LOREENA'S remarks on the announcement of Bill C-32 (An Act to amend the Copyright Act)
June 3, 2010
In response today to the tabling in Parliament of the new Copyright Bill C-32, singer and composer Loreena McKennitt commented publicly that she welcomed strengthened protection of intellectual property. While noting that she had not yet had the opportunity to closely study the details of the new Bill, the award winning recording artist and Member of the Order of Canada emphasized that it was imperative that the government finally bring Canadian law in line with international treaties signed many years ago.
“I am happy that Canada has joined the many other nations who have recognized that copyright protection in the 21st century is essential to cultivating and protecting the various creative industries of music, film, games, publishing and architecture, to name a few”.
“The digital age is one with many opportunities, but it is a trans-border global phenomenon that requires co-operation and harmony to achieve benefits for humanity. Respect for intellectual property, individual privacy and cultural sensitivity must be paramount alongside clear harmonized regulation. In this way, predictable economic business models can work.”
Loreena pointed out that creative people have the right to earn a living from their work and spoke of the damage that has occurred in the absence of sufficient regulatory protection.
“With particular regard to the music industry, where composers, lyricists and designers provide ideas and true creative content, there is a vast and complex ecosystem of expertise (such as studio engineers, musicians, printers, promoters and record store employees, etc.,) which has been profoundly affected by the large scale theft and distribution of copyrighted material over the Internet”.
“As the owner of my own independent record label and the manager for 20 years of an international recording career, I have seen this devastation first hand. Many brilliant people can no longer make a living and this is a huge loss to our culture, heritage and our local economies. As a business person as well as an artist, I can’t accept the assurances of anti-copyright activists who say that artists can make up the loss of sales of recordings by hawking t-shirts at concerts.”
Loreena hopes that the many Canadians who participated in or read about the public consultations on copyright last summer will take the time to fully understand the new provisions and not be swayed by oversimplifications or alarmist pronouncements of those with vested interests in a pirate or parasitic culture.
“From activists and academics we hear a lot about so-called ‘user rights’. It is my view that we should be extremely careful with this kind of crafted language, because it isn’t a matter of ‘user rights’ but rather ‘user permissions’. Once we dispel the notion that people own the music in a CD or a download rather than the reality that they have purchased a ‘license to listen’ then we can cease worrying about how to balance these needs. Many things the public wishes to do with what they purchase can all be accomplished within the framework of permissions and limited copying for personal use.”
“If Canadians want a vibrant culture in the future we have to ensure the longstanding rights of those who create our art and music and with fairness protect those fundamental rights from erosion and corruption.”
Originally posted by ChristinaAnneM: What about posting links to videos that were made and put on youtube using Loreena's songs? I am against anyone doing that as it lets people listen when they want instead of purchasing her CD's
It's NOT their right to post another ones products, it's illegal and an abomination. I do not have the right to tell someone not to smoke, but if they do it to where it effects me, I DO HAVE THE RIGHT! Posting Miss Loreena's music in nay manner is illegal and wrong, if not specifically expressed (ok) by QR and or Loreena McKennitt.
Posts: 4 | Location: Ohio | Registered: December 05, 2010
I especially like how Miss Loreena expresses herself in regards to that of Humanities. Anyone that performs a service, deserves their reward. Ask a mechanic to fix your auto for free. Ask the man who built your house or cuts your hair to do it for free, won't happen. What about the man who finalizes the building of your house, the landscaper, I use to do that, he is an artist. Music soothes the soul, and especially some forms of it. When ones steal it by downloading it when it is illegally posted online; it is stealing ones lively-hood and due, right of their hands. Would the ones who does this want to have their earnings stolen from them, especially after they had already earned it. But ironically, earned it for the benefit of everyone. What a travesty.... I praise the heart of the one behind QR
Posts: 4 | Location: Ohio | Registered: December 05, 2010
What about posting links to videos that were made and put on youtube using Loreena's songs? I am against anyone doing that as it lets people listen when they want instead of purchasing her CD's
Originally posted by HRHQueenMabb: I chose this to be my first "real" post. Like many of you, I have always purchased CD's of the artists. You always have something to hold in your hands & read the inside material.
