Artist’s rendition of Ignatz Zayats.
Pictured above is an artist’s rendition of Ignatz Zayats, asshole and occasional commenter on this blog. He’s a lawyer with a practice somewhere in the Greater Accordion City area; he got his law degree from the U of Zero.
About half of the comments that Ignatz posts never see the light of day because they’re generally dickish enough to merit deletion. From the rest of his comments, you might be tempted to conclude that he is a douchebag. I beg to differ; if you can get past the first impression, you will find that he is, in fact, more of a colostomy bag.
Oh, I kid. I kid because I love.
Ignatz — and yes, it’s a pseudonym — is an old friend of mine. We go back all the way to 1979, where we spent a terrifying sixth grade under the tutelage of Brother D., who had no compunctions about smacking his students Ike Turner-style. For reasons that neither of us can quite explain, we chose to stay there not just through middle school, but high school as well, where among other things, we played in a band (there’s at least one funny story there), ran some dances, cut some classes, had a falling out or two and generally hung out. I continue to count him among my friends for a couple of reasons:
1. To borrow a Henry Kissinger line, he may be an asshole, but he’s our asshole.
2. If there is a Hell, he will likely go there when he dies, whereupon he will end up climbing the ranks and become part of the administration. I like having connections in as many places as possible.
Everyone should have at least one Eric Cartman-esque pal like Ignatz, even if only to develop some coping-with-assholes skills. Every blogger needs a small stable of Ignatz-style readers for the same reason — and also because it never hurts to occasionally be called out, even if you’re right.
So far, Ignatz is the only one who’s written to me either in the comments or email who’s been in support of Bill C-61, often referred to as “Canada’s DMCA”, the proposed copyright bill that seems to have been custom-written to the specifications of the American entertainment industry lobby.
In response to the article “Canada’s DMCA”, a.k.a. Bill C-61, Wasn’t Written for You and Me, he wrote:
If I was a professional musician & I spent all of my hours writing music so that I can make a measely $0.10 in royalties every now & then just to pay my rent & put food on my table, then Joe Public who downloads my music for free is stealing from me.
You have to protect the intellectual property that the writer owns to give them income & an incentive to create more music. Otherwise, why should they make the effort to begin with? After all, which of you here would go to work tomorrow if you knew you weren’t going to get paid for YOUR efforts?
It’s really no different than computer programs & books, generally-speaking. Lend a book out to friends so they can read it. But if you’re making thousands of copies for friends, then the writer only made royalties from the sale of your 1 book while the copies you made enriched 1000s of your friends, for free.
Tell me how that is fair to the writer.
Geez, you would think that some of youwould advocate that file sharing/free downloads of computer programs like MS Office, etc. should be allowed. After all, in principle what’s the difference between my file of MS Office or David Bowie’s ‘Heroes’ other theat the complexities & size of the file itself? If it’s obviously wrong to freely share computer programs without the author’s consent, then the same should apply to music files.
Someone spent time & effort to create something. Stop being cheap and pay them $0.99 for the bloody download instead of looking for the freebie. What’s the matter? Can’t spare the loonie?
and, later on:
Professor Geist’s position is that that the Copyright Act traditionally (& explicitly) allows for copying of protected materials for private use, research, private study, criticism, and news reporting. He posits that Bill C-61 denies you that opportunity if you unlock the digital codes. And while he may be right, the issue is that this is the dictum from Parliament itself. (Side note: He teaches at the school that gave me one of my degrees. A lot of the minds there are all a ‘little’ off the centre line. In fact, IMHO, I can’t think of one true centrist or conservative full prof at that institution, except for the tax guru there. I think it’s the lead in the Ottawa municipal drinking water.)
My God, how many copies do you need for personal use or private study? Or even to teach? Isn’t 1 enough?
That’s the same Parliament that made it easy for your illegal downloaders not to get charged for royalties by your ISP providers because it enacted s. 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act specifically exempting that collection (and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case – Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45) So you’re happy with one decision of Parliament & upset with another. Hey, you can’t have your cake & eat it too. Go bitch to your MP. See if those Conservative chowderheads will listen at all. (Personally, I can’t stand them myself.)
You’re right in your first line. C-61 was not written for you & me. It was written to protect intellectual property owners. You know, those people who invested time & money to create that masterpiece, ‘Harold & Kumar Go to Rexdale’. Whether it’s a book, a DVD or a song, it’s all copyrighted material & one isn’t different from another (the Court in the SOCAN case made this point when it referenced the prior Supreme Court case of CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 which dealt with alleged copying of lawbooks in the law library).
And while you can make infinite copies of a book for personal or education use, you can’t do it for digital files IF you break the code. Isn’t that more, or less, the same rules for IT programs? (ie. I can copy my MS Office onto X computers, but if I do it on more, then I need a license. Otherwise, I’m breakin’ the law.). So why should it be any different for my Harold & Kumar DVD? If I need more copies, I should get (sorry, pay for) a license from the copyright holder. Right?
If you read the preamble to Bill C-61, it rightfully states that:
“Whereas in the current digital era copyright protection is enhanced when countries adopt coordinated approaches, based on internationally recognized norms;Whereas such norms are reflected in the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted in Geneva in 1996;
Whereas such norms are not wholly reflected in the Copyright Act;”
the proposed measures in C-61 reflect that Canada has been behind the rest of the world in this domain. Your statement above was that “the law refuses to go forward.” I think instituting standards that are already reflected in other WIPOC countries is moving forward.
The practical reality if this Bill is proclaimed into law is that:
“It’s not like entertainment companies are about to go sue people,” he said. “It’s about people who are making libraries of massive infringement and making them available to their friends that they have over the Internet.” http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=583125So don’t worry, your multiple copies of Harold & Kumar will go unnoticed by the Copyright Gestapo & you’ll bicycle off into the sunset with a smirk on your face ’cause you just got one over on The Man.
And while Terence Corcoran may have raised your bile level, he wasn’t too far off the mark when he said that this probably won’t make it to law if there’s a fall election. (I don’t have too much time for him either.)
The bottom line is that you need to protect the author & the copyright. Why? Because it’s someone’s property. You’re just buying a license to use it for a limited purpose. If you don’t protect it, the ownership & authorship of this type of property is diminshed & worthless.
If you think so little of intellectual property rights & the need to protect them, let me know so I can start printing up “The Accordion Guy” T-Shirts & Mugs with direct excerpts from this website & copies of your artistic cartoon doodles in my old high school yearbooks, sell them at a premium & keep all of the money to myself. Or how about I get someone to hack the code at your company’s webpages & pass the programs off as my own scripts on a new website. That’s not fair? Exactly.
So please tell me where I’m “wrong, wrong wrong.” And while you’re doing that, please let me know how you would protect the work, sweat and $$ of copyright holders. I’m always open to reasonable suggestions.
With love always,
I.Z.PS. Don’t people read books anymore?
See what I mean about him being more colostomy bag than douchebag?
Ignatz’ arguments are pretty much aligned with those put forth by the American entertainment lobby. I thought they presented an interesting opportunity to explore the copyright debate, such as the meaning of copyright in the age of digital networks and the effects of laws like the DMCA. For the next little while, I’ll be regularly posting articles exploring copyright issues, as well as Ignatz’ arguments.
You can participate. My readership — I don’t know how many readers I have, but I do know they make for at least 100,000 pageviews per month — is collectively smarter and better-versed in the issues that just me alone. If you have anything to contribute to the debate, whether in the form of a comment or even just a link to relevant article, whether you agree with me or not, please feel free to have your say in the comments!
Here’s a collection of interesting memes, pictures, an cartoons floating around the internet that I…
Tap to see the source. This is yesterday’s daily New Yorker cartoon, created by Brendan…
C’mon, let it not be Asians this time. Last time was pretty bad. Here’s the…
Jon Stewart’s right, and we’ve been here before. Where we are now, I’ve been before…
Poppies thrive in overturned soil, which is why they bloom in battlefields. I’m in the…
In times of high dudgeon, there’s a tendency to throw integrity out the window. One…
View Comments
As far as I'm concerned, Mr Zayats misses the point entirely. I like copyright. I like patents, too. Could someone please explain to me why we think 20 years protection is enough encouragement for Pfizer to keep looking for a cure for cancer, but life plus 50 years isn't enough that we might not get "Oops I Did it Again 2"?
The point is: "intellectual property" is supposed to be a compromise. Artists and creators get protected long enough to earn a living and retain their dignity of authorship. The public -- whose *culture* this is, and remember you can't have an artist without an audience -- enforces these rights on the artists behalf in exchange for certain reasonable exceptions. Fair Use. The right of commentary and criticism. Limited copies for educational purposes. And when it comes to electronic copies, given the realities of computers, we also want perfectly reasonable rights to make backup copies, and to be able to translate works to new formats to view on next year's iPod killer.
Remember, we've *paid* for our copies. We're upholding our end of the bargain. Which is why it is so angering to see rights grabs like bill C-61 trying to screw us over.
In a world where copying is free, copyright exists only so long as it is generally accepted as right and just. It's *our culture*. If the public ceases to respect copyright, then copyright ceases to exist. Entertainment companies need to understand this.
You might add, for the benefit of your readers who don't know Ignatz personally, that he actually cites the sections and subsections of Acts in casual conversation, in betwixt his tellingly frequent references to acts of depravity including, but not limited to, bestiality and coprophagy.
This is why we love him so.
@Antoine F.: Quite true!
For the benefit of my readers: Antoine is another friend and schoolmate whom I first met nearly 30 years ago. He was also in the band with Ignatz and like me, witness to Ignatz' depraved acts.
Allow me to retort to the ancillary points elicited so far.
I do not deny speaking about acts of bestiality and the like. They are funny and definitely subject of many punchlines articulated by most of the comedic genuises whose observations of modern life I enjoy (ie. Chris Rock, Bring the Pain 1996. Give it a listen). However, for the purposes of the Law Society of Upper Canada and my oath to upkeep my "good moral character" standard, I explicitely & publicly deny physically partaking in any such endeavours.
Asshole? Perhaps. Probably. But only when I wear a suit. But tell me: if you had to spend your hard earned money on a lawyer, wouldn't you want an "asshole" who knew his shit to fight your fight? Thought so.
(As an aside, a prof told me along time ago that one's adversaries will always resort to ad hominem arguments when they've got nothing else in the bag. Must be true here? Hey, I can take it, I'm over 18.)
But to get back to the point. I thank my old friend JMdV for bringing this matter front and centre for discussion. So far, I'm the bad guy because I support this bill (which arguably could use some tweaking). This is rather difficult for me as I am a lifelong sworn critic of anything bearing the marque of the Conservative Party. But, IMHO, intellectual property rights must be protected. And Bill C-61 is a start.
So how do we protect it? Currently, you can walk into Pacific Mall in Markham which thumbs its nose at the Copyright Act. Thousands of illegal DVDs await the eagerly-paying consumer. Anyone with any internet saavy can download songs, movies and any other media freely and 'illegally' on the net. The status quo is a joke. Please tell me how to stop it.
And that's the point I'm trying to make. No one in this thread has posited any reasonable measures or proposals on how copyright of intellectual property can be protected. Bill C-61 sucks you say, but offer nothing of substance in return. You mock me personally, but remain silent on alternatives & proposals. What would YOU suggest? Give me some suggestions that are fair & reasonable & I can be swayed. Simply calling me an asshole just won't do it.
Right now, Bill C-61 says you can make 1 copy. (OK, even I think that's crappy.). But is 2, or 5 or 10 enough? Can we get a consensus on one of those numbers?
How about if a teacher needs to make copies for educational purposes. Can you make a provision that licensed teachers can get multiple licenses for free from the rightsholder if used strictly for his/her classes?
Someone said that "we *paid* for our copies...". Actually, that's not quite true. You actually paid for a LICENSE to enjoy the song or movie that you downloaded or on your disc. Just like my MS Office license allows me to install it on 3 computers at home. Any more than 3 & I'll need to call MS & pay for a license. I don't see anything wrong with that. I paid for 3 licenses when I bought it. That's what I bargained for.
