My Asshole Lawyer Friend Ignatz
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.
The Copyright Debate
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!
25 replies on “Ignatz Zayats and the Copyright Debate”
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.
So Mr. Lau gets off with a small fine & no jail time. More the reason for stronger, more stringent(with minimum penalties) in a new Copyright Act.
As for Pizi’s point, you’re right, no one holds a gun to the person’s head & forces them to become a musician. But when they choose to do so, their property should be protected. I applauded Metallica (& finally became a fan) when they fought Napster & won. (However, if you saw their autobiographical documentary, Lars really came off as some kind of pompous ass. Huge turn off for new fans).
As for “Not So Ignatz’s” point, you’re right, enforceability is certainly an issue. However, I think I quoted someone in the know who emphasized: “It’s not like entertainment companies are about to go sue people…,[it’s] about people who are making libraries of massive infringement and making them available to their friends that they have over the Internet.” I believe that they intend on catching the Mr. Lau’s of the world instead of 13 yr olds making copies for their own IPODS.
This is exactly the dialogue that’s necessary. I think we need more opinions from everyone out there.
@Ignatz Zayats: This is exactly the sort of dialogue I was aiming for when I put out the call to the readers in this article. They’re a good crowd, and a smart one too!
To the readers: Well done! Keep the discussion going! I will also pipe in.
Mr. Zayats, I think the fear is that the copyright holders will not go after the Mr. Lau’s of the world, because his ringleaders and distribution channels are not well-known, and may take months (if not years) of investigation to track down.
Whereas suing the pants off some 13-year-old and going after their medium of distribution may (but likely will not) impact the Mr. Lau’s of the world.
What it will do, though, is make some parents and ISPs police their net traffic a little more rigorously. And it doesn’t take months of investigation, and it’s a lot easier to prosecute.
And the lawyers for the copyright holders can score an empty, symbolic “win” by pointing to the drop in P2P file-sharing traffic amongst 13-year-olds.
Meanwhile, Pacific Mall will still be loaded to the gills with pirated DVDs.
The “artists deserve to get paid” line is the BFG of the DMCA, but as has often been pointed out, artists aren’t getting any of the money the DMCA siphons from the users.
I’m all in favor of artists getting paid. record companies, however, have historically been rather more in favor of themselves getting paid, usually by both fans and artists. The DMCA favors the companies, not the artists.
[…] and related matters. If you want to find the inspiration behind this series, read the entry title Ignatz Zayats and the Copyright Debate, as well as the […]
I want to be allowed to make unlimited copies of movies and songs for family members living in my house. I want to be able to make those copies even if there is DRM in place intended to stop me.
That’s all I ask.
Oh – and I’m not happy when the law covers something, but we’re told “oh, don’t worry about that bit – nobody’s actually going to do that part”. (entertainment companies not suing the end consumers)
If they’re not going to do it, put it in the law that they can’t.
Property must be protected. Hmm define property. If I record you playing on plaza, my record is your property? You can sell me CD, OK. You can sign some form of paper with me, where i sign that i dont give this cd to anyone. Fair enough. But this dont need special law. Just “obey your contracts” is enough. If you release something from you mind in “watchable/hearable…” form to world. World can’t be obliged to take care of your release. This is your release and you must take care of it. If you allow me to hear your song without sign contract not sing it anywhere, it is your problem.
As a friend and originator of the name Ignatz I have to come to his defence. (By the way he phoned me or else I would have never known this topic was being discussed on Joey’s site.)
I am a firm believer in getting paid for what you do. It frightens me that as a society we actually are having this debate – although I am also pleased that we live in a society where we can have this debate but that is another topic.
Who are we to say that we have a right to “steal” someone elses creation when they do not want us to.
I honestly believe that it can be brought down to that simple of an arguement.
There are some bands (don’t ask me which ones) that allow free downloads from their website. They feel that they will be able to make their money touring, selling merchandise and probably selling ads on the website where you go to download for free. This is their choice.
However there are many more bands who want to get paid for their efforts. This is their right. They have invested their time and money into creating this piece and they desrve to reap the rewards.
This is so simple. The only people who are trying to complicate it are the people who benefit from the illigal downloading. They have a self-serving reason for protesting this.