And the things that many of you have posted..urutuc/Ted Lemon, are dead on. I get fustrated with audio books on CD's b/c if I download them to my itunes, they get scrambled & don't play in order. Which I then have to buy from itunes store or audible. And, sometimes they are abridged, but the CD's are not. But, I must say too, that if I like the audio version, I usually buy the book to have in my hand. Same for CD's.
Now for Youtube..again, after I saw clips from LM's tour, I purchased the CD's, plan on buying the DVD & just purchased a harp like she plays (just the smaller version...her's won't fit into my car). I saw clips of the broadway show Wicked on Youtube & inturn, I purchased show tickets to see them on tour 3 times & spent lots of $$$$ on merchandise (lots of $$$).
So, I think it goes to say that the digital age does benefit the artists in lots of ways. But, there is a lot of abuse out there as well. A very fine line.
That's my 2 cents.
I couldn't agree more.
Posts: 198 | Location: Cal Poly SLO | Registered: July 21, 2009
I chose this to be my first "real" post. Like many of you, I have always purchased CD's of the artists. You always have something to hold in your hands & read the inside material.
And the things that many of you have posted..urutuc/Ted Lemon, are dead on. I get fustrated with audio books on CD's b/c if I download them to my itunes, they get scrambled & don't play in order. Which I then have to buy from itunes store or audible. And, sometimes they are abridged, but the CD's are not. But, I must say too, that if I like the audio version, I usually buy the book to have in my hand. Same for CD's.
Now for Youtube..again, after I saw clips from LM's tour, I purchased the CD's, plan on buying the DVD & just purchased a harp like she plays (just the smaller version...her's won't fit into my car). I saw clips of the broadway show Wicked on Youtube & inturn, I purchased show tickets to see them on tour 3 times & spent lots of $$$$ on merchandise (lots of $$$).
So, I think it goes to say that the digital age does benefit the artists in lots of ways. But, there is a lot of abuse out there as well. A very fine line.
That's my 2 cents.
Posts: 9 | Location: surrounded by muggles in SC | Registered: October 01, 2010
(b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;
(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;
......it looks like it is OK to repurpose a work that you purchased to use on a device that you own... unless I am not understanding what I read
I kept the two rules that provide the problems for the user: 1) the "person" that sells the music has the right to define on which equipment you use it "(b) ...is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;" So if the seller want it you may only play it on an apple, or a sony or...
2) if the seller puts drm on it you have to circumvent it to be able to play it on anything you want. That circumvention is illegal so you can only play it on the equipment that the seller allows.
So according to this law it is only OK if the seller allows it and does not add drm on the product.
Personally I want to use the music as I like on the equipment that I wantand freely within non-commercial setting for example with friends, during a (non-commercial) event of one of my clubs etc. I agree that if I would make serious money with it some of it should go to the musicians. But I don't want to be forced to buy an apple because it is only avaliable for apples, or buy the same music several times because I want it on my cd-player and my mp3-player. And most of all I don't want degradation of the music due to inteference with drm.
But then I'm someone who buys (music etc) what he likes and want to have.
Posts: 65 | Location: The Netherlands | Registered: January 21, 2007
....then click on...Reproduction for Private Purposes...
29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if
(a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;
(b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;
(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;
(d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and
(e) the reproduction is used only for private purposes.
......it looks like it is OK to repurpose a work that you purchased to use on a device that you own... unless I am not understanding what I read
Posts: 143 | Location: Minnesota | Registered: August 12, 2007
Originally posted by dlaws99: Thinking about this subject for a long time and I simply can't come up with any legitimate intellectual foundation for a concept of "users rights" beyond buying the product and putting it in your own CD player. Anything else has long been recognized as piracy...
Unfortunately it is no longer as simple as that. I believe there should be a fair balance between the desires of the users who paid for the 'right' to listen to an artists music or watch a studio's film. I do not believe copyright needs to be strengthened so much as it needs to be reformed to work best in this modern globally connected age.
