The decision to support the TWUC motion comes as a new blog – Creators’ Access Copyright – has been launched that states as its position:
We are committed to creators’ copyright interests. We support collective licensing of copyright. We declare that creators are entitled to more accountability from Access Copyright, more money from Access Copyright, and particularly more creator control of our own copyright interests.
The new blog includes another detailed financial analysis of the creator financial benefits from Access Copyright. The analysis again confirms that creators get a small percentage of overall Access Copyright revenues. It reports that Access Copyright has advised (privately, not publicly) that the total repertoire payment to creators last year was $3.8 million. The Friedland Report estimated that 85 percent of Access Copyright payments to creators comes from the repertoire payment so this is likely the overwhelming majority of direct creator payments from Access Copyright. The posting also takes aim at the high Access Copyright administrative costs and the lack of Access Copyright transparency, noting “there has been little independent information revealed to AC members. In fact, the information revealed has been quite the opposite.”
I’m curious what percentage of the AC membership does the TWCU & the LCP make up? Is this still a small group dissatisfied with their take of the pie or is it becoming a larger movement within the organization?
That’s a pertinent question, Crockett, but I wouldn’t look for an answer from Dr. Geist, as the answer would directly contradict his headlining idea that a backlash against AC is growing. The two names attached to the Creator’s Access Copyright site tell anyone with knowledge of this sector all they need to know about this “growing” backlash. These are the same folks who have been on this topic for years now.
I have heard Chris Moore’s reasoning on AC and, while I have nothing but respect for him as a person and for his writing on canadian history, I am utterly unconvinced by his argument.
The reality is that TWUC and LCP members get exactly what they deserve in terms of distributions from AC, all the more so now that the PayBack system is in place – a system intended to increase per-use accountability. Go to the Creators AC blog and you will see the top item actually notes an increase in distributions to writers from another organization – the Outdoor Writers of Canada. This increase is because their journalistic articles and photographs are more in demand in classrooms that LCP or TWUC-authored works, which have (unfortunately) a smaller natural audience – discussions of why THAT is so require scotch.
There is no growing backlash. There is an old misunderstanding, resurfacing because it’s AGM season and it resurfaces every year. Suggestions of growing backlash are, as is so much over here, the embellishments of a determined theorist attempting to create a new reality where one does not exist.
John, I agree with your position of remuneration by proportionality of use, yet there were also concerns raised about the ratio of operating costs to member payments. What is your response to those concerns?
I don’t understand why this has to be so hard. I’ve pretty easy to set up a server or several, upload all the content in digital form, setup the software that handles the user accounts and download information for every file (there are tons of OSS, commercial scripts out there that can do this).
You set up a point/payment system for each file, just like a shopping cart. When the user downloads a file the software collects the download info on the file and dings point against the users account. Then at the end of the session/month/quartely/yearly they end user pays the bill. Then AC pays that money minus operating costs to the copyright holder. You can also set it up that the copyright holder gets notified every time their work is downloaded.
Everyone knows when content is accesses and no one gets screwed. The end user gets to pay per content and gets a better value then some blanket fee.
On the other hand the educational institutions can just do this themselves as a community and bypass AC by going straight to the rights holders/creators and asking them use their new system. Everyone gets paid for per work usage and the rights holders will probably get more money as you cut out at least on layer of middleman.
Loss of credibility due to not being transparent, questions being posed for AC’s conduct under the competition act, attacking its main sources of revenue, paying virtually nil in royalty payments to members yet operational costs skyrocketing, and acting as though they have the consensus of Canadian authors, loss of public confidence, and trust. I don’t blame creators at all for questioning this organization. One has to question those coming to this organizations defence, and rolls they play in and outside of this organization. AC seems doomed to fail to me, it’s just a matter of time.
@End-user “Everyone gets paid for per work usage and the rights holders will probably get more money as you cut out at least one layer of middleman.”
I agree with you in principle, but I expect the pat answer you will receive will be that such a system cannot account for sharing of these digital files with others without payment. While this is probably a realistic concern, students have been sharing textbooks and paperback ‘Macbeth’s since classrooms were invented, the digital age just makes it so much easier.
With this in mind it is going to be difficult to find a technological system that will erase a practice that has always occurred. This, I understand, is the reasoning behind a blanket levy per student suggested by AC. While this could be an effective solution it is also based on a presumption of infringement for each student who must pay this fee, which I think is a message that is counter productive to the cause.
I don’t think there is an easy answer here end-user, I haven’t heard one yet.
…
Crockett said: “While this is probably a realistic concern, students have been sharing textbooks and paperback ‘Macbeth’s since classrooms were invented, the digital age just makes it so much easier.”
I snickered a little when I read this. I once did an English literature course where we were given the choice of several novels we could read and do a report on. One of the choices was Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, which is what I picked. The copy of the book I acquired and read was printed somewhere in the 1880’s, if my memory serves me correct. I’ve often wondered how many owners and how many times the book had been read in it’s history.
Now, about 20 years later, I still have the book, along with a number of other antiquarian books, some older than 300 years. My goal is to basically keep them safe from those who would destroy the books for the purpose of framing and selling the engravings as antique art. I have one book from 1723, which was given to us as a wedding gift which has thousands of dollars worth of engravings. Far more than what the book is worth in a complete form.
@Crockett
…”I’m curious what percentage of the AC membership does the TWCU & the LCP make up?”
Yes, and the corollary to the answer for that question, is the publishing house payments vs the direct author payments. Of course the publishers may have their own agreements with the authors and channel further compensation to them, but the position taken by AC might be heavily influenced by the publishers. AC might be taking a lot of heat simply because it is primarily representing publishers interests, based on the perceived money flow.
On the one side there is the universities, and on the other side there are the authors taking shots at AC. AC may be stuck in the middle of these sides, while their reporting transparency and negotiating platforms are being heavily influenced by the apparent financial interest of the publishing houses. Not an easy position for AC to be in, and this possibility would explain a fair amount of the turmoil we have been seeing publicized recently.
Crockett said: I agree with you in principle, but I expect the pat answer you will receive will be that such a system cannot account for sharing of these digital files with others without payment. While this is probably a realistic concern, students have been sharing textbooks and paperback ‘Macbeth’s since classrooms were invented, the digital age just makes it so much easier.
I have no problems with people getting compensated for their works and people paying those people even if the works value has deminished because of technology and social attitude changed. Its their money and they spend it on whatever they want. I do have a problem with accusing people of copyright infringment where there is no proof of it and then using that argument that some middle man needs to set up a tariff or a blanket levy to compensate for infringments that have never occured.
With that kind of thinking we might as well come out and say it that AC because of the nature of the organization that is ran by people with power over other people and in control of other peoples money will screw the rights holders somehow.
Crockett,
I think AC’s unique position of being the legal and administrative frontline soldier for an entire country of creators is being intentionally ignored by those who complain about their administrative costs (without separating out the high costs of their legal work). I think if a real, good-faith calculation were made of the operational costs, then such concerns would be unwarranted.
It costs money to fight for your rights. Especially when your clients push price negotiations into legal fora.
I think it needs to be repeated here that the analysis of AC distributions as they stand on this blog cannot possibly “confirm that creators get a small percentage of overall Access Copyright revenues.” That is an impossible claim for Dr. Geist to make, and as such represents terribly irresponsible research methodology.
Dr. Geist has no idea how much AC royalty money reaches creators through their contractual agreements with their publishers, nor has he made any attempt to find out or even estimate such an amount. Instead he chooses a number he knows does not represent the whole picture (the repertoire payment), and presents it as the whole picture. Having not looked deeply enough into the issues, he has jumped to a conclusion not supported by actual evidence. This is nothing more than cynical pot-stirring.
@Degen “nor has he made any attempt to find out”
Is there somewhere that the amounts of all the payments to both repertoire & contractual are listed?
@Degen
“I think AC’s unique position of being the legal and administrative frontline soldier for an entire country of creators..”
Isn’t it this position AC has awarded itself currently in dispute?
“is being intentionally ignored by those who complain about their administrative costs (without separating out the high costs of their legal work)”
So AC is basically a slush fund? Isn’t the lobbying position AC has assumed on behalf of creators currently in dispute from those very creators they claim to represent?
