Filed under: disinfo reporting, new media, tv | Tags: Bill C-61, Canadian copyright law, Canadian DMCA, Michael Geist, Steven Page
This post is really just a “shout out” to the naysayers of my previous posting on this topic. I knew that it wouldn’t receive as warm a welcome as the posts on trying to speak “truth” to a union on Copyright Law. Thank you for the e-mails. I appreciate hearing your feedback even when you’re saying, “you’re nuts, man!”.
I may be nuts, but I do read articles top to bottom…
Maybe I’m nuts because I actually do read the news. But I’m not so sure that it makes me a conspiracy theorist. All the same, for the record… the implications of Steven Page’s arrest, and the subsequent media coverage does shine a light on a couple of topics that are *not* being covered.
Do I think that the cops in NY “had it in” for Page?
No. More precisely, I don’t know. From the information that we have, the police were investigating a car in a driveway that had its driver’s side door open. That is the pretext that they have used for approaching the house.
Now, not to go off on a tangent here, but while I say that the actual cops may not have had anything personal against Page, I’ll be sure to close the door to my car next time I go back into the house. Not that the Patriot Act and a general sense of Homeland Insecurity wouldn’t stop any U.S. official from entering your house *whenever* they wanted…
Remember… he’s pleading NOT GUILTY to the charge of possession. Page and his friend Stephanie Ford “invited” the officers in when they knocked on the door. I have a hard time believing that the BNL frontman said, “Yeah, come on in…. we’re snorting cocaine.”
A note on “conspiracy theories”…
I’m certainly no stranger to the pejorative term “conspiracy theorist”, but since I have hinted at the possibility of “conspiracy” behind the negative coverage of one of the leading voices in Canada against major label monopoly and the the industry cartel that drives support for Bill C-61, I’ll indulge in a quick look at “conspiracy”.
“Conspiracy” is a cornerstone of our legal ability to charge someone for a crime. “Conspiracy to commit…” is a fairly common bit of language heard in legal cases all over the world. (Note: I’m not a lawyer, but I have played one in summer stock theatre….I’m lying…that’s a bad joke….I’ve never even played a lawyer…)
I’m sure that Steven Page (and no doubt, his lawyers) will not be entering my blog into the record as evidence. I doubt that they’ll fight this on the grounds of conspiracy (I’ll even take a wild guess that even Page himself doesn’t agree with me…).
BUT – to think that “conspiracies” to take out opposition, or to “take down” opposition in the corporate world do *not* exist, is just foolishness. If I had the time, I’d post a list of current Wall St. Execs that are currently under investigation or being prosecuted for “conspiracy” crimes. Think Enron….
Do I think that Page is a “big enough” target for the Copyright Cartel to focus on?
Yes.
In fact, I think that he’s just about as big a target as one can be in Canada. He’s not just a vocal opponent…he’s a *very* vocal opponent.
I realize that this is supposition on my part, and I’m only putting it out there as an “alternate take” on what’s happening. I doubt very much that even Page himself would condone my point of view, but then again…. he’ll probably let his lawyers do all of the talking.
It’s a “hot” time for Canadian Copyright law and considering that Michael Geist has just announced the C-61 in 61 Seconds Competition (for which Page is listed as a judge), it’s just *brilliant* timing to have Steven Page’s credibility called into question.
Now, before you jump to the conclusion that Industry Canada is f****** with Fair Copyright For Canada’s Youtube Competition (that’s not *at all* what I’m saying), I’ll just gently remind you that when you look at the “story” of Steven Page’s arrest on the news, or on-line….just check to see if Page’s words (in “quotes”) match up with the claims that are being made by the news-wires or news-readers.
I’m no expert on Occam’s Razor…
…but I for one find it easier to believe that the media runs stories that they’re *told* to, as opposed to believing that Steven Page is an “out of control” coke-fiend who’s charges are equitable to alleged “sex crimes”.
Call me crazy, but I just see more evidence for the former as opposed to the latter.
Filed under: disinfo reporting, music, net neutrality, new media, tv | Tags: actra, Bill C-61, Canadian copyright law, Canadian DMCA, Michael Geist
The great thing about getting linked from Michael Geist, is the intelligence of his readership that comes with.
Zeropaid has written a post that anticipates the forthcoming “Part Two” of “ACTRA & the death of the mix tape”.
Though I haven’t had the time to complete the post (and largely the research involved), Drew Wilson correctly predicts where I’m going with this.
An excerpt:
What’s most fascinating about the post is that it highlights possibly a rather dark side to the copyright industry – buying copyright reform support. It also puts into serious question how sincere the support for the current iteration of copyright reform legislation as highlighted by CRIA really is. Obviously, when record labels like Nettwerk broke away from CRIA over copyright legislation under the previous Liberal government, many questioned how Canadian CRIA really was in the first place since the so-called A-list (the big four record labels) were allegedly trumped by the B-list labels (Nettwerk, etc. with big acts like Bare Naked Ladies, Sum 41, etc.)
