{"id":797,"date":"2008-05-05T08:31:04","date_gmt":"2008-05-05T08:31:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/?p=797"},"modified":"2008-05-05T08:31:04","modified_gmt":"2008-05-05T08:31:04","slug":"mediawatch-pirates-of-the-copyright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/?p=797","title":{"rendered":"[mediawatch] Pirates of the Copyright"},"content":{"rendered":"

I was going to skip this but this morning decided, no, I don’t want to. So I rag on another DomPost bit (again with a Greer McDonald<\/a> byline.)
\nA regular feature in the Saturday DomPost is “The Insider”, a full-page overview of a major public issue, getting the reader up to speed on what is at stake and what is being said by all parties.
\nThis Saturday, the issue was the copyright act amendment that was recently passed into law. The amendment addresses the digital era, and allows a lot of things that users are doing anyway, such as burning new copies of music for personal use, and getting around artificial access restrictions. However, it isn’t just about allowing things – there are plenty of restrictions made formal here. (The legally keen may want to check out this overview by Canadian copyright law expert Michael Geist<\/a>.)
\nIt’s an interesting topic. The interaction between new technology and old media distribution methods is contentious. No-one wants creative endeavours to become financially unfeasible, and copyright does tie into this. However, there is a solid argument that copyright’s role in protecting the artist is massively overstated or even just plain wrong. Sophisticated arguments for liberal copyright laws are easy to find, especially online where you can’t throw a virtual stone without hitting someone who follows Cory Doctorow’s<\/a> take on these matters. (As detailed at uberblog BoingBoing<\/a>.)
\nSadly, this one-pager doesn’t do justice to its subject. Far from it. Just look at the entire list of parties quoted:<\/p>\n