What will need to be sold John, is exactly how much creators have received directly from AC’s legal proceedings. If AC is all about creators rights and expanding pay, than shouldn’t legal costs be kept down to a minimum, and higher payouts should be forwarded to the creative community? This is basically the same direction the music industry went in the US. They spent massive amounts of money on legal proceedings, while artists got dimes from these legal awards due to legal costs. You don’t need a lawyer John to ask for a new tariff at the Copyright Board. You could also intern law students to do this for you.
Most not for profit organizations have volunteers you know.
@Crockett
Tracking usage in the digital age is an issue if you start from a presumption of general misuse, that everyone will be a criminal if given the opportunity. As you point out, these actions have been going on for ages in the analog age, borrowing of books, the casual copying of a page, etc. Not everyone did this, and not simply because it was relatively difficult compared to the digital age. The same general principles apply in the digital age. Offer value and convenience, and most will behave appropriately. Treat your customers as criminals, and they will act like it.
I have been involved in this for quite a while, advising clients on leveraging the capabilities of the digital age. The first lesson I try to instill, and often the hardest lesson to learn, is that leveraging technologies of the digital age isn’t an extension of the current business, it is a transformation. What used to be valuable is now a commodity, what used to be a cost center might become a valued asset, what used to be impossible or prohibitively expensive is now almost free. Essentially you have to rethink the “business” from the ground up, starting with a detailed inventory of resources, assets, and products. Build a completely new business model.
If companies take this approach, they end up leveraging the capabilities of the interconnected digital world into a completely new business. The old business model becomes obsolete.
There are whole new opportunities in the digital age, along with a brand new category of “problems”. Very few of the approaches for opportunities, and problems, can be lifted from the analog world into the digital world. They have dramatically different strengths and weaknesses.
If you approach the issues that AC is dealing with, with the mindset of extending the current analog model into a digital world, it won’t work. You have rethink everything. It isn’t easy, but also inevitable. The hardest part is forgetting about old models. Inventory the things you have, the technology you can use, what new features you can offer, and how to price these things. Keep in mind that your customers will value things quite differently than they did in the analog days.
I don’t know enough about the internals of the AC model to offer anything remotely specific, nor have I been approached for consulting. My skills are somewhat outdated, so I may not even be the best choice. But I know it can be done – successfully.
Afternoon ramblings …
Oldguy, as I believe you mentioned before to John, there are new realities in play and people of different disciplines will likely have diverging takes on the way to fix things. Not to pigeonhole any one individual, but as a group it may be possible that creative and technical people think in differing cognitive centers of the brain and see the world from a slightly different aspect (apart from the rare genius’ who uses both), with the understanding that neither is superior … just opposing spokes on wheel.
It also seems to me that a majority of the people who post here seem to come from a technical background. With that hypothesis in mind I wonder if the popular opinions on this blog are framed or limited by that background in a similar way that someone who reside mostly in the creative realm is limited by theirs?
Wouldn’t it be great to somehow get past the animosity and discord that so often pops up and use this diversity to find better ways for everyone … I hope so one day.
Crockett,
You don’t have to hope; you just have to take the Geist-lenses from your eyes.
You and oldguy talk like the creative industries have never considered new technology, and can’t seem to stretch their brains past analog. Besides being incredibly insulting, this attitude has no connection to reality. I just came back from a reception for the book industry — chatted with the AC Executive Director while there — and tomorrow will spend the day in discussions and presentations about the digital present and future for the industry. I didn’t notice an “oldguy” on the line-up, but I’m sure the organizers came up with presenters who have some sort of clue.
http://www.booksummit.ca/
But wait, haven’t you guys strayed off the topic of the thread, here? I thought that was strictly verboten.
To answer your on-topic question — yes, there is somewhere Geist could find the accurate information on how much Canadian creators are getting in copyright royalties. The basic splits on AC licences are available from Access Copyright, and then he could do actual research and survey the sector on contracts. This kind of real research is done all the time, and writers are generous with their information.
That’s the kind of important legwork one might expect to see from someone leading the scholarship in this field.
Or, we could just depend on secret back-channel agit-prop.
The reason that TWUC and LCP members don’t get more money is that their work isn’t copied much. This should be obvious – clearly it isn’t copied by government, there is some use of their stuff in schools and maybe some in colleges. But survey after survey, and all of the logs prepared by universities, show that it really doesn’t amount to much. So what they are saying is that they want money they aren’t entitled to. Separating from AC (which in my view would be a blessing because they’re a pain in the ass and have no economic clout on their own) will not make them better compensated. I suspect this is obvious but clearly it makes for a better stick to attack AC by claiming that AC is to blame for the small amounts to these people, most of whom produce stuff that no-one buys anyway. If it wasn’t for the repertoire reward – which was introduced mainly to shut the TWUCers up – they’d get even less. So this is a mon ey grab and I’m shocked but not exactly surprised that such an undeserving crew are being supported by the author of this blog.
Degen only likes figures and stats when they work in his arguments favour. Be it truth or not. Any other time they don’t or work out to be false, he couldn’t care less.
He should make a case that Professor Geist get paid perpetually for his work with his students for life. Someone needs to set up that agency for teachers and professors. Those damn pirating kids will use that knowledge for life, making money and never paying their fees.
Better yet, Degen should pay the professor $0.01 every time he uses his name. Geist might retire and Degen can go back to his writing full time with the knowledge his took down his mortal foe.
…”Wouldn’t it be great to somehow get past the animosity and discord that so often pops up and use this diversity to find better ways for everyone”
So true. I agree that the majority here seem to have a technical bent. Perhaps coming from a technical background they already get sideswiped by the constant ongoing dynamics of the evolving digital age more frequently. And it is still evolving, with a lot more coming in the future (3D object printing?).
Along with that digital future, comes a shift in “value”. When it was easier and cheaper to buy a book than to copy one, that copy had a certain value. In the digital age, a “copy” is so easy, (and cheap!) the “value” just isn’t in the copy anymore.
But how about a personalized and signed (watermarked!) copy? In the analog days, that personalized and signed copy was effectively impossible for most owners. But is that still true in the digital age? How about an automatic “subscription” to every annually updated edition? In the digital age, does it “cost” anymore for an author/publisher to update a million copies than it does to update just one? There are lots of possibilities and opportunities. New ways of thinking, new ways of leveraging the technology.
In the digital world it’s all just a stream of bits. It is just as easy to generate a customized and/or updated stream as it is to copy a stream. The “value” isn’t in the copy anymore, it’s in the personalization and/or customization. More than ever, digital age technology is capable of driving a shift from the mentality of “consumers”, to “customers” and “audience” or even “partner”.
Too often we see a collision between “analog” thinking and the direction the digital age is heading. I don’t see this as a “creative” vs “technical” kind of thinking, although there is a difference in “view” between these types. I have had my share of discussions with “technical” people that are still steeped in an analog approach, as well as discussions with “creative” types that enthusiastically embrace the digital age. The bigger “gap” is between the old and the new values. The uncertainty of how “skills/talent they have” can be mapped into/onto these new values. Or perhaps an inaccurate or incomplete self assessment of what those core skills/talents really are. The difference between “I’m an author” vs “people really like it when I write”.
I’ve been through this kind of reassessment and remapping, twice now. (or perhaps 3 times if you count a minor one) I suspect I’ll end up doing it twice more in my remaining lifetime (the pace is accelerating), or perhaps I’m already of the younger mindset where this state is a constant (things always changing) in their lives.
…”You and oldguy talk like the creative industries have never considered new technology, and can’t seem to stretch their brains past analog.”
Not quite John, based on actions I have observed, they don’t seem to have considered the shifts in “value” between the analog world and the digital world. This requires more than brain stretching, it requires “brain shifting”.
…”Besides being incredibly insulting, this attitude has no connection to reality.”
It isn’t meant to be insulting. I just don’t have the time (nor you the patience) to spend a day gently building up to that point. But the evidence is all around you, if you care to look, and it is very real.
…”I didn’t notice an “oldguy” on the line-up, but I’m sure the organizers came up with presenters who have some sort of clue.”