How about some ideas on my suggestions in the above article:
1. Is it fair to make thousands of free copies & the artist only got 1 royalty fee from it?
2. We already live in a world where certain IP products have maximum licenses or copies available. (See ms MS Office point above). Wouldn't a similar concept extended to all copyrighted media be fair as well?
OK, so instead of telling me I'm "wrong wrong wrong" or that I'm an asshole, douchebag, etc., why don't you & your readers propose reasonable suggestions on copyright protection & we can turn this into a legitimate discussion of ideas.
After all, isn't that the point of all of this?
@Ignatz Zayats: That's the plan: there will be an exploration of copyright, the DMCA, WIPO, the whole schmear! It's going to take time and come in installments, as this blog is only one of my hobbies.
As for the cheap shots, I'm willing to drop 'em if you will. But keep in mind that this is my blog, and I play by Chicago rules: "You send one of my boys to the hospital, I send one of yours to the morgue."
I feel like even posting a comment on this flamebait of a post is just asking for trouble, especially because I intend to agree with Michael Arrington, someone I'm confident I wouldn't get along with in person.
To roughly paraphrase the tech pundit, the cost of duplicating intellectual property is rapidly approaching zero. Regardless of anyone's opinion as to whether this is good or bad, clearly a replacement business model or perspective needs to be found because guilt and the threat of litigation are not going to save the intellectual property brokers.
Personally, I suggest vinyl LPs, which have seen a massive boost in popularity in the past few years. People crave something "real" that can't be copied.
Luckily for all of us, musicians are waking up to the notion that it's not about selling their music anyhow; it's about touring and T-shirts. The tunes are just an advertisement.
He wrote: If I was a professional musician...
If you was musician, YOU make choice. No one forced you to be musician, so no one have oblige support you. Your choice. If you dont like that songs are in minds and there is no way to rip it from someone head, dont be musician.
If I was mafioso, i want law to protect my choice of to be mafioso? I have right to be mafioso and to be supported by others?
The problem isn't a question of copyright law ... nor is it a question of license or ownership. The problem is the enforceability of the law.
Imagine you're at the accordion city airport ... and due to this bill, every piece of electronic equipment now has to be checked for contraband. Now let's see what happens when the 2 hour line up to fly to NYC becomes a 6 hour lineup.
It's the 21st century. One where companies make hardware that stores thousands and thousands of songs. Did any of those manufacturers ever think that everyone would pay $0.99 per song? I highly doubt it otherwise record labels, writers and artists wouldn't be screaming as loudly as they are.
The internet changed the face of copyright enforceability and everyone knows it. The question is what to do about it.
A couple of years ago, there was a proposal to stop charging for music, film, television and all printed material all together. Instead, apply a national tax. Actuarial Sciences can easily figure out what average number of songs someone has, of the number of movies they see, or the amount of television someone watches. I mean ... if statistics set the rate by which you pay your life insurance, car insurance and house insurance, why couldn't they do that with the arts? It'd be a hell of a lot easier to manage and everyone would get paid.
The problem is ... marketing. Record labels would no longer be able to say that "this is the hottest newest thing". In the end, the people decide on what they want to pay for and that scares the hell out of the companies that are pushing for c-61 instead.
OK, so I have a legitimate question, following up a little bit on what Ignatz said:
Everyone knows of the illegal copies of DVDs and CDs at Pacific Mall (and "designer" bags and clothes), right? Why is nothing done about it? Really, I always wondered. Any ideas?
The authorities do raid some of the operators every couple of years, but the hefty fines don't amount to much compared to what these guys rake in.
And the bootleggers do have a tiny amount of modesty, they don't have the stuff hanging out in the store window all week. Generally it's foreign bootlegs on weekdays and Hollywood stuff on the weekends.
Chck this quote from a not-quite-year-old Toronto Star article:
So conceptually a guy could make 600k a year. What's the fine? Here is a Globe & Mail article from January, 2007:
There's your answer. $600,000 minus 1% still leaves an awful lot of room for lawyer's fees and a good living besides.