Blog: Articles filed under copyright

Last summer, the government of Canada held an open consultation on the issue of copyright reform. The result: over 8,300 submissions, over 6,000 of which expressed opposition to another copyright reform bill similar to Bill C-61. You can read my submission here.

It turns out that I and anyone else who submitted to the consultation, wrote a letter to his or her MP, showed up for a meeting or rally, or participated in the Facebook groups or online discourse, have done this all for nothing. We’ve been wasting our time. Because we‘re about to do this all over again.

What’s sad is that it didn’t have to be this way. Tony Clement is the Industry Minister now, and his attitude toward copyright reform is more sensible than Jim Prentice’s. Apparently he was open to a different approach than the one Bill C-61 took—and considering how unacceptable Bill C-61 was, I’ll take that. Alas, it looks like Mr. Clement and his fellow cabinet minister, James Moore have differing opinions. So Grandfather Harper intervened.

The result will apparently be a “Canadian DMCA” that is, as Cory Doctorow puts it, a “goddamned disaster.” While I don’t know if the new bill will truly live up to such rhetoric, I’m certain that a repeat of Bill C-61 is something Canadians neither want nor need. Not only does it mean that the copyright consultation was a huge waste of government time and taxpayer money, but it means the government refuses to listen to the people who elected it. Again.

I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to see a trend: proguing Parliament, denying access to the Afghan detainee documents, ignoring the results of a national copyright consultation … time and again, the Harper government had demonstrated that it is unwilling to listen to the public and prefers secrecy over transparency.

Michael Geist calls on us to “write a paper letter to your Member of Parliament” to express our dissatisfaction with this turn of events. I might have done that last year, but now my idealism is beginning to crack and peel. My MP is a member of the NDP! What change will he be able to effect? Even if the NDP hadn’t expressed support for fair copyright reform, they’d probably oppose the Conservatives out of political need anyway. But as long as the Harper government remains in power, the opposition parties will always be on the defensive.

Despite their sabre-rattling, do any of our opposition leaders really want an election? I don’t blame them for wanting to wait and see—none of our leaders impress me right now; my strategy at this point is pretty much, “don’t vote Conservative.” It’s not that I’m gung ho to see another Liberal regime … we just don’t really have many other options. Michael Ignatieff was in Thunder Bay yesterday to announce universal broadband access to all Canadians—especially rural Canadians—as part of the Liberal platform. Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s a wonderful idea and fully support it—but it’s just an idea right now. They’ve been talking about improving broadband access for years. I’ll believe it when I see it happen.

What I do believe is that a “Canadian DMCA” of any kind is a bad idea. However, it looks like as long as Harper is in the driver’s seat—with Moore riding shotgun—that will be the only option on the table. And to that I say: I‘m done.

You win, Mr. Harper. Please, do continue to prorogue Parliament and bully your MPs. Please, do continue to flout the democratic principles upon which our country was founded and reshape Canada into your perfect little principality. I will meekly go back to my books, stick my head in the sand, and exude the level of apathy stereotypical of my demographic.

Wake me up when there’s an election.

Some big news in the Canadian tech industry this week was the advent of the Amazon Kindle in Canada. I’ve mentioned my mad love for the Kindle previously as well as my discomfort with Amazon’s approach to tethered appliances. So, now that the Kindle is finally available here, will I be getting one?

The short answer is no, not right now. Technologically, I think the Kindle is an amazing device that uses some pretty interesting physics to make reading easy and comfortable. It boggles my mind that we have the ability to store so many books in such a small, slim shell and take it anywhere with us! However, I still have reservations about whether an e-reader is necessary, and I’m still set against tethered appliances. So here’s the long answer.

One More Piece of Luggage

When you leave the house, what do you check to make sure you’ve got with you? Keys, mobile phone, ID, maybe money? What about your Kindle?

I’ve got this bizarre notion that, if I one day get a smartphone, I could use that device as my e-reader as well. It makes sense to combine them; we‘ve already rolled music players and cameras into our phones. It’s one less device to worry about forgetting at home—or worse, elsewhere.

Of course, the Kindle (and other e-readers) are superior technologically for reading books. Their screens are designed to make it easier to read, and their battery life will probably last longer if you‘re just flipping pages. I can see how an e-reader would be a sensible investment for someone who doesn’t want or have a smartphone. And I don’t deny that some part of me wants an Amazon Kindle.¹ I‘m just not convinced that it makes the most sense.

The Ol’ Ball and Chain

No matter how attractive or sensible the Kindle may be, it’s still tethered to the home office. Like the sleek and shiny iPhone, the Kindle is loyal to its manufacturer, not to you, the consumer. When you buy the Kindle, you’re just buying a device that’s a gateway to all the other content Amazon wants you to view but not own. The Kindle is a gateway drug.

Amazon demonstrated the draconian way it can manage Kindle content in July, when it deleted illegal copies of 1984 from people’s Kindles. To Amazon’s credit, apologies were made, and an Amazon spokesman assured us that it would never happen again—that, in fact, changes would be made so Amazon could no longer delete books remotely. It’s still a sobering reminder that, despite your physical possession of the Kindle, it isn’t really yours.

I‘m aware that the Kindle can read multiple formats, including yummy plain text files from Project Gutenberg. Yet the Kindle’s main goal is to persuade you to buy “Kindle editions” of books you want to read. These are proprietary files that only authorized devices can read, whereas a plain text file is readable by any number of devices. There are two problems with this. Firstly, it allows Amazon to control when and where you have access to the book you purchased. Secondly, it raises the spectre of data loss—since only Amazon-authorized devices can read the Kindle format, what happens if Amazon disappears? Unlikely, but still possible. Realistically, there are ways to cirumvent the DRM protection on the Kindle format and retrieve one’s data, but they aren’t legal, which leaves you in the interesting position of having to break the law to get at content you bought. An open format is safer when it comes to preserving and backing up.

I‘m using the Kindle as an example because of its release in Canada, but Amazon is not the only company doing this to its e-readers. Sony, whose Reader line has long been available in Canada, also has a DRM format. And when Barnes and Noble’s e-reader comes out, I‘m sure they’ll have a proprietary format as well. This isn’t the exception but the rule. And it’s up to us to change that.

Why? Well, Amazon, Sony, and B&N are doing what they think is best for their bottom line. They don’t want freely available, easily re-distributable books that will cut into the profit margins for themselves, for their publishers, and for their authors. I understand the desire to cut down on privacy, but we’ve been down this road before. There’s a reason that recording labels have finally agreed to drop DRM from iTunes. These bookstores, like the recording industry and the newspaper industry, are clinging to an outmoded idea of copyright and redistribution. Amazon, as a solely online venture, should know better. Clearly it doesn’t.

In Which I Return the Soapbox to Its Rightful Owners

So that’s why we, the consumers, need to show that this isn’t the model we want.² Or at least, that’s what I think. I don’t know. Sometimes I feel old and codgery. I‘m a technophile who refuses to get a smartphone because I’m holding out for something that runs Google Android, and I refuse to change to a carrier that does offer an Android device because the competing carriers in Thunder Bay have ludicrous service and pricing compared to TBayTel.

Maybe I should just get off my high horse and admit that yeah, the Kindle is pretty darn awesome and I‘d love to have one. But I can’t do it. I just can’t. I could probably surrender on the smartphone front, one day, if I so desired. This is different.

This is about knowledge. Books are one of the most precious resources of knowledge we have, and I will not be party to locking them away under the guise of “copyright protection” and “digital rights management.” I will not be complicit in the gradual erosion of the public domain, nor in the partitioning of content by format and fiat.³

If you‘re new to this debate and want to learn more, I’ll point you to the (somewhat biased) work of Cory Doctorow, Michael Geist, Lawrence Lessig, and Jonathan Zittrain, great advocates for a more open Internet.

I’m going to go read a non-DRMed book.

• [ 1 ] The three-year-old, “I want it! I want it! I want it!” part.
• [ 2 ] Yes, I‘m advocating that we let the free market decide. I’m not totally socialist!
• [ 3 ] Twenty years from now, assuming this blog hasn’t been locked away behind some proprietary wall, the cynical Future Ben will look back at Present-Day Ben and shake his head at Present-Day Ben’s naive idealism. But until that day comes, I’m allowed to be as naive and idealistic as I like!

This morning I went to a debate for the candidates of Thunder Bay-Superior North (my riding). The debate was hosted by LUSU, so naturally most of it was focused on how the candidates can help students. There were plenty of questions about student loans and debts, jobs after graduation, taxes, etc. I used the debate as an opportunity to actually familiarize myself with the candidates, one of whom will represent me in Ottawa by the end of this election.

The four candidates were Brendan Hughes (Green), Bruce Hyer (NDP), Don McArthur (Liberals), and Bev Sarafin (Conservatives). Naturally I‘m biased toward the left, and this presents me with the question: if I think the Green Party or the NDP would do a better job than the Liberals, should I vote for one of those candidates instead of voting for the Liberal candidate, thus splitting the Liberal votes and enabling the Conservative to get elected?

Watching the candidates speak, I was able to get a sense of how they’d do in the House of Commons, as well as their stance on the issues. All were articulate; all tried to emphasize their personal connection to the region and their commitment to being our voice in Ottawa. Great. But what good is a voice unless it says what I want it to say on my behalf?

After opening statements and two prepared questions, the moderator (Doug West, a professor of political science at LU) opened the floor to questions. I asked the third question:

Copyright reform has received much attention since the introduction of Bill C-61. Critics of the bill point out that there has been a lack of open, public consultation and that the bill may be unenforceable without raising privacy concerns. The bill’s emphasis on technological protection measures has wide-ranging implications. For students and teachers, it may interfere with access to materials for assignments and lessons. What can you do to provide fair and balanced copyright reform?

Each candidate had two minutes to respond to the question. I was unimpressed with the responses. For the most part, I think that my question was unanticipated, especially coming from a student-focused debate. But that’s good: these people should be able to improvise on the spot. Otherwise, they’ll be eaten alive during Question Period.

• Bev Sarafin essentially said that if she gets elected, then she’ll be willing to discuss which parts of the bill (she called it “Jim Prentice’s bill”) I find dissatisfactory. Apparently she missed the day in school where we learned that you tell people how you‘re going to fix things first, then you get their vote. Not the other way around.
• Brendan Hughes was the second to respond, confessing a lack of knowledge on the bill but expressing a desire to learn more about the issue. I applaud his willingness to learn and understand that not everyone can be intimately familiar with every single issue, but it does seem like he was unprepared to answer my question.
• Don McArthur actually addressed the question, calling for provisions that enshrine fair use in law. He specifically cited that Canadians should be able to copy music from a computer or CD to an iPod (a practise that, right now, isn’t actually legal). For a two-minute response, I suppose it was fair.
• Bruce Hyer was the only one who seemed to have a prefabricated response at the ready. I’m not surprised, since the NDP has been on the ball with copyright from the beginning. However, since it was a prefabricated response, it was heavy on the NDP and light on the Hyer. He denounced Bill C-61 and praised fellow NDP member Charlie Angus, telling us to refer to his website. While it’s good that he was prepared, I would have liked to hear more than a party line.

I’m still not certain for whom I shall vote. I liked Brendan Hughes; he spoke well when it came to clarifying that the Green Party isn’t a one-issue party. They simply take the environment into account in all their policies, not just as a separate issue. I thought that was a good point. However, I don’t know if I like Elizabeth May. The more I think about it, the more Stéphane Dion seems like the best of the current choices for prime minister.

Maybe the English-language debate tonight will help me decide. Election Day is October 14. We shall see.

You often hear someone invoke the phrase, “As a __,” in which he or she then goes on to name some sort of position or title that gives him or her the ability to voice an opinion on the subject at hand. “As a world leader…,” “As a scientist…,” “As a schoolteacher…,” “As an evil overlord….” Here’s something on which we should all have an opinion.

As a person, I value access to information. Many people, especially those my age, do not realize how saturated we are with information (or if you do, you may not understand what that means in a historical context). Go back in time about 550 years. There was a new invention on the scene in Europe: the printing press. The printing press allowed people to do something that, until then, was a very laborious task: it enabled the mass transmission of information in a written form. Prior to then, books were copied out by hand—usually by monks—and few people knew how to read. Most knowledge was passed on orally. And most people had access to very little information compared to what an individual knows today.

Fast forward 550 years back to present day. We have the Internet, a new revolutionary tool in communication. Information transmission is now instantaneous around the world. The average individual is exposed to too much information, to so much information that we have to start learning how to filter it out, both technically and socially. We are exposed to so much information that we take this access for granted. We assume we‘re entitled to it, just because we have it right now.

Well along with the development of information transmission came another neat idea: intellectual property. That is, the ownership of information and ideas. From this sprung several forms of laws that enshrine the rights of intellectual property owