novel until it’s done. Because this is what I REALLY want to do.
[Besides, I need to finish this one so I can start on the next one.]
Star Wars Movie Poster
Today there is only one first run movie theatre chain in the whole of Canada, so even the most successful movies only play for a matter of weeks.
But back in the 1970’s there was still competition among Canadian movie theatres so Star Wars actually played on Canadian movie screens for over a year. When the first Star Wars movie was released I was so caught up in it that I ended up going out to see it in a variety of movie theatres thirteen times during that first year.
I am a huge Star Wars fan.
I bought all the Star Wars merchandise that I could afford. In those days there were no DVDs or downloads. VCRs had just come on the market and they were prohibitively expensive.
So at first those of us who were not indescribably wealthy had to content ourselves with purchasing vinyl record albums that ran at 33 1/3rd rpm on an old fashioned machine called a record player. I bought the music in the form of the John Williams Star Wars soundtrack album, as well as a record called “The Story of Star Wars”, a synopsis of the story narrated by C3PO with audio clips from the film. To this day any time I hear the 20th Century Fox music tag I flash on the “real” Star Wars opening.
And today the George Lucas’s Star Wars empire continues to make money in new ways. I don’t have a problem with that. It is a business after all.
I still love Star Wars, particularly the first one. And this article in no way intends any disrespect. I’m telling you about my connection with Star Wars because the incredible success that Star Wars had makes it a good example. That, and because Star Wars was the very first videotape movie I saw played on a VCR in a private home.
What I really want to do today (besides procrastinate from working on my NaNoWriMo novel) is to look at personal use copying as a copyright infringement issue.
The Copyright Lobby makes no distinction between commercial bootleggers who distribute illegal copies for profit and legal purchasers who seek to make a back-up copy or digital format shift for personal use. Because they insist it is all the same thing, the Copyright Lobby has been pressuring governments the world over in an attempt to criminalize personal use copying.
I think there is a problem with the terminology here because calling both things by the same name is horribly misleading. Both activities involve digital copying, but that is where the similarity ends. Just as apples and oranges are both fruit but they are really not the same at all.
apples and oranges
One thing the Copyright Lobby calls “piracy” would be more accurately called “Bootlegging”. Bootleg music recordings have been around as long as audio recording technology has existed. People have smuggled recording devices into concerts and made copies which they have then sold around the world. There have also been professional bootleggers who have copied recorded music and repackaged it to sell illegally. These activities have resulted in lost revenue for music distributors, and in fact should be illegal.
The other thing the Copyright Lobby calls “piracy” is what I call “Personal use copying”. This covers a much wider range of activities, but the chief defining factor of personal use copying is the fact that this digital copying is not for profit. Rather than resulting in lost revenue for distributors, personal use copying relieves the burden of format shifting from the manufacturer to the consumer. When shared through p2p networks personal use copying serves as a means of promoting these commercial products in the same way that radio and television broadcasts have done under the traditional business model. This type of copying should be legal.
The Copyright Lobby’s effort to criminalize this type of copying simply alienates the customer base. Like DRM or SOC methods, it does absolutely nothing to stem the flow of bootlegging.
When did the idea of ownership change?
It used to be that when you bought something you owned it. You were free to do with it what you liked. Even if it was something covered under copyright law… like a book, you were entitled to read that book as many times as you wanted to.
- You could loan it to a friend.
- You could quote from it in an essay
- You could read it aloud to your blind grandmother.
And at the end of the day it was still your book. Unless you decided you no longer wanted it, at which time you could legally sell it to a used book store.
Now lets look at what’s been happening so far in the information age. Manufacturers of recorded music and movies have their materials covered under copyright. They want us to not make copies for our own personal use, even though we have paid them the price they ask.
Personal use copying is not the same thing as bootlegging for commercial gain.
The Problem
Original Star Wars Betamax videotape
If you purchased Star Wars in the Sony Betamax version back then, you would have found yourself out of luck a few short years later when Sony stopped making Betamax VCRs. When your Betamax machine became inoperable, you could no longer buy a new one, which of course rendered the tape you purchased in good faith unplayable. No one warned the unfortunate consumers that invested in Betamax tapes and Betamax equipment. I never heard of anyone getting refunds from the movie companies. Or the MPAA. Or Sony. Etc.
Star Wars on VHS
But.
Now you can’t. So what do you do if you really loved Star Wars?
