21 replies to this topic

[Holden West]

I love CBC's extensive and eclectic online content.

But their new copyright restrictions on news stories has some people baffled.

As reported in BoingBoing, CBC has signed up with iCopyright, "the American copyright bounty hunters".

Now, if you want to quote a CBC article here or on your blog it'll cost you at least $125 a month for the privilege. Click the "License" tab at the top of this story.

What's more is the million dollar reward for snitches. Oh, and you can't criticize the CBC or the terms of your purchase are violated.

[VicHockeyFan]

Hmmm. I find myself using the SHARE feature to post right to FBook - that is quite good, TC and CBC. I like the end of the article, how it states they want us to pay to quote an article we (as taxpayers) already paid for.

[victorian fan]

CBC's online archives are wonderful.

[Holden West]

^For some reason the archives are offline today.

[Mike K.]

It's not as drastic as BoingBoing makes it out to be.

CBC wants you to pay for publishing a big chunk of or an entire article as a way of curbing rampant duplication of articles. Some websites are designed to duplicate articles for the purpose of generating advertising revenue.

iCopyright's website states: The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

In other words that's legal mumbo jumbo for "you can use a few words or lines of an article when linking to or describing that specific article, but don't go overboard. And even if you do go overboard, we'll have to refer to the Canadian intellectual property office to ascertain whether or not we have legal grounds to claim you've infringed on copyright."

Canada's intellectual property office acknowledges that it's fair game to quote published materials under the following circumstances: People such as critics, reviewers and researchers often quote works by other authors in articles, books, and so on. Are they infringing copyright? Not necessarily. The Copyright Act provides that any "fair dealing" with a work for purposes of private study or research, or for criticism, review or news reporting is not infringement. However, in the case of criticism, review, or news reporting, the user is required to give the source and the author's, performer's, sound recording maker's or broadcaster's name, if known. ...There are no guidelines that define the number of words or passages that can be used without permission from the author. Only the courts can rule whether fair dealing or infringement is involved.

I think this is a step in the right direction, quite frankly, as too many aggregators and mirror sites have sprung up that rely on the content generated by others to profit while intercepting search results that would have otherwise gone to the author's original article.

[VicHockeyFan]

Actually, I'd prefer to sum it up this way. It's not as drastic as BoingBoing makes it out to be.

CBC wants you to pay for publishing a big chunk of or an entire article as a way of curbing rampant duplication of articles. Some websites are designed to duplicate articles for the purpose of generating advertising revenue.

iCopyright's website states: The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

In other words that's legal mumbo jumbo for "you can use a few words or lines of an article when linking to or describing that specific article, but don't go overboard. And even if you do go overboard, we'll have to refer to the Canadian intellectual property office to ascertain whether or not we have legal grounds to claim you've infringed on copyright."

Canada's intellectual property office acknowledges that it's fair game to quote published materials under the following circumstances: People such as critics, reviewers and researchers often quote works by other authors in articles, books, and so on. Are they infringing copyright? Not necessarily. The Copyright Act provides that any "fair dealing" with a work for purposes of private study or research, or for criticism, review or news reporting is not infringement. However, in the case of criticism, review, or news reporting, the user is required to give the source and the author's, performer's, sound recording maker's or broadcaster's name, if known. ...There are no guidelines that define the number of words or passages that can be used without permission from the author. Only the courts can rule whether fair dealing or infringement is involved.

I think this is a step in the right direction, quite frankly, as too many aggregators and mirror sites have sprung up that rely on the content generated by others to profit while intercepting search results that would have otherwise gone to the author's original article.

[Mike K.]

^that's gonna cost ya

[Holden West]

The CBC pop-up doesn't mention any safe minimum or anything about quoting portions. They make it out to be an all-or-nothing affair. At least the Associated Press is gracious enough to allow you to freely quote four words or less. :/

Mike, I totally agree with you on the scourge of the mirror sites. Almost as annoying as the five million directory ads that show up when you search an address trying to find the website of a business.

[Bingo]

You would think with a name like his it would be a bit of a red flag.

 

A high-ranking member of the Canadian Forces based in Edmonton faces a number of sex-related charges for offences alleged to have occurred between 1998 and 2007 while the member was a mentor with a local army cadet group. 

Lt.-Col. Mason Stalker, 40,is  a commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...3171086?cmp=rss

 

[Mike K.]

There's talk of the CBC feeling "forced" to sell off a good chunk of their buildings and production facilities.

 

Meanwhile some are calling the stunt just that, a stunt, aimed at eroding support for Harper.

 

Sigh...

[Benezet]

There's talk of the CBC feeling "forced" to sell off a good chunk of their buildings and production facilities.

Meanwhile some are calling the stunt just that, a stunt, aimed at eroding support for Harper.

Sigh...

Given the majority of the CBC board is comprised of Harper toadies, this is likely not a "stunt", as you've chosen to describe it.

https://www.friends.ca/blog-post/11728

[gumgum]

Not to mention our current government has been plucking away at their budget for years. I find it hallarious how things can be spun to paint the cons as innocent.

[Mike K.]

Oh no, I don't think they're innocent, I think they're very much behind the financial situation of the CBC, and that's fantastic that we have a media organization that, you know, has a major bias and is now having to recognize that it'll need to earn its lavish digs and not expect to be handed everything on a platter while complaining about those who question their position on a whole slew of issues.

What I wonder is why now, why the sudden decision to sound the alarm bell just weeks ahead of the election? I doubt the board has anything to do with the timing. The overall trend, yes, but the timing? I don't buy it.

[gumgum]

The CBC has been a model and relatively unbiased* mainstay of this nation. Like it or not it's embedded into multi generations of Canadians and very important. Like it or not, the anti CBC trend does not represent the opinions of most Canadians and therefore should not be dismantled. CBC is one of the things left that make us Canadian.

* Less biased than private.

[Mike K.]

Jian Gomeshi was embedded into multi generations of Canadians, too.

 

Hello? Is this thing on? Hello?

 

 

 

But on a serious note, I was once involved in a business transaction with the CBC. They were entertaining the idea of acquiring some materials I would have licensed to them. They loved our stuff, we spent a considerable amount of time hashing out the details. Then came decision time. I got a phone call from a very disappointed CBC rep who said that one of department head's daughters received the contract -- for more money than what my materials would have cost. The folks I had liaised with were pretty miffed.

 

But hey, the CBC is all good and above that sort of stuff, right?

 

It was then that I realized the CBC was no better or no worse as an organization from any other media organization in this country. But the only difference was that they had the tax payer to back them.

[gumgum]

That kind of circumstantial BS happens everywhere.

 

CBC radio specifically is quality programming for the most part and what separates it from others is the fact that it's national. There's no other in the country. It brings (most) Canadians together.

 

BTW I always hated Gomeshi.

[Mike K.]

Sure, but when it's tax payer dollars going to waste, that's when I get miffed.

 

And I can see this sort of thing happening on a massive scale, country-wide. A favour here, a favour there, all with tax payer dollars. At least with politicians you can shame them or boot them out, but what are you going to do about pseudo-corporate types that have no shareholders they're responsible to?

[gumgum]

But your references are only circumstantial.

 

Much of what ails the CBC has much to do with the fact that the Cons made it a lame duck through funding cuts.

 

The CBC is supported by the majority of Canadians, and the fact that the Cons ignore this fact is a cardinal sin IMO. The CBC is as important to our Canadian identity as our model for health care. Warts and all.

[Mike K.]

It's uncomfortable when the pizza delivery guy drives a nicer car than the guy ordering the pizza, so I get it, seeing a conglomerate with lavish digs countrywide suddenly have to ponder the sale of its assets is bizarre, maybe even uncomfortable for some.

[gumgum]

We're getting dangerously close to a socialist/ capitalist debate. Maybe we don't want to go down that rabbit hole here.