I’m no longer on the lecture circuit. I hope they enlisted a presenter that will tell them/you like it is, and not just how they’d like it to be. I’d suggest you listen carefully, and see how they address the question of “value” as applied to the customers of this digital future (now). What is new? What no longer applies? Exactly *what* are they leveraging with the tech? The questions they don’t answer can be more revealing than the ones they do.
Tuck away the indignation …
@Degen “Besides being incredibly insulting, this attitude has no connection to reality.”
John, I purposely set out to not be insulting, stating that “With that hypothesis in mind I wonder if the popular opinions on THIS BLOG are framed or limited by that background” .. pointing out that opinions here may be as limited by exposure to other environments and viewpoints as many in the creative sector seem to be by theirs. I also said it was both a hypothesis and a generalization, allowing for individuals and exceptional people.
I fully understand there are forward thinking people in the creative industries trying to usher us into the modern age, look at my favorite example of Netflix, yet there are many who are fighting it tooth and nail with vehemence. Similarly, there is a large segment of ‘geeks’ who would like nothing else than for copyright to be abolished and think artists should beg for their bread. It’s those segments I was speaking to.
Between the vapid file sharers, the thoughtless hackers and the overly punitive **AA crowd we have a vast population of people who don’t ‘get it’ or don’t care to.
WOULDN’T it be nice to bring more of these people onside to work towards a more healthy and rational environment where bi-lateral respect was the norm rather than the exception?
I think so.
Some examples of those who don’t ‘get it’ …
Lolz – a juvenile loose grouping of anarchists who view IP as a target to be defaced
RIAA – an out of touch organization who thinks greater punishment is the way to build loyalty
Illegal File Sharer – someone who thinks IP grows on trees
Sony – A company who thinks their customer’s privacy & security rights insignificant compared to their copyrights.
And to be honest, in retrospect, my post may have come across as condescending, although not intentionally.
I think Oldguy’s take was better … I don’t see this as a creative vs technical kind of thinking, although there can be a difference in world-view between these types.”
People need to rethink not just how they do business, but how much what they do is worth now. That’s the sort of discussion that needs to do on, but based on the way some of the creative industries are working, they don’t seem to be doing that. They seem to be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
…
@Crockett
‘And to be honest, in retrospect, my post may have come across as condescending, although not intentionally. ‘
Don’t worry, John is sure to make all your unintentional insults seem mild in comparison.
PaulP,
You’ll have to provide examples of when I don’t like facts. Just saying something doesn’t make it so, although admittedly that is a hard lesson to learn on this blog.
Oldguy,
A shame to lose you from the lecture circuit. Now all we are Time Magazine writers and folks running tech firms.
@Degen
“You’ll have to provide examples of when I don’t like facts. Just saying something doesn’t make it so, although admittedly that is a hard lesson to learn on this blog.”
John, who are you kidding? Irrefutable numbers and/or facts, substantiated by reports and/or news articles are often cited on this blog. In general you effectively ignore or refuse to talk about those which contradict your views…or at the very least, try to skew them out of context. Am I always right? Of course not, we all make mistakes in research, and your quick to point out the mistakes, which I do appreciate because I want the facts straight and always acknowledge and thank those for the correction. What do you do when you’re called on a mistake? You evade commenting, usually opting to insult Dr. Geist as a diversion, or just plan don’t answer. So you either think you’re right all the time or you lack humility and can’t admit when you’re wrong. Only a fool and a narcissist would think they’re always right and I don’t take you for a fool. So that leaves us with humility…How many of these apply to your behavior on this blog?
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Spirituality/Humility.html
IamMe,
Did I ask for your opinion of me, or did I ask for examples of my ignoring facts in my comments?
@Degen
“Did I ask for your opinion of me, or did I ask for examples of my ignoring facts in my comments?”
As such, I didn’t give you my opinion…only stated observations of behavior. If you would like my opinion I could could give it to you. I assure you my opinion is not nearly as negative as you probably perceive.
Let’s be honest, the reality is that you really don’t care what I or anyone else on here thinks of you no more than I care what you or anyone else thinks of me. That’s the “magic” of such a forum. It’s nice if people like you and respect you. The kicker is, that more often, it’s more enjoyable and creates more productive dialog if they don’t. If everyone is of the same mind, it becomes more social and you end up whining and consoling each other. You can read reports or the news, but one really need those of differing opinions for the best kind of useful learning or growing to happen. I often play devil’s advocate and the “worst case scenario” game in all aspects of my life just in an attempt to get people thinking out of the box or arouse an emotional response. Emotional, off-the-handle responses tend to have less thought and more personal truth than if one is allowed to think for a period of time. It all equates to social engineering to some extent.
As for specific examples…why would I or anyone else waste our time? But if you must have at least one example…look at your last posting here…
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5861/125/
You’re trying to equate privacy concerns to panic. It’s just not the case. You’re trying to confuse the issue by calling it an emotional response. This is legal, binding language, there’s no room for emotion. Much like in everyone’s favorite bill, C-32, in a clause like this, anything not explicitly excluded is included by default.
IamMe,
Let’s be honest, you made a statement about me you couldn’t back up without some sort of embarrassing accusation of confusing the issue. Your concerns for your own privacy are valid, but not in the context of the tariff proposal. No-one is saying they want to know what you’re writing in your e-mails. That is a FACT within this discussion.
I appreciate that you tried, without just resorting to calling me a shill or insulting my profession. Still, you’re wrong.
@Degen
…”and tomorrow will spend the day in discussions and presentations about the digital present and future for the industry”
Just curious John, did you learn anything interesting from the presentations and discussions? Anything you might care to share with us oldtimers?
Did they discuss the shifts in what a customer values in the digital age? Did they discuss the things that have lost their “value”? Did they discuss new features or mechanisms that would have been prohibitive or impossible in the analog world? Did it make you rethink anything?
oldguy,
I’m not sure, because we all sat around with our fingers in our ears, ignoring progress.
Is that kind of obnoxious passive aggressive questioning popular on “the lecture circuit?”
#bksummit11 was the twitter feed. Find out for yourself what was discussed.
Can I have mine not flame broiled?
John, ‘Technical & Creative’ people, of whom there seem to be a few here, are generally detail people. They do not respond well to constant flaming one of side or the other of a debate (who does?).
So, sincerely, why not try a different tack and discuss some of the innovative ways you have learned that the creative sector is addressing these issues. I for one would really like to hear them as opposed to the popular media stories of suing the dead and mothers of dancing babies.
You have stated that nothing good can come from this blog … so educate us differently.
…’Is that kind of obnoxious passive aggressive questioning popular on “the lecture circuit?”‘
They are all valid, open, questions. They cover points which are often overlooked or ignored. If these points didn’t get at least touched upon, you got gypped.
The phraseology of the questions will be different if given within a lecture, vs questioning what someone got out of the lecture. The key is if it got the listener to think in new ways. Did it?
I haven’t looked through the twitter feed – yet. Thanks for the pointer. Perhaps you could enlighten us to things that weren’t in the twitter feed? Your own impressions?
I’ll try this again … hold on.
Here’s an interesting real life story …
My son is going to University this Fall to take engineering so I bought him a Kindle. The textbooks are half price over print which is half the physical book cost, quite fair I think. I hope the writers have negotiated a better contractual return on these new formats.
But that is not the story … I activated the book read feature and was amazed at how far text to speech synthesis has come. I thought about the improved algorithms, the phonetic parsing it was using and how I could apply my linguistics training to possibly tweak it.
My wife said .. that sounds terrible, it would give me a headache. I’ll stick to my audio books thanks.
So there we have it, one who is concerned with the ‘color’ and another who wants to know the specs of the engine. I don’t want to take this as far as the boy vs. girl ‘brain’ discussion lest I insult someone again, but different people versed in varying disciplines tend to [generally] see different solutions, or even different problems.
For some reason, I know not why, the majority of the bloggers here seem to come from technical backgrounds. Now, once again, anyone from any walk of life is able to accomplish anything they put their mind to, but people do tend to move towards their strengths. And once again, as not to insult certain posters, I think this worldview or way of approaching problems is a limited factor in the discussions here on THIS blog. If we would all take the time to accept that no one has all the answers or the rock solid approach, then we could have more productive discussions … maybe even something good could out of this blog, John?