You go out and buy it again. This time on VHS.
The rest of your life, eh? I know that’s what I thought. Didn’t you?
Did Twentieth Century Fox ever offer to reimburse you for the useless hunk of plastic and tape (that you have now purchased twice for your own use) that is now deteriorating? And suddenly it’s near impossible to buy a new VHS machine because there is yet another new technology– now movies are on DVD. Even if you can find a new VHS machine, we’ve all learned that a VCR will be lucky to last for five years anyway. And of course the VCRs you can find now are far more expensive than DVD players. So what’s a fan to do. Oh right.
You go out and buy Star Wars again on DVD.
Star Wars on DVD
[Of course, this particular example is extra irritating because George Lucas hasn't stopped tinkering with the thing, and since he's vowed to never release the REAL version (the one that actually played in theatres in 1977) on DVD, so I will never have the version I want no matter how many times I've paid for it. *sigh*]
But you’re a fan.
So you go out and buy the movie AGAIN on DVD.
At least you have it in a form that will last.
Now HD is gone too.
Or not.
Because then along came HD DVD. The media manufacturers were a little surprised that we didn’t all rush out and buy HD machines.
Replacing our entire video library. AGAIN.
Oh… you were one of those suckers who got conned into converting to bought into HD? Ooooops! Didn’t anyone tell you that the technology you were supposed to back was Blu-Ray?
I could go through the same process to look at the parallels in the music industry: piano rolls, gramophone cylinders, ’78’s, LPs, 8 track tapes, cassette tapes and CDS… all over the course of a single century.
Funny, I have a working gramophone older than I am which will play ’78’s. Yet our modern day electronic equipment will be doing well to work after a decade.
I don’t know about you but I am tired of buying the same movies over and over again.
Copyright is an agreement between the creator/manufacturer and the consumer.
The media distributors have NOT kept their part of the bargain, expecting consumers to pay for the same material over and over again. It should be legal to be able to watch the movie you have purchased in good faith as many times as we want to, for the rest of our lives.
Consumers have not been given any protection by governments the world over.
At the very minimum customers need to be given the right to copy the products they have purchased onto the piece of technology needed to play it.
We believe we own what we have purchased.
They want us to believe that we don’t.
Fortunately our government representatives are in an excellent position to look out for the Canadian consumer interests as they redraft our copyright law for the benefit of Canadians.
[At last: my copycon submission made it to the copyright consultation website.]
Sign of the Times: NaNoWriMo Caution - Novelists at Work
During the month of November, should you find yourself in a coffee shop, restaurant, internet cafe, or really anywhere with electricity and WiFi, you may very well spot a clump of people furiously tapping away on laptops. If you look closely you are very likely to see a sign like this one.
This means you’ve stumbled on a group of NaNoWriMo writers.
1999 marked the beginning of NaNoWriMo. It all started with twenty-one people in San Francisco who wanted to write novels. It has grown to these proportions as reported via this NaNoWriMo tweet from Twitter:
NaNoWriMo stats found on Twitter 15 November, 2009
November is National WriMo Month
NaNoWriMo, or National Novel Writer’s Month, has become an international event. Its quite simple really… if you’ve ever wanted to write a novel, all you need do is head to the NaNoWriMo website and sign up. This makes you a participant. The next step is to write a 50,000 word novel before midnight on November 30th. If you succeed, you become a NaNoWriMo winner.
I first learned about NaNoWriMo from my sister-in-law Nienke, but I’ve never quite managed to make the time. Over the last year I’ve taken to blogging, and have rediscovered how important writing actually is to me. Since the frequency of my blog posts has been on the rise, and some of the longest have sit the 3,000 word range, it occurred to me that maybe my writing muscles were up to facing the NaNoWriMo challenge.
My Blog: in the wind
One of my problems is my attachment to my blogs. It is so easy to get sucked into email, or browsing, or even worse, writing a blog post. I just had to take the time to whip up my Remembrance Day post… except it ended up taking the better part of the daylight hours.
An issue that has been large in my life has been the fight to save a local natural space from being “surplussed” and developed.
Having written letters to the local papers and politicians as well as blogging about it, amazingly Victoria Glen Park was actually saved, I should at the very least be trumpeting the good news, but I’ve a pretty good idea how much time that will take.
I’m doing NaNoWriMo for me.
This is the birthday present I’m giving myself.
[Note: This is NOT a hint...