Judging by the reaction from the ACTRA member, the kind of move as seen by Canadian record labels leaving CRIA over simply listening to international interests may be only the tip of the iceberg. Now that CRIA is relying heavily on other big acronyms (likely due to the dramatic fallout in 2005), it seems as though that kind of dissent may spread beyond Canadian record labels from within other organizations.
Filed under: net neutrality, new media, tv | Tags: actra, Bill C-61, canadian copyright, Canadian DMCA, house painting, Michael Geist
I’m a blogger for the same reason that I’m an actor and musician;
I love being an audience member.
I love great acting, I’m a big music fan and I wish that blogs existed when I was younger.
I’m a fan first.
That’s why I find Bill C-61 so offensive. It turns fans into criminals and *that’s* the straw that breaks it for me. An artist cannot exist without an audience.
You can’t legislate fan loyalty.
So…when I typed out the two blogs with regards to ACTRA and the Canadian Copyright Act over the past two days…I did it between painting houses for money and rehearsing a show (for free no less…and guess what…I’m not looking to acquire *any* rights from the author!), that will appear in the Toronto Fringe (in two days!!…oh God, if I could entirely devote my brain to playing guitar and singing instead of ACTRA’s position on copyright reform…)….I certainly didn’t expect to come home from a long day of rehearsal to find that one of my daily morning coffee reads (Michael Geist), had linked to my posts.
It’s an honour just to be nominated…
I’ll admit that I was expecting angry e-mails from some ACTRA representative (hopefully, not one that I knew), instead of being pleasantly surprised to find Geist’s post today referring to this blog.
So…I’ll just say “thanks for reading” and I’ll be back on my follow-up pieces on ACTRA just as soon as the Fringe show opens.
Until then, I’ll refer you to my very first blog on ACTRA and broadcasting. Hopefully those angry ACTRA reps (who am I kidding…they don’t read blogs…) will see that, though I’m critical…I’m still a concerned member (and Canadian citizen…but *that* doesn’t fall under ACTRA’s jurisdiction apparently…)
Filed under: disinfo reporting, music, net neutrality, new media | Tags: actra, Canadian copyright law, Canadian DMCA, downloading, Michael Geist, music, new media, piracy
Yes, another disclaimer….
*I’m not suggesting that artists shouldn’t get paid for their work, I’m suggesting that the current framing of the debate is short-sighted, lacking in a wider understanding of the current situation, and is just plain “bad business”.*
O, ACTRA wherefore art thou artistic sensibilities?
Despite the vast amount of information available on the proposed changes to the Canadian Copyright Act, (aka – The Canadian DMCA), I never cease to be surprised at the lack of understanding that artists have with regards to the new rules coming down the pipe for content creation (meaning: “art”).
A few months ago, I wrote a long open letter to ACTRA (a union to which I belong as a performer), and questioned the union’s position which overwhelmingly supports changes to the Copyright Act that they believe will enrich the finances of their membership. I wholeheartedly disagree with ACTRA…in fact…I believe that the proposed changes will become a major detriment to artists trying to create content while protecting only those at the top (read: broadcasters, big business and their lobby groups as well as internet service providers).
In the letter, I addressed the “Myths and Facts” page that ACTRA has posted on their website. The so-called “fact sheet” is riddled with errors and (if I didn’t know any better), outright lies which give me a sinking feeling in my stomach that leaves me wondering why my union is giving the broadcasters a “mulligan”.
ACTRA went on strike over “new media”…so, why are they now practically handing new media over to those we struck against?!
I’m sincerely confused by ACTRA’s stance. I’m confused even *after* speaking with ACTRA’s Director of Policy, Kim Hume, for the better part of an hour on the subject. In our conversation following my letter, we (Ms. Hume and I), respectfully agreed to disagree, but I have to say that some of my greater concerns (privacy issues, DRM, TPM technologies etc.), were not met with any real understanding of the implications that are buried deep within the proposed changes to the legislation. Rather, my concerns were met with, “we’re a labour union that represents artists” and “we need to protect our membership and get them the money that they deserve for their work in new media”.
I also received a letter from ACTRA president, Richard Hardacre, thanking me for my “activism”. (I’m not an activist….I’m an *actor*)
It should be noted that all of this occurred *before* the proposed changes were made public. As soon as the changes to Bill C-61 were public knowledge, I made a bee-line over to the ACTRA website and (though not surprised at all), was thoroughly dismayed by Stephen Waddell’s (Exec. Director of ACTRA), statement that “vocal opponents of this Bill will characterize it as mimicking what’s already been done in the U.S., but that’s oversimplifying things.”
