To the people that haven’t already paid for it, sure.

Obviously a lot of the iCopyright stuff is questionable in the context of how stuff gets used for non-commercial purposes on the Internet. On the other hand, if the CBC’s copyrights weren’t defended to a level required by due diligence there’d be very little to stop an unscrupulous organization taking the Corporation’s output lock stock and barrel and exploiting it for commercial gain, without giving anything towards its creation. This would dilute the value of said output, and reduce the CBC’s ability to produce it in the first place.

This is one of those situations where – at least in the short term – nobody will be entirely happy with the outcome. It’s a result of collision between the old creator-consumer media models and newer ones that blur the lines and emphasize participation, but the old models are still in play and can’t just be ignored.

As pointed out by Mike over at techdirt, http://techdirt.com/articles/20100202/1848558018.shtml. I agree with him that Keay doesn’t seem to know what he’s saying.

What we are discussing here are “copying and reusing”, which is related to COPYRIGHT. Protecting “brand” really is about TRADEMARK. Either Keay doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or the law is being misused(unintentionally or intentionally), or Keay and the group who wrote up the new TOS is not communicating properly.
==========================================
Now, some personal opinion.

I LOVE the CBC. I love how I can always rely on it for news. I love how I discover new music and new CANADIAN artists (whom no commercial radio gives any time to). I can remember just 2 days ago telling my U.S. friend how we’ve got the CBC and they’ve got nothing that’s like the CBC.

With that preface, I have to say I am disappointed at the new TOS/policy. CBC is created with the intent to promote Canadian culture and art. If we use common sense, you don’t increase the knowledge/usage of anything by increasing the obstacles. Imagine you have to fill in 3 forms for each book you check out at the local library. Could you say that the library is promoting knowledge and encouraging people to learn?

Yes, CBC needs to give credit when it’s due so everyone knows what kind of good work they are doing. This helps them get funding by saying “We did this and those and that, that’s why it’s important to give us funding!” However, it’s a fine balance to promote itself, or to make access difficult so substantially less people use CBC.

And I pray for them to find the right balance, with all good intentions.

1) ICopyright appears to only recognize American copyright law.
2) ICopyright sounds like a Tony Soprano concept – read their website carefully.
3) The CBC is partially publicly funded – if the CBC wishes to limit the use of material it produces, it should decline public funding.

I looked into ICopyright and some of it’s competitors about a year ago, and was not impressed. I personally don’t expect any of them to last very long.