boora.ca

C-61 in Canada – A YouTube Documentary

C-61 died with the last election, but it might raise it’s ugly head again as the government has basically stayed the same. This is a great look at the issue in 11min 20secs.

Thanks to Harold Jarche for the heads up (via twitter). Digging around my RSS reader (yeah I still do that old RSS thing), I found this article (and now a response) on ownership. So while Kool-aid sipping government members may think that C-61 or it’s spawn might fit very well into this world that doesn’t have physical media that one actually owns, it still misses the point that the video makes. Art/culture etc is based on remixing and reworking and by making that illegal, we are taking a step back as a society.

Posted

in

by

Raj

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “C-61 in Canada – A YouTube Documentary”

  1. Harold Jarche Avatar
    Harold Jarche

    I tried to have this conversation with my MP who is a Harvard Law grad and he doesn’t really understand the issue. Imagine the level of understanding of the majority of the Tory caucus (BTW, the concept of a caucus was appropriated from the First Nations without paying them any royalties).

    Reply
    1. Raj Avatar
      Raj

      You are lucky – my MP James Rajotte isn’t even answering questions about it – after all, he was chairing one of the committees (Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU)) on this CF bill.

      To me it all smells of people who can not create, listening to those who want to make sure that nobody else can. Copyright certainly isn’t a simple issue and as someone who creates, remixes and media shifts, I feel that I have some understanding of both sides. I don’t mind some of my images being used for noble purposes. But others, I would like to see contribute to my creative enterprise and I would be disheartened if I was cheated of that resource. But that being said, if it gets my work onto more eyeballs, then it will only help me in the long run.

      “IP hoarding companies” should understand that, but they don’t as it is hard to account for this sort of long term return. They want compensation based on any and all uses of the product at all times. Great for the bean counters, not so much for the artist who become villanized for being part of a company that prosecutes “offenders”.

      This Marxian alienation from their production can’t be good for the artists who simply churn out IP that is handed over to legal, accounting and marketing “bourgeoisie” who reap the real rewards by protecting not the art, but the right to control the sales of the art.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *