...or at least annoyed.
Yesterday, it was revealed that CBC has recently adopted a highly Draconian approach to protecting the copyright on its on-line news stories. They have decided to employ iCopyright, the American copyright bounty hunters used by Associated Press. iCopyright demands a monthly/annual fee for each CBC piece you quote on your site; you have to host the entire piece, not bits and pieces of it; you can't criticize the story's author, or the CBC, and so on.
By nightfall, Canadian bloggers had already begun to strike back. The inevitable Facebook group opposing the move had sprung up, and people were already considering means of punishing CBC for, essentially, attempting to sell you the right to fair comment that you already possess. Probably the most interesting idea for a punitive response comes from Devin Johnston at Law Is Cool:
There is one thing that I will change as a result of CBC’s new iCopyright policy. From now on, whenever I link to CBC, I will use the the rel=”nofollow” construct. This attribute instructs search engines like Google not to index the link as part of its PageRank algorithm. Essentially, the links don’t help their destination sites to achieve higher rankings in search engines. I already use this construct when linking to sources such as the Conservative and Liberal parties (being a New Demcorat, I want to ensure that I’m not giving any advantage, however trivial, to my political opponents). From now on, CBC will not get the trivial benefit they enjoy in terms of search engine ranking when I link to them. This practice will continue until CBC adopts a more balanced and realistic approach to copyright.
Other approaches under discussion are letters to MPs (CBC is after all taxpayer funded), letters to the CBC, or making a conscious effort to avoid CBC versions of whatever story you wish to right about.
If CBC wants to remove itself from the cultural conversation, let them.
PS. A very good walk-through of the new contract and its implications here.
PPS. Although iCopyright looks to be a bit of a toothless tiger. Look at the bottom of the G&M piece you've quoted. Hit the license button and see where it takes you. Has ANYONE ever been hassled by these guys...or for quoting AP, for that matter?