Oversimplifying?!
Forgive me in advance Mr. Waddell, but…those of us who are against the changes have more than a “simple” understanding of the Act. And…let it be said (by a dues paying member of your union, no less…), that any knowledge on the state of copyright in Canada does *not* come from our union propaganda. In fact, my suggestions for the formation of a “new media committee” or even something as “simple” as a discussion on the matter with the membership at large have been ignored.
Waddell’s statement can be considered as “correct” in that it doesn’t just mimic the U.S. version of this law….it goes further.
While ACTRA maintains that they are *not* in the pocket of big business, it’s hard to accept the idea that we can be (as a union), members of a lobby group with big business and still represent the interests of artists. To put a finer point on it: how can a union represent interests that aren’t heard? Again, forgive me, but…it makes me wonder who is advising the executive at ACTRA on these matters. How can ACTRA continue to bash our collective heads against the brick wall of government (censorship, arts funding) and keep coming up empty-handed, AND THEN – hand copyright and intellectual property control over to the very people that don’t want to pay us anything for our work.
Can we actually believe (as members), that once Broadcasters own the copyright and intellectual property rights of a program and the digital locks on the product, that they will then give us a fair piece of the pie?…..talk about “tilting at windmills”…
On with the show…
Alright, enough with the rant….
How ACTRA is helping to kill the “mixed tape”…
- Under the proposed legislation, making a mixed tape and giving it to a friend is a crime. “Who cares?”, says you. “It’s always been illegal. No-one will ever *actually* be punished for committing the crime”. Well…the biggest difference between “then” and “now”, is that your old cassette player wasn’t hooked up to a broadband high-speed internet connection. You can’t even give someone your old iPod with songs on it. Legally, you’ll have to erase the contents. (Remember that iTunes or Windows Media Player is connected to the internet and *everything*, absolutely *everything* that you do on your computer is “open source” information to those with deep enough pockets to harvest your info.)
- Let’s say that you buy a song for $0.99 on iTunes. It’s “protected” with DRM (Digital Rights Management) or TPM (Technological Protection Measure) technology. If the technology that exists in your song file prevents you from changing the format (say…from an mp4 to mp3 or a .wav format), – or – it limits the amount of copies you can make (say…you can only burn it onto a CD once or twice) and you circumvent the technological measures in order to illegally change the format or copy it more than you’re allowed to…well, then…you can be sued up to $20,000 (depending on how famous and cranky the artist is that you’ve “gypped”). Again, you say – “Who cares? No-one will *actually* come after me for that”. I say, “The government enacts laws in order to exercise them”.
- Further to the point on TPM’s, ACTRA has made a grave error in suggesting to its membership that a user’s privacy cannot be violated simply by putting a CD or DVD into your player. This is so wrong, that it doesn’t *just* oversimplify the matter…it’s misinformation by definition. ( I hesitate to call it disinformation, but now that I’ve brought the matter to the attention of the Director of Policy, they can’t exactly say that “they didn’t know”…). ACTRA states on their website:
“The proposed changes to the Copyright Act have nothing to do with privacy. Some people have falsely stated that TPMs will violate your privacy. That is not true. The vast majority of TPMs do not collect personal information and cannot violate your privacy. For example, your DVD player uses TPMs. Your DVD player is not collecting personal information or violating your privacy.” (emphasis original)
Well…if you have even a cursory knowledge of the proposed legislation *and* have read ACTRA’s “Myths and Truths about the Proposed Changes to Canada’s Copyright Act”, you’ll see that ACTRA has actually been proven wrong on just about every “fact” that they’ve put forward. (If you’re an ACTRA member and this doesn’t concern you…I submit that you, a) are apathetic about your industry and probably stopped reading this post long ago or, b) still don’t understand the implications of what’s going on here…).
The idea that your DVD player (or CD or media player), is *not* collecting your personal information or violating your privacy underscores the frightening fact that ACTRA either has no idea of what they’re talking about, OR, they’re willfully disseminating misinformation. Granted, your DVD is not violating your privacy if you’re putting it into a DVD player that is hard-wired to a TV. BUT – if you watch movies on your laptop, or (again), organize your new media on your computer, your information is *most definitely* being collected.
In 2005, something called the “Sony/BMG Rootkit Scandal” shed some much needed light on the otherwise little-known practice of companies using “spyware” to collect your personal information. In the case of Sony BMG, a “root-kit” would be installed on your computer (without your knowledge) if you had bought a CD containing the technology (Celine Dion, Neil Diamond, Trey Anastasio, for example), and this “root-kit” would be virtually unseen on your computer and would send personal info (i.e. – what you listen to, when you listen to it….if it’s legal or not).
Now…not to keep oversimplifying things, but…
CONTINUED… Part Two: ACTRA Fumbles on Film