Too busy with NaNoWriMo to have time left for frivolities like birthdays.]
because time is of the essence for NaNoWriMo
NaNoWriMo @ WLG (me-in-the-middle)
I was surprised to discover that NaNoWriMo does not simply involve locking oneself away from the world and writing the month away. There is a whole social aspect I knew nothing about. When you find your region you discover that there is an ML, or “Municipal Liaison”, who is the unpaid volunteer who serves as our fearless leader. The ML organizes and supervises the writers, the forums, and tries to keep everyone focused and motivated.
NaNoWriMo society
Caution: NaNoWriMo Novelists at Work
Whole Lot-a Gelata: writing home away from home
I attended the very first Write-In at Whole Lot-a Gelata, just to see what it was like. Even though I didn’t have my outline written down, I had enough bits floating around in my head that I could do a few opening scene/character sketches. I was pleasantly surprised at how easily the words flowed sitting in a room with a bunch of total strangers, all of whom were typing away in their own little worlds.
NaNoWriMo support
The NaNoWriMo web site is pretty extensive, with plenty of forums (and if the topic you want isn’t there you can jump in and create it. NaNoWriMo provides videos, and blogs, and chat rooms and pep talks… it is really rather amazing. The only thing about NaNoWriMo that I find fault with is that they have designated the people who succeed in writing 50,000 words “winners”. My problem with this is that the flip side would be that those who do not finish would be “losers”.
I would think that the participants themselves would know what they’ve gotten out of NaNoWriMo. If you’ve finished with the prescribed 50,000 words, but feel it is unreadable or un-editable, being told you are a winner will not change the fact that your experience was not successful. By the same token, if you’ve only managed 25,000 words by the end, if you’ve learned something important, like how to outline, or that it is possible to write as many a s 25,000 words in the space of a month, you may well feel like a “winner” until told otherwise. I find it a little bit sad that this distinction is drawn, because NaNoWriMo can be a great experience for different people in many different ways. Writers of all people ought to know that creativity doesn’t fit in a box marked “one size fits all”.
From flitting about in the various forums, I’ve discovered a few interesting websites put up by other NaNoWriMo participants. Since it is so tempting to wander through forums and check out websites, I’m trying to limit myself. I thought I’d just share these two blogs which I found a lot of fun. I’ve only read bits of them, but they’re intriguing enough that I’ve book marked these so that I can pop round and read them at my leisure after NaNoWriMo is done.
“Why do you keep giving him such silly names,” Lauretta asked, raising one eyebrow at me.
“Why do you?” I countered.
“I’m Eight.”
I couldn’t say much to that, so I went with the standard, “I’m Evil; I can do whatever I want.”
From the sidebar:
“First drafts are often bad. Repeat after me: Bad bad bad. Embrace the bad.”
NaNoWriMo has been great for me. I finally got the outline done, and now I’m ahead of the game, beyond the half way word count, so I can make this blog post. My novel may yet undergo great alterations between now and the end, and I have a suspicion that it will take rather more than 50,000 to finish, since I’m not as far along the outline as I probably should be. But that’s O.K. I can always edit it into good order in December.
What NaNoWriMo has done is provide me with a deadline, and help me remember how to find a focus. The best thing that NaNoWriMo has done for me is provide impetus. It’s helped me carve out a place in my life where I can get back into the writing I love. It’s providing support and reminding me of how great it is to have other writers to consort with. And the writing itself is going just fine.
Thank you NaNoWriMo.
note: no time to proof this… sleep is a bigger priority just now. Please comment or email me about typos & I’ll fix them later
In Canada we celebrate Remembrance Day, on the Eleventh Day, of the eleventh month. Gathering together in churchyards, schools, or war memorials, we hear stories of Canadian sacrifice, and listen as a lone trumpet plays “Taps”. If all goes well the last haunting note dies out as the clock ticks over to the eleventh minute, when we bow our heads for two minutes of silence and reflection.
This is a tradition which began with the formal conclusion of “The War to End All Wars” on November 11th, 1918, on Armistice Day.
During that terrible modern war, in 1915 Canadian Doctor John McCrae wrote what I believe to be the single most powerful piece of anti-war poetry ever written.
I doubt I am the only one whose eyes tear up just thinking the words of the first line of his poem,
“In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
between the crosses row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.”
Sadly, humankind has not yet managed to do away with war. The simple words of this immortal poem, so eloquently expressed by this sad and demoralized front line doctor, have permeated the Canadian consciousness.
