LOREENA'S remarks on the announcement of Bill C-32 (An Act to amend the Copyright Act

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.”
Original Post
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...
Well...

I am not a professional singer, but I sing and my father is a professional artist. I know that we live in a world full of people that do not buy music. They just have to visit a website and download everything they want. I'm talking about a new generation of people... teens, adults... Itunes and Ipod generation.

When you are recording an album, specially if you are and independent artist, it means that you are investing not only your talent in the project, but also your money. You spend money recording and releasing it, so if you do not have a commercial "response", you probably will have a problem.

It's easy to understand that so many people do not have money to buy cds and pay for/download a song from Itunes. They wanna listen to your music and sometimes I don't see the harm... I understand both sides.
quote:
Originally posted by Nichya:
Well...

I am not a professional singer, but I sing and my father is a professional artist. I know that we live in a world full of people that do not buy music. They just have to visit a website and download everything they want. I'm talking about a new generation of people... teens, adults... Itunes and Ipod generation.

When you are recording an album, specially if you are and independent artist, it means that you are investing not only your talent in the project, but also your money. You spend money recording and releasing it, so if you do not have a commercial "response", you probably will have a problem.

It's easy to understand that so many people do not have money to buy cds and pay for/download a song from Itunes. They wanna listen to your music and sometimes I don't see the harm... I understand both sides.


Well, Nichya, There really is a problem in that. Because in order to create more music, a musical artist needs to know the demand for the music, and record sales are the primary meter for that demand. Also, creating the music itself costs money. So if free (usually illegal) downloads are still being taken advantage of, we won't have any new music to listen to eventually.
And that reminds me: one time at Barnes and Noble I was listening to some samples of Loreena's albums and I found a version of An Ancient Muse that was a B&N exclusive. One of the tracks, of course, was Raglan Road (possibly my favourite, even though the segment was short and I'd never heard the entire thing). So I was wondering if there was a way I could find it, short of risking moral (and possibly legal) consequences. Thanks for your help!
quote:
Originally posted by Semaspa A:
quote:
Originally posted by Nichya:
Well...

I am not a professional singer, but I sing and my father is a professional artist. I know that we live in a world full of people that do not buy music. They just have to visit a website and download everything they want. I'm talking about a new generation of people... teens, adults... Itunes and Ipod generation.

When you are recording an album, specially if you are and independent artist, it means that you are investing not only your talent in the project, but also your money. You spend money recording and releasing it, so if you do not have a commercial "response", you probably will have a problem.

It's easy to understand that so many people do not have money to buy cds and pay for/download a song from Itunes. They wanna listen to your music and sometimes I don't see the harm... I understand both sides.


Well, Nichya, There really is a problem in that. Because in order to create more music, a musical artist needs to know the demand for the music, and record sales are the primary meter for that demand. Also, creating the music itself costs money. So if free (usually illegal) downloads are still being taken advantage of, we won't have any new music to
listen to eventually.


Yeah, but we know that there are so many people that do not have money to buy songs or cds. So, that's why I said that I understand both sides... Independent artists (or not) need to sell their "music", and people often don't have money.
just a litte something do be considered... according to some experts the posting of music or films in the internet has acctually increased the popularity of the artist and does not play any rolle in losses on amount of sold cd // dvds . The reason being because the normal fans would get it in cd/dvd quality and the others wouldn´t have bought it in first place... but in having it on a mp3( in bad quality) will bring friends to notice the artist whom in turn will buy his work.
I saw Loreena first in you tube and now I got 5 cd and 1 dvd from her or after having seen Avatar on the web (in very bad quality) I took my people to see it on the big screen twice + I told another 12 to go see it ... so all in all one may see it as cheap way of promoting the work ! Smiler
2 points.

I would never have discovered Loreena McKennitt had it not been for MP3s that I downloaded off the net some 10+ years ago. Which means I would not have purchased any of Loreena's CDs either.

And this is a really ugly website - both visually and functionally! Whoever is responsible for it should be forced to listen to the entire Metallica collection - MP3's downloaded of course.
Thank you ever so much for taking the time to announce the Bill C-32.When you have privacy while working on A project it sure is much more rewarding.You look forward to it's completion,like opening A christmas present.I know you are right cause when I was 11yrs of age I built A cabin next to A lake in N.J.the Pres.Nixon's private residence was nearby.It was public land and he saw me walking outa the woods.He questioned me cause I was their every day.I am building A hide out to commune with God.He helped me cause he said thats exactly what I need.We made elaborate plans their,Whale I completed my mission.I wish I had privacy again,it's hard for me now jealousy and people who hate me for wanting to do the will of the creator. ConfusedI got A good project could you be Liberty's voice Loreena.I'll show you the story board I drew of fairies & Liberty. CoolLove Wizard.
I am still thinking for Loreena's best interest's.She's right copyrights are sacred,I remember this video rental place would copy movies off the t.v.Satellite t.v. was free,HBo,& I rented A couple 50 cents.He finally got caught,I was their the agent F.B.I just told him to remove his personal copies.So they should be more appreciative and give her gratuities.I saw this girl on you tube that has A free video explaining the Gulf oil,Mellony Green.Stuff like that is worth while that goes with the meaning of charity.Yet she's got the place to help us cope? Razzer
It's frustrating to see this issue treated this way. The problem with C-32 is not that the measures it takes to protect artists' livelihood are bad, but that it criminalizes behavior that everyone engages in. And no, that behavior is not stealing music.

Suppose I have a DVD that I purchased legally. I want to watch it on my iPad. Well, my iPad doesn't play DVDs. So I run a program called HandBrake, which converts the DVD into a video file I can watch on my iPad.

I'm not talking about sharing the file. I'm just talking about watching it on my iPad. Because converting the DVD to play on the iPad involves breaking the trivial cryptographic protection all commercial DVDs have, I have committed a crime, simply by converting my DVD so it can play on my iPad.

As a U.S. citizen, I've been living with the DMCA, which is very similar to C-32, for a very long time. Many very basic activities that one might want to do with the music or videos one might purchase are illegal not because they are not fair use, but because in order to do them, I have to break a lock, and breaking that lock is illegal.

What this does is to put fair use rights in the hands of any publisher of digital media. They can revoke my fair use rights by simply putting a trivial lock on the media file.

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.

Copyright is a grant from the public to the artist, in order to encourage the artist to create works the public will then enjoy. Copyright must be strong enough to serve that purpose. But it should be no stronger. The degree to which C-32 strengthens copyright is not a fair deal for the public, and that's why we oppose it.
quote:
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.)
Good afternoon Slinberg,

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.

Sincerely,
Mark
Ok, I think I have to comment on this too.

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 2
quote:
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.
Rogue,

If you open the link below....

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePu...n.aspx?Docid=4580265

....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
quote:
Originally posted by Ramona:

(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.
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.
quote:
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.
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
quote:
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

found a few & this one I have emailed & he/she think its their right to post it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_neE_3DaVss
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.
I can't remember at the moment, if the whole article that some excerpts were taken from was already posted, anyways this is the link:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.c...ml?viewAllComments=y

Just a thought about it: after almost two years, nothing seems to be changed, and nothing makes us hope a serious, legal initiative will really protect artists' works and career, in the near future at least, otherwise Loreena wouldn't have stated again lately that "the music business, as a business, is in such a desperate state of disarray and collapse that it’s, frankly, not safe to be in it in certain ways." Frowner Frowner Frowner

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×