simonali - Tumblr blog

simonali · 13 years

Text

MRKT 3211: September 29, 2011 Debate-Has the Copyright Legislation Gone Too Far?

The Copyright Legislation, also known as Bill C-32: Overview Bill C-32 was an Act to amend the Copyright Act in Canada which was a bill tabled in June 2010 by Minister of Industry, Tony Clement and Minister of Canadian Heritage, James Moore. In March 2011, 40th Canadian Parliament has been dissolved and all the bills that did not pass at that point are automatically stopped or “dead”. Regardless of this bill now being defunct, Bill C-32 was intended to legalize activities practiced by many Canadians, such as copying a CD from it’s physical form and uploading its contents on to your computer or iPod. The bill would make it illegal for a person to crack a digital lock placed on a device, disc or file. It would be illegal to copy a CD or digital song sold with copy protection on it, for example. In May 2010, Canada was put in the same category as China, Mexico, Russia and Spain on a list of nations the United States considers to be the worst copyright violators. With the pressure from the USA on tightening copyright legislation, Canada came up with Bill C-32. A bill that was controversial regardless of what side you were on with this issue. Critics said the government was catering to the U.S. entertainment industry, which has lobbied hard for strong anti-circumvention laws similar to those laws in the United States. The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 made it illegal to break digital locks on devices and content, although there are some exceptions. Consumers are allowed, for example, to crack the locks placed on their cellphones. Bill C-32 proposes a similar exception. This bill was very strict where it not only had initiatives to stop the pirating of music but also recorded tv programs in which the legalization of time shifting (recording tv programs to be viewed later, The bill had a system known as the “notice-and-notice” system where copyright holders will inform ISP of possible piracy from their customers. If this claim was made, the ISP would have to inform the customer they have violated the law. The customers information would then be released to the copyright holder with a court order. A key clause regarding the breaking of digital locks, however, could trump many of those other permissions. A television broadcaster could also air a program with a code inserted into it that would prevent it from being recorded, or that would delete it from a PVR after a certain amount of time. It would be illegal for consumers to attempt to circumvent those codes. The bill would also make illegal the sale or importation of tools designed to break digital locks, and allow copyright holders to go after websites designed to encourage violations and piracy.

The Liberals were on board with Bill C-32 but the NDP was not and they wanted more to be added. The party's copyright critic Charlie Angus, the MP for Timmins-James Bay, in March 2010 introduced a private member's bill that proposed an additional tax be placed on digital devices such as iPods and laptops.

This new tax was an extension of the private copying levy that is currently in place for all blank media devices (CDs for example) and this levy is supposed to compensate copyright holders for property put on these blank media devices. Charlie Angus stated that extending the fee to devices would effectively make copying legal yet still compensate copyright holders.

The penalty for breaking this law would be a one time payment of $5000 CAD for all “infringements” that occurred when the lawsuit was filed. This is much less than what is currently in place. Currently the fine is between $500 to $20.000 CAD per song with copyright infringements.

Right before Bill C-32 became dead, there was some adjustments. Legalizing commonplace but grey-area practices such as backing up the contents of a music CD, home recording of TV episodes for later viewing or copying legally acquired music to a digital player made Bill C-32 a bit more bearable.

Bill C-32: Supporting There is no denying something has to be done to protect the intellectual property of the creators of these forms of media. “File sharing”, “Peer to Peer (P2P) Networks”, “Downloading” or whatever term you want to use, plain and simple is stealing property. Someone creates a song, an album, a movie, or a game for the purpose of distribution to consumers for profit. Their profession is the creation of entertainment, regardless of what platform that was mentioned earlier. If anybody produces a product, they deserve to be compensated for their work.

The most controversial issue with illegal downloading affects the music industry. Majority of musical artists are against their work being stolen and have spoken up on many occasions. Artists like Rob Zombie and Paul Stanley are against the idea of illegal downloading and file sharing. Rob Zombie states “I don‟t know what is going to happen, probably because in another year people won‟t even bother manufacturing CD‟s, no one will even want them. The downloads do not match up with the record sales, so you know people are stealing mostly everything. The touring business is still really good, but now you are starting to get these artists that are really raping and pillaging the crowds and tickets are $200 - $500.” (Muñoz, 2007).

Paul Stanley, front man for the rock band KISS is strongly against illegal downloading. Stanley states "Downloading is one of the tragedies of the 21st century. Under the guise of technology and fancy jargon, people have legalized stealing. When you say you're sharing files . . . you can't share what you don't own. I can't share your car. Sharing something with one person is one thing, sharing with tens of thousands of people is a crime. It's robbery" (Adams, 2007).

Stanley also rejected claims that well established artists like KISS and Metallica have already made enough money to not worry about downloading. Stanley stated, “I don't owe anyone any justification for wanting to get paid [and] for anybody else to decide when I have enough money is bollocks. I feel angry about it happening to me, but it will kill new artists. New bands depend upon that money to carry on. They desperately need that money and, on principle, I want it" (Adams,2007).

Our own primary research findings had the same point of view. Paul Laine is a local recording artist with worldwide distribution deals with two major labels. Laine is against illegal downloading and file sharing and has seen how artists have to increase their product line and sell merchandise and tour extensively to promote themselves and their music. Laine has felt the repercussions of illegal downloading as he is not selling as many units as he did in the past.

Paul Stanley is correct when he mentions new artists. Sure established artists have a fan base they can go to but how are new artists going to be able to have successful careers if they cannot make any money from what they love to do. Regardless of what anyone thinks, artists deserve to make money from their profession. It is their job and they all want to get paid.

The Motion Picture Industry has felt the backlash from illegal downloading and copyright infringement. In 2010, for the first time since 2002, U.S. consumers spent more to see movies in theaters last year than buy them on DVD and Blu-ray discs. The movie industry used to rely on the high profit margins of DVD sales to compensate for the extensive costs to produce and market films. In recent years, Hollywood has come to rely on the high profit margin from DVD sales to underwrite the large cost of producing and marketing films, but with DVD sales dwindling, the movie industry is reexamining its business models. The DVD movie industry peaked in 2004 with U.S. sales of $12.1 billion. In 2009, sales have dropped to $8.73 billion, a thirteen percent decline from the year before, Adams Media said. The video game industry is also suffering from illegal downloading. As of August 2011, US retailers have stated retail game sales fell twenty-three percent from 2010. There was already a twenty-six percent drop in July and a ten percent drop is June 2011.

0 notes