Part of the poem was printed on the Canadian ten dollar bill a few years back, then in 2004 the poppy as the Canadian symbol of Remembrance was commemorated on a quarter.
Poppies and poetry adorn the ten dollar bill.
My first consciousness of the horrors of war was a visit to an interactive-museum in a train car I visited as a child during Canada’s Centennial year. I remember:
walking through the recreated World War I battlefield… sand bags… explosions…
The photographs, lighting and sound effects made a vivid impression on me that is still with to this day. To educate my own child we’ve visited the extraordinary McCrae House museum in Guelph.
I’ve watched movies, read fiction and poetry, as well as many historical accounts that have left me convinced that war is something to be avoided if at all possible. I am well aware that I’m incredibly lucky because I’ve never been up close and personal with war. But although I’ve never lost a loved one to war, I know those who have not been so fortunate. At the same time I have been humbled knowing my life has been lived in freedom paid for with Canadian blood.
Every year of my adult life I have made a point of putting money in the little Canadian Legion box for a poppy at least once every November, even knowing there are ranks of poppies at home in my drawer. I’ve worn a poppy every year. Until now.
The perversion of the concept of “Copyright” has spread to the Canadian Legion.
I am simply appalled by the Canadian Legion’s dreadful behavior. It seems that they believe they “own” all rights to the use of the poppy, and have been heaving their prodigious legal might
– fueled by all of those donations we’ve all made to their “worthy cause” over the years–
against anyone who dares appropriate what they believe to be their exclusive symbol.
It incenses me when I read about the Canadian Legion mustering their forces against:
It is pretty clear that they are not even in the right, since the first instance of the poppy as a symbol was initiated by an American YMCA worker who encouraged the American Legion to adopt it as a symbol (before the Canadian Legion did), and the poppy design currently used internationally is based on the work –the Intellectual Property of– a French woman. The white poppy of peace is something different, and it too dates back a ways to 1930’s England. The fact that the Canadian Legion copied everyone else in adopting the red poppy symbol is the only claim that the Canadian Legion can reasonably make.
But they used their power to stop a white poppy campaign anyway… because they could. The fledgling Canadian peace movement changed their symbol, and are now known as the White Peace Dove Campaign. Their only crime was the lack of a budget to stand against the Canadian Legion blitzkrieg. I find it disgusting that my donations to the Canadian Legion have made it possible to trample other Canadians purely by intimidation.
Of course the Canadian Legion has also attempted to block the British Peace Pledge Union from distributing white poppies in Canada.
What on earth is happening in the world?
The madness has been escalating as corporations and organizations seek to take ownership of things that they have no real right to. Years ago I remember thinking how absurd it was that Toys “Я” Us laid claim to the letter “R”. Apparently they made a case for their creative use of their backward letter “R” to represent the word “are”. It seems incredible that any court would foolishly allow any corporation exclusive rights to a letter of the alphabet in current use, let alone as a symbol for a common word in our language.
Whether or not that was the intent, Toys “Я” Us has ever after aimed their legal juggernaut at any company daring to use the letter “R” — pointing in any direction– as a word ever since. “Right” doesn’t come into it. Without deep pockets and a crack legal team, no one can stand up to an onslaught by Toys “Я” Us.
And amazingly enough Toys “Я” Us hasn’t yet sued Sesame Street for creating songs and videos about the Letter “R” Actually I wonder why they aren’t bringing their corporate might to bear against all the internet chat room uses of the letter “R” in place of the word. Or the even more common usage in the face of the Twitter and Identi.ca 140 character limit imposition? Maybe Toys “Я” Us are just biding their time, adding up all the infringements.
Makes you wonder why the YMCA hasn’t sewn up the rights to the letter “Y”. Or wonder which University will be first to lay claim to ownership of the letter “U”.
it isn’t the same thing at all
Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva photographed by PDTillman, Wikimedia Commons
Letters of the alphabet are actually human constructs, invented symbols. If you had actually invented a letter of the alphabet you would actually have reasonable grounds to copyright the letter.
[Of course if you started charging royalties every time your letter was used, your letter would rapidly fall out of favour.]
But a poppy? A poppy is a living thing, a flower, part of a plant that grows in the ground. Poppies have been in existence long before the Canadian Legion. The Canadian legion didn’t invent poppies. And in fact the poppies mentioned in Dr. McCrae’s poem were wildflowers growing free, planted by no one, owned by no one. Under no copyright. Why should the Canadian Legion have any special claim to the poppy?
