If you’re running Mac OSX or Linux or a UNIX-like…

1. Open a terminal.
2. Type the following
echo ’127.0.0.1 tcr.tynt.com’ >> /etc/hosts
Then press return.
3. Problem solved, globally.

This makes your computer look for tcr.tynt.com (the server with the JavaScript that makes this irritating thing work) on itself, where of course it does not exist.

One important feature of fair dealing is the non-requirement for individuals to ask permission from the copyright owner prior to using the material.

In the Permissions FAQ on the CBC’s website they limit fair dealing by making permission a requirement
http://www.cbc.ca/permissions/faq-text.html#1.

“May I quote from an article on your website? / May I use an excerpt from one of your articles?

Under certain circumstances, it is permissible to quote or take an excerpt from a CBC.ca article; however, prior permission is required before using any CBC.ca text in this manner. Please submit a Permissions request for our consideration. ”
(quote included without permission)

If permission were required as the CBC suggests, then fair dealing really isn’t an exception at all and it is meaningless to include the language in the Copyright Act. When people who may not be familiar with the law read the FAQ they may believe permission is manditory in all cases, when in reality, it is not.

I wrote to the CBC last summer by way of their online form and asked if they were aware of fair dealing and an individual’s right to quote and excerpt without permission. I asked them to revisit the information in their FAQ as their answer is misleading. Unfortunately, I did not receive a response.

Can you please clarify this? It sounds like individuals are allowed to excerpt or link unless it’s a case of making inappropriate use of the CBC brand. I understand that maintaining brand standards is important, but I don’t understand how this relates to using the iCopyright software. Also, will an individual be given a takedown notice if their use is deemed inappropriate, or will a fine just immediately be given out? A fine of up to $1 million seems excessive when a post can simply be taken down.

When I cut ‘n’ paste for the benefit of discussion boards elsewhere on the Net, I tend to make a habit of linking back to the source site, encouraging people to Go Look At The Original Material. Because it’s usually good work.

The presumption which using this stuff, including the boilerplate legalese referred to earlier, implies a default suspicion of the audience, regardless of what the people who decided on this policy believed they were doing at the time that decision was taken.

And, as others noted, we’re already paying for this service via taxes. Whether it’s income, estate, GST, HST…and, yes, we’re still well aware that Parliament’s still shirking on paying on our behalf what it ought to be. As it’s been shirking for over three decades, and given the current PM’s opinion of the Corporation and of his POV re: the larger public’s opinion of his opinion, as it likely will continue to shirk for the near future.

Tynt, as I understand it, doesn’t restrict to 140 characters. That’s the “average length of the copied content” on its platform, not a restriction.

ps. Good point about the difference between Can and U.S. law.

I’m glad to see that CBC is engaging the public on this issue. I would like to point out that my strongest concern with the new system is that it confuses Canadians about their copyright exemptions by invoking Fair Use rather than Fair Dealing. By using an American company that operates according to different kinds of legislation, the service doesn’t provide any information about how Canadians can actually use copyrighted content according to its own laws.

Canada is in the midst of fighting a very strong battle for copyright sovereignty, which CBC reports on very well. I would think that the CBC would also like to foster copyright competency by actually invoking Canadian copyright law.

Now that you report that you also use the Tynt script that creates an arbitrary limit on Fair Use of 140 words, I am yet again wondering whether the CBC understands what Fair Dealing is at all. It is not the size of the excerpt that matters, but how the dealing works with the material.

As for my participation in the groups that exist on facebook, I am merely providing further information. I am trying to direct the public to recognize that we have already paid for the CBC, so boycotts are not the answer. I appreciate the CBC, and I value its content. I think Canadians do too, but the recent moves to ensure its brand give the impression that CBC doesn’t serve its public, but rather advertisers.

All published information does not require requests to use it; otherwise, there would be no news, commentary, or scholarship. I imagine using an automatic system makes licencing easier, but when it tracks every use and judges whether something is infringement solely based on word count, we’ve entering into a world where freedom is based on length and number rather than spirit and intent.

Thanks for elaborating on how this new system operates, I hope that you add sections to licencing links that explain Canadian Fair Dealing provisions rather than let them think that they are under the watch of DRM Bounty Hunters.

best,

Cameron McMaster