Official Ares Free Download

Jesse Brown and Michael Geist have “briefly tweeted about CBC’s new licencing plan,” writes Cameron McMaster on Canadian Media Policy Portal.

“I checked it out, and thought: well, if the government is going to continue to slash budgets, CBC needs to try to get revenue somehow,” he says, going on:

” However, Rupert Murdoch .. I mean .. Bono .. I mean Richard Stursberg has gone a bit far by using an American company, iCopyright (Copyright operates out of Issaquah, Washington), to outsource its licencing. It doesn’t follow Canadian copyright rules, and it doesn’t seem to act in the best interests of a public broadcaster. This is only the tip of the iceberg though.”

Interesting.

On its site, iCopyright seems to offer THE solution to the copyright problem that’s occupying so much valuable time not only with Rupert Murdoch and Bono,  but also the wise auld grey heads who run the corporate music  and movie industries.

“We invented instant licensing of digital content”, iCopyright boasts modestly, stating >>>

If you are a Creator or Publisher of content, iCopyright provides you with a web-based system that communicates what others can and can not do with your content. iCopyright grants the license, delivers the content in the format desired by the user, and tracks compliance — no matter where the content goes. If someone takes your content without permission, iCopyright notifies them to buy a license or cease using the content.

If you are a User of content at your place of work, iCopyright provides you and your company with a web-based system for obtaining rights and permissions with ONE click. Copyright infringement, even unintentional infringement, can be embarrassing and costly to your company. iCopyright makes it easy to legally get the content your company wants to use. You can even use iCopyright to protect your company’s intellectual property and track where your content is posted on the web.

Tracks compliance — no matter where the content goes? Amazing! Just what everyone’s been looking for!

But sadly, there is a problem. Or two.

“Quite honestly”, it’s the “creators and the publishers themselves,” says the company on its blog, going on >>>

They whine about infringement of their content, but many do nothing about it. They don’t implement the solutions that are available to them. Every piece of content that is published and distributed without an instant license mechanism attached to it, is another example of how people become indifferent about the rights of all content creators.

I hope 2010 is a better year for content owners. I hope more of them stand up for their rights and for copyright as a constitutional principle afforded to all creators.

By buying into iCopyright, of course.

‘They’re really only a hindrance … ‘

When I asked Cam if it’d be OK to re-run his article here, “You should also read Torontoist article,” he suggested.

So I did and here, in part, is what Stephen Michalowicz has to say >>>

iCopyright’s website trumpets its service as a non-invasive source of revenue and as an anti-piracy tool, but as Torontoist learned, its clients are more interested in the system’s money-making potential than its ability to protect copyright.

“It’s not so much a piracy issue as it is a recognition of the fact that we’ve got financial issues,” Jeff Keay, the CBC’s head of media relations, told Torontoist. “The fact of the matter is that our subsidy hasn’t changed over the years—it has eroded in an inflationary environment—and we’ve got to come up with creative revenue streams to help fund some of the things we do, particularly CBC.ca, which has grown enormously.”

Robin Graham, the managing director of Torstar Syndication Services, also views the service as a revenue stream, but has been a tad disappointed with its performance so far. “iCopyright had approached the Toronto Star and they had told us about their service, and they said that they could help us earn revenue with online licences,” Graham told us. “It hasn’t produced as much revenue as we thought it might.”

News sites have a right to protect their copyrighted materials, but these licensing schemes are unlikely to dissuade pirates or generate much profit, and in an age where information usually travels fast and freely, they’re really only a hindrance that limits a site’s potential reach.

Back on Canadian Media Policy Portal, “Let’s look through how one licences an article and how much it costs,” Cam says, continuing>>>

How much does it cost to post the article in its entirity to my blog? $250 a month or upto $500 a year! Thanks for that discount!

Now for embedded PDF prices: $300 for one month and up to $550 for the year.

I have to pay by the month for a licence  starting at $350, but what if I’m a non-profit? $150. You’re too kind.

Thanks! For making your news less friendly to share through blogs and pdfs. I’m sure everyone will pay what your asking for, and not copy and paste it and use it as sources for their own news reporting. After all, you can use parts or the entirety of a work for news, comment, critique, or private research under Fair Dealing. But ohh…I forgot, Washington is in the US and they use Fair Use (which covers almost all the same kinds of dealings), and not only that, they interpret it in a very narrow sense. Let’s learn more:

Did you just see what I saw? I may be eligible for a $1M dollar reward! This is amazing. It’s also amazing that there are people called digital rights bounty hunters.

Seriously, this is really screwed up. Our public broadcaster  is using an American company that follows American laws of Fair Use (and probably not the most liberal interpretations of it) to control its content and also inciting everyone to turn eachother in and for everyone be on the look out for digital rights bounty hunters?  It’s a good thing we’re in Canada where we don’t have the DMCA and we have a Supreme Court ruling that stops Big Media from getting information about our IPs from ISPs.

Because even if you share the story, even if you print it, you could be tracked down and fined.

Check this out: They want us to pay if we send to 6 or more recipients! And… here’s the kicker: We have to pay to print off more than 6 copies!!!

I assume that there are DRM present in every single file that send information back to iCopyright. If you email or print it more than the licenced amount of times, you will be tracked down and prosecuted. Well, non-commercial private use is kind of compromised here. So much for an informed public…

Thanks CBC! You serve your public well by outsourcing your DRM enforcement to an American company, which allows for money that could be invested in a Canadian company to be spent abroad. This company creates an atmosphere of self-censorship and fear. Because most Canadians don’t know the difference between Canadian copyright law and American, the users of your website, mainly Canadians, will be afraid to do anything – the digital rights bounty police will come after them. This  company that limits non digital uses of your information and also disables the sharing of information, and most likely, subject your website viewers to all sorts of DRM tracking devices. Way to foster a public sphere!

Adds Cam:

“My question is why would anyone even click that licence button at all, when they can copy and paste and printscreen? Are those actions trackable? Or is implementing this system futile and a waste of money? Does the CBC really endorse this kind of self-censoring society in favour of recouping lost budget allocations? Please tell me it doesn’t. I’m a concerned citizen, and I want to support you CBC, but you make it so hard!”

Related Articles

 Enjoyed this? Subscribe to the feed.