If you look at the Canadian Legion’s website it is pretty clear that they feel perfectly justified in appropriating Doctor McCrae’s story and his powerful contribution to the sum of all knowledge. The Legion makes no secret that they have adopted the poppy as a symbol because of Dr. McCrae’s poetry, which he so freely gifted to the world. If the poppy as a Remembrance Day Symbol is anyone’s intellectual property it would be the two YMCA workers responsible for its implementation, one from France, one from the US. (Note: Neither was Canadian.)
But because the Canadian Legion has very deep pockets they are more than willing to go to war on other Canadians daring to “poach” from what they perceive to be their private preserve, the symbol of a poppy. The Canadian Legion has proven themselves willing to abuse their power to intimidate anyone they feel is competition. The reason the Canadian Legion has such deep pockets because of Canadian largesse.
The Canadian Legion’s “war chest” is courtesy of ordinary people like you and me, shelling out for their little poppy pins. Supposedly they don’t “charge” for the pins, it has always been a donation box. The idea is of course that anyone can have one gratis if you can’t afford to donate, but we all put in as much as we can spare, and many of us have happily put in more. I don’t know about you but its been a long time since I’ve put anything lower than a five dollar bill in one of those boxes. (I’d be surprised if stamping out a poppy pins costs more than a penny or two.) And when you think about the fact that the pins seem designed to work free of your jacket, I’ve found myself making multiple donations pretty much every year. And I didn’t mind because I was suffering under the belief that it was in good cause.
It would have never have occurred to me that The Canadian Legion would use money I had donated to attempt to stifle a fledgling peace movement.
Still less would I have been able to imagine that the Canadian Legion would spend money I donated to actively stifle fundraising efforts intended to benefit the families of veterans.
Or that the Canadian Legion would squander my donations in the petty power play which blocked the Highway of Heroes pins.
Obviously the Canadian Legion is more interested in securing their own little fiefdom by engaging in intimidation and oppression of Canadians than in doing good. Perhaps they are afraid that peace will put them out of business. I don’t know, nor do I care. One thing’s for sure, they certainly have too much money at their disposal.
The 2004 Canadian Mint Remembrance Day Quarter
All I can do is write about my anger in my little blog and cease supporting an institution which seems bent on doing damage to the freedoms so many Canadians have fought and died for.
The Canadian Legion has betrayed my trust. I regret every dime I’ve given them over the years, and they’ll never again receive so much as a poppy quarter from me.
What gives them the right?
It is clear that the only thing that Doctor McCrae was trying to promote with his little poem was peace. Somehow I doubt that the good Doctor would have ever approved of the Canadian Legion’s corruption of his imagery, and worse their perversion of his poppy symbol as an instrument of oppression.
Like most people, I don’t have time to read everything, but I’d like to thank M. Spector for this excellent blog post which opened my eyes to this issue http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/memetics-and-semiotics-poppy
[Note: My intent was that my first November blog post would deal with my NaNoWriMo participation, but I just haven't been able to get this out of my head today-- LLR]
Ubuntu's Karmic Koala T-Shirt
Ubuntu is the Open Source operating system software I use to run my writing computer. When I was starting out I loved writing in WordPerfect, and I’d be using it still except my version stopped being supported. It wasn’t long before I couldn’t get printer drivers. Which is why WordPerfect lost my business to Open Office. (Microsoft Windows being the most widely known non-open source operating system. ) New releases of Ubuntu are distributed twice a year, in April and October. Each release is named for an interesting animal, in alphabetical order like hurricanes. The last distribution was Jaunty Jackalope, and the new distribution is called the Karmic Koala.
[Aside: Just did a quick google to find the Windows link and I accidentally clicked the wrong thing, landing on an old Windows updates page that illustrates exactly why I prefer Open Source... My thinking is that since >I< bought my computer, >I< get to decide what software goes on it. This accidental click sent me to an old Windows update page: Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site The page informs the unfortunate Windows user what browser I must use (Internet Explorer 5 or higher) in order to be able to access Microsoft updates.
Or if I really have to use some other company's browser (you can just hear the condescension) Windows will grudgingly allow me to download updates so that this other browser will work on the Windows website updating the program that >I< purchased from them.
But clearly what they really want me to do is authorize automatic updates. Boy, that was a long time ago. Nowadays you have no choice if you've been forced by circumstance to have Windows VISTA on your box. Vista removed all choice about automatic updates, you just get them whether you want them or not. And of course nowadays the only way to keep VISTA from "phoning home" would involve never going online.]
Ubuntu Release Parties
The very first Ubuntu release party I ever attended was at Toronto’s excellent Linux Caffe.
Unfortunately there was a fairly substantial technical difficulty: the people who were putting on the party couldn’t actually attend due to a Toronto Transit strike, so I never did get “Hardy Heron” installed that day. However, it was my introduction to the Linux Caffe. What a great place to go in and plug in while sipping cappuccino or scarfing back gelato.
This year I made it to the Kwartzlab Ubuntu release party in Kitchener, Ontario. Although a “hacklab” that’s just getting started, they have already begun establishing themselves in the community. Recently Kwartzlab members shared their expertise with a local high school who were building an electric car.
One of the Kwartzlab members created laser etched limited edition picture disks to commemorate the Kwartzlab Karmic Koala release party.
Everyone was friendly as always, because the great thing about GNU Linux Open Source software is that it is really about community. That’s why it works. People with greater expertise assist people with less to get the software up and running.
I used my cel phone to take these photos at the beginning of the evening before it got really busy. When it really got going there were at least thirty people there, many of whom I recognized from Ontario GNU Linuxfest. Because my antique laptop’s battery is long gone I stuck close to my wall plug during the busiest time.
There were a few demonstrations to the whole room, but for the most part it was one-on-one as Ubuntu users helped Ubuntu users while munching pizza, deviled eggs and later the Ubuntu Cake. We’re talking about a class act here: the actually had brand name soft drinks on tap and they recycle. We’ll have to make do with a few photos of the Ubuntu Circle of Friends logo being consumed since in my unfamiliarity with my cel phone camera I seem to have neglected to save the photos I took of the entire Ubuntu cake. All is not lost, as there were several others snapping photos so I’m sure you’ll find a shot of the cake on the Kwartzlab site.!
Kwartzlab Release Party
A good time was had by all. Great job Kwartzlab!
I have been a writer all my life, but sometimes the writing hasn’t had the opportunity to find its way outside my head. For a brief heady time I made a living as a writer, learning a great deal from the old pros I worked with back when I was a young pup. (Funny, I’m now substantially older than the old pros were then.)
I’ve enjoyed my childrearing hiatus which has of course produced the most amazing kid in the world. Since he’s now in high school, I’ve been dusting off my skills and doing a fair bit of thinking. Over the years I’ve accumulated a reasonable amount of life experience, and rather a lot of story ideas. Best of all, I also have a dedicated laptop, which is the place I’ve set aside to bring my writing to life.
Computer Stuff Digression
My “new” laptop has very little in the way of bells and whistles. It’s primary feature was that it was dirt cheap. We’re talking a rugged little IBM machine that would probably survive a fall from a cliff or being run over by a car, but is also so old the hard drive has less capacity than a writable DVD. Since the antique Windows 98 it came with is unsupported, I’m running Ubuntu (one of the more popular versions of Gnu-Linux) on it, since the hard drive is much too small for the current versions of Windows. So I finally have my open source desktop, and am loving being windows free on this machine, let me tell you. Open source software is awesome.
I’m actually gearing up to a changeover on my “real” computer; I attended my first Ontario GNU Linuxfest yesterday, I learned a lot, got some great advice as well as several different versions of linux to try out at home to decide which is best. There’s this great new technology where you can run a “virtual boz” on your computer, so you can have several different operating systems running on your one computer. The advantage to this is that you don’t have to commit to any specific home version of linus, you can try them out at your leisure. When you’re ready just go ahead and install it. (Until yesterday I had this crazy idea that there was only one home version, Ubuntu, the one on the laptop. I now have disks for fedora 11, Free BSD, opensolaris and opensuse As well, there will be a new release of Ubuntu in a few days which will apparently be able to use Photoshop (which has been my sticking point). And if that still isn’t good enough there’s an Irish version called Mint that is supposed to run video nicely “out of the box”.