If the C-32 (I have not read the bill) is the Canadian equivalent of the US DMCA then it is something that needs to be carefully written so that while protecting the interests of content creators and enabling them to license their works for profit, it does not criminalise users who wish to use that content on any device they own, for their own personal use.
I believe that if I buy a digital download, I have bought the 'license to listen' and further to that I believe I have the right to choose what device I listen with, and I do not believe it is fair for a record company or the state, to criminalise me for exercising that fair use right, when I have paid for it.
Suffice to say, I believe there is plenty of scope for fair use to be legally protected in the C-32 if it is not already.
I believe there are two ways of approaching copyright. You can do the copying before you ask the right owner for permission, or after you've asked. Then there are two answers after you've asked for the permission; either you get a "yes" or a "no". Then you can deside, on the "no", to do the copy anyway or not.
This might seem harmless, or maybe not because I said it so simple...
My believe is, that when asking for permission to use another artist's work, you are likely to get a positive respond.
I do not believe ms McKennitt hasn't asked for permission. Nor do I think she would use the material if she got a "no". (She might have asked for an explanation on the "no". But that's another story. - Or maybe I'm just naive.)
Anxious 2This message has been edited. Last edited by: Anxious 2,
Posts: 925 | Location: Denmark | Registered: January 25, 2008
I would like to assure you that Loreena has personally read your remarks. It is, of course, her first preference to reply herself and I know she hopes to address this particular subject and the entire Copyright subject here on the MessageBoard and also on our website.
Unfortunately she is entailed in some urgent and time sensitive matters which must take precedence. She hopes to provide a more in-depth response as time and circumstance will allow.
As always we encourage respectful debate and we appreciate your feedback and comments on this topic.
Originally posted by Ted Lemon: As an artist you have built on the works of earlier artists, for example in your use of the traditional Irish folk song "Bonny Portmore," or the lovely ballad you wrote based on Alfred Noyes' poem, "The Highwayman." You must acknowledge that part of your creative process involves a debt to earlier artists upon whose work you have built. The creative tradition you have inherited is one that acknowledges the value of building on the work of others.
Ted is exactly right on all points. And it's especially ironic, and disappointing, for an artist like Loreena -- whose work relies more on access to previous works than anyone I can think of -- to take this stance. Without a strong public domain and works free of copyright, two-thirds of Loreena's work would be illegal.
I will tell you as an IT professional of 30 years: there is NOTHING that can be done to stop the distribution of digital files. If it can be heard, it can be recorded, and if it can be recorded, it can be shared. That is the reality of the digital age, and efforts to fight it are doomed to failure because they go squarely against the central concept of digital storage: effortless duplication.
Instead of fighting a hopeless battle, why not instead embrace the technology, and make it easy for honest people to be honest? Sell digital albums for $5, not $20, and you will sell many, many, many more of them. And you'll offer quality control that pirates won't easily find. Cut out the middlemen - which Loreena is already doing with her own label - and go directly to your fans, who WANT to support you. Make it easy for them.
The world does not owe anybody the perpetuation of the 19th century business model, simulating physical scarcity in an arena fundamentally designed to solve the physical scarcity problem. Make it easy for honest people to be honest. That's the only solution, I promise you. Nothing will ever stop piracy; people will ALWAYS pirate. Cultivate goodwill. ASK people not to pirate, rather than threaten them with law or weapon. Educate and campaign. Build social awareness. Lower prices and offer thereby a better price/quality ratio than pirates. You can't beat free in price, but you can offer low prices and a quality guarantee, plus the good karma of supporting the artist directly. You will win.
Locking up the public domain tighter and tighter, extending copyright further and further into the past (nothing done after 1923 will ever enter the public domain in the US; bank on that, there will be another Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain forever before 2018), and imposing more and more restrictions how on consumers can use/access the content they pay for will all only make us all poorer.
Enough is enough. Let's start making sense and looking forward instead of backward. Make it easy for people to be honest, and they will be.
(And I LOVE Loreena's music. I also came upon much of it through file-sharing a long time ago, and I have since bought ALL of her CDs as a result. I didn't have to; I wanted to. Cultivate that mentality, and reap a rich and deserved harvest.)