I believe there is a line from Bill Shakespere that goes something like this, “I believe thou dost protest too much”
This is simple, if you want the music go pay for it. Otherwise turn on the radio and hope that it comes on the station you are listening too.
I wish there were more protectors like Ignatz. The world would be a better place.
@Friend of Ignatz: Hey, S.B., long time no see! It’s like a high school reunion in here!
(I know why you’re rushing to Ignatz’s defence. he still has those incriminating photographs from high school, doesn’t he? You’ll be pleased to know that I have some too.)
But seriously…
Actually, my issue with Bill C-61 is not so much about wanting to get my music for free, but that the entertainment industry is:
a) taking away certain freedoms that we used to enjoy before the digital age
b) telling the technology industry to cripple their systems solely for their benefit
The issue of music and movie piracy is a red herring that’s used to distract the public, and it’s not the first time that the entertainment industry has tried this tactic. It’s the same approach they used when they tried to make the VCR illegal back in the 1980s. They’d like you to forget that.
Watch this blog, because I’m going to build my case!
I have to side with Joey’s side of this argument. The pro-C-61 side seems to be trotting out the usual “If you’re opposed to this bill it must be because you’re a pirate! See all these commercial pirates? We have to stop them!” Meanwhile, circumventing DRM simply for personal-use format shifting is still being made [explicitly] illegal.
This is intentionally difficult to deflect, but I’ll give it a shot anyway.
I want to be able to play a movie I buy, any which way I want, anywhere and anytime. I understand I’m now supposedly just buying a license, and frankly I’m scared that anyone is defending that business model or efforts to effectively enshrine it into law.
You can argue that this isn’t such a big deal because if everyone hates DRM and loves format shifting, the free market will decide.. but will it? If a few major studios/labels control so much of the media, what will happen when they simply refuse to release catalogs except in DRM’d formats? Music seems to be going DRM-free, but movies? Blu-ray and HD-DVD both tried harder than DVD did, no DRM-free format is yet on the horizon.
No one seriously expects the next to be boycotted because the ‘free market’ hates DRM.
Honestly, it comes down to this: this bill would be fine if DRM anti-circumvention were not a part of it. Simply render illegal what should be illegal (commercial or even copying for friends), don’t protect a means of lock-in. Let the companies invest in the locks if they think it will help, but rendering encryption-breaking illegal isn’t going to stop any real crooks. For the Pacific Mall crowd, just slap massive fines on commercial copying – no one will dare speak out in defense of commercial copying, and the casual downloaders won’t even care.
Educational copies and the like are a topic I’ll leave to those better versed in that side of it.
I feel that C-61 is very close to being a completely reasonable bill. The only flaw is the DRM issue, but even that just needs to be tweeked. Every aspect of the bill allows and gives exceptions for personal use, except in the case of DRM. So why not just extend these exceptions.
If the bill allowed the use of DRM circumvention for personal use only (ie. I buy a dvd and then get around the DRM to put it on my ipod so I can watch it while commuting by train every day) I would fully support it.
Another thought:
This bill doesn’t address the legality of making copies of content from digital media that contains DRM, but doesn’t actually interfere with the DRM.
What happens if I pop a CD into a stereo, and then attach that stereo up to my computer through an Mbox and record the signal from the stereo using ProTools. Or go through a similar process with a DVD, Canopus box, and Final Cut (or more easily, with a dvd player/recorder with a firewire port). The DRM on the either disc would not have been altered or damaged in any way, yet a copy would have been made.
Another example of politicians and big companies not facing the realities of the digital age?
[…] why it’s so refreshing to see some actual debate on the topic over on Joey deVilla’s blog. The Accordion Guy reposts some comments by “Ignatz Zayats,” someone deVilla […]
“intellectual property rights must be protected. And Bill C-61 is a start.”
What the heck do the dead need property for? Is this ancient Egypt or something? 50 years after death is a travesty. It’s monopoly, embodied in law. Copyright should be restricted to something closer to 20 years after creation. That way, an artist can get rich, have kids, put them into college, and make something else when they are retired, so they don’t ride the coat tails of their former artist glory.
[…] why it’s so refreshing to see some actual debate on the topic over on Joey deVilla’s blog. The Accordion Guy reposts some comments by “Ignatz Zayats,” someone deVilla […]