Marcel Gagné: Linux without Fear
I really enjoyed the talks although much of it was way over my head. Which is probably why Marcel Gagné was my favorite presenter in his talk “Linux Without Fear”. Although aimed at giving pointers to Linux users on spreading linux software in the wider community, he was both entertaining and understandable to neophytes like myself. My other two favorite presentations were Emma Jane Hogbin’s lively talk on “Writing Effective Self-Help Guides for World Domination” and engineer Neil Bunn’s awesome discussion of designing and building “SciNet the largest Linux System in Canada”.
back on track
Part of the reason for having a separate writing computer is to keep the writing focused. I am in fact writing this blog post on the laptop, because it can go online (just). Because online is so slooooow the temptation to internet distraction will be much less.
Being old and slow myself, I can write at my own speed which isn’t too fast or too much for Open Office on this machine. If I need to do a quick & dirty bit of research it does the job. Serious research, blog posts, photo stuff, email and the like take too long. But for writing, it’s lovely. The keys are comfortable, they have a good solid feel.
It’s time I returned to the novel form. My first attempt at writing a novel in grade nine convinced me that I was not a writer. At the time it seemed clear that writing wasn’t a viable career path for me. So. After mourning the loss of what I thought would be my life’s work I headed off to college where I instead studied media arts (since i love movies and TV almost as much as i love books). As it turned out I became a writer anyway.
Maturity and experience have taught me the problems with my first novel were a combination of writing derivatively and not having the maturity to realize that an outline is a necessary foundation to writing fiction. Essential.
An outline shouldn’t be written in stone since your characters may have other ideas as they come to life. But even if you throw it out in part or in whole along the way due to changing circumstances, you must keep re-writing the outline, so that you the writer knows where you are heading. I have yet to meet a fiction writer who would rather outline than undergo root canal surgery, but it is a necessary evil. The outline remains as essential to writing good fiction as language is.
My talented sister-in-law has helped to keep my dreams alive over the years with her blog The Writing Life. Nienke offers ideas and writing outlets and avenues to follow. Sometimes it’s just a funny story or an interesting anecdote, but I’ve always found what she writes to be of use. Because even when I didn’t make the time for writing, writing has always been a part of who I am. In the back forty of my brain notes are always being taken.
It was through Nienke that I first heard of NaNoWriMo. The idea of NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) is to write a 50,000 word first draft during the month of November. Yikes. Yet some of us work well to deadlines.
In the past I’ve never been in the right place in my life to be able to get it together to try something like this, but for me this year everything is right. Maybe because I’m old enough to know if you want to do something, you must commit to making time for it. I do believe that I’ll do it for the same reason I was finally able to quit smoking two years ago: I think it’s the right time for me.
Probably this blog will suffer a bit of neglect during the month of November. I may pop by here from time to time with status reports, or with more musings on copyright consultation submissions. I’ve found reading them to have a restorative effect on my soul, and I know going in that writing anything definitely has moments when a restorative is called for. Of course when immersed in intense writing going for a walk in the woods may well prove to be a more effective break. Being November hopefully there won’t even be pesticide out there!
So just in case I don’t manage to get back here at all during the process, rest assured that I will return after NaNoWriMo is all over. Whether or not the novel flies, I am having too much fun within the wind. Maybe someday I’ll wind it down, but not anytime soon.
You know what? I haven’t started the novel yet, but I’m having fun already.
Thanks Nienke!
[OK, I confess... I just used my "real" computer to make a couple of corrections and added a few links I missed on the laptop. Ye olde laptop is definitely not for blogging. Let's put it this way... it was faster to refer to the paper program from yesterday than to open up new web pages...
---llr]
More strolling through the Canadian Copyright Consultation Submissions…
I keep coming back to this magnificent outpouring of ideas about Canadian copyright law and all that goes with it, and I am so very impressed.
Chen Shen wrote a great one. Here are a couple of my favorite bits:
“the purpose behind copyright should be reevaluated, and reforms should achieve a truly balanced approach to protecting the interests of both content publishers and content consumers, which is based in reality as opposed to the fantasies of media conglomerates clinging onto an ancient media landscape.”
– Chen Shen, copyright consultation submission
Beautiful use of language. And this part is so simple, yet so sensible.
“Generally speaking, restrictive protections should expire soon after content ceases to generate significant revenue.”
– Chen Shen, copyright consultation submission
Google found me the blog. This tiny excerpt says SO much:
“The government’s message is clear: lying on the sex offenders registry is less harmful than sharing your favourite songs on the internet watching DVDs on Linux.”
– cshen.ca blog
Jeff Cliff programming student/composer has a lot of very interesting stuff to say, interweaving philosophical ideas with everyday practicalities.
“Digitally locking the hood of a car so that only the dealer can maintain it restricts who can learn to fix it — this is not how things happen in the future Canada that I want.”
– Jeff Cliff, copyright consultation submission
If this is a typical Canadian student, Canada could have such a bright future.
“Let your children, at least, be free”
– Jeff Cliff, copyright consultation submission
Dusty Phillips, freelance software developer/member of the Pirate Party of Canada
“The distribution channels are irrelevant; they know this and are lobbying for laws to make it harder and/or illegal to access content without paying them. This is like trying to pass laws that we all use typewriters instead of e-mail because typewriters and the postal system are no longer relevant. It serves a set of industries already well-known for misusing artists and consumers alike.”
– Dusty Phillips, copyright consultation submission
This submission brings up an interesting ramification that I hadn’t thought of: the privacy issue
“The privacy problem is that policing such laws would require knowing every movie I watch, every book I read, and every packet I transfer across the Internet. The authorities would have to read every e-mail to ensure I haven’t attached an “illegal” file to it. This is clearly a drastic invasion of privacy.”
– Dusty Phillips, copyright consultation submission
Which of course could be the strongest motivation for efforts to alter Bill C-27 to grant such draconian abilities to the telecom providers.
Another aspect Dusty Phillips discusses is the Canadian “desire to create”. The world of repressed Canadian culture Dusty describes here is actually the dark ages of music and art that the internet is in the process of freeing Canadian culture from.
Of course, the old guard keeps trying to claw us back into the pit because they were much happier when they controlled everything. What they are missing is absurd. If artists are allowed the freedom to find their own audiences, when they are established they will still prefer to affiliate with a distribution network. Because artists want to create, not sell.
The biggest difference in the new model would be that the artists and the distributors would be entering into a more equitable arrangement.
The deal is no longer that the artist has to sell their soul to a company that will try to make them a star. At first blush Big Media doesn’t want that shift of power. I suspect long term it would work out better for them too. But they must have the flexibility to adapt. Instead of trying, they are trying to legislate turning back the hands of time. Not gonna happen, folks. What will happen is the little guys doing the distribution now will end up replacing the big guys who are too rigid to adapt.
During my growing up years the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Canadian politicians of all stripes was: “Canada needs an identity.” or “We don’t have a national identity.”
Even as a kid my take on it was that the Canadian identity is that we were NOT American.
So what is happening in the here and now? The digital age that has arrived has already gone so very far in allowing Canadian culture to grow freely. In the last decade, Canadians have been growing a culture by making use of these technologies. Not just to produce their art but to distribute it.
This is awesome. If allowed to flourish in the fullness of time… perhaps even already… there would no longer need to be any Canadian Content law. Canadian art and music and movies would be allowed to grow and find audiences on their merit and appeal to audience.
In my day, many really talented Canadians had to leave Canada to “make it big”.
Lets just for one moment look at a few Americon iconic characters brought to life by Canadians who couldn’t make a living at home:
Elwood Blues: Dan Ackroyd
The original ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce Donald Sutherland
Captain Kirk: William Shatner (yes, sadly he’s one of ours)
Scotty: James Doohan
King Kong’s original true love: Fay Wray
Pa Cartright: Lorne Greene
Sex and the City’s Samantha Jones: Kim Cattral
Perry Mason: Raymond Burr
Nero Wolfe: Maury Chaykin
Lois Lane: Margot Kidder
Tonto: Jay Silverheels
Which is why Canada Post keeps honoring “Canadians In Hollywood”. So many of our best and brightest have had to go below the border:
Canada Post: Canadians In Hollywood stamps
Just a few Canadians who had to leave home to develop intellectual property:
James Cameron (Titanic)
Norman Jewison (Fiddler and the Roof)
Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters)
Lorne Michaels (Saturday Night Live)
And of course some of Hollywood’s brightest stars were Christopher Plummer, Dorothy Pickford, Leslie Nielson, Lorne Greene, Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey, Glen Ford, Robert Goulet, Raymond Massey,Meg and Jennifer Tilley, Norma Shearer, Martin Short, Kate Nelligan…. the list goes on and on and on.
Maybe if Canada were to embrace the new model, as so many of the copyright consultation submissions suggest, things will continue to change and more of our brightest stars will be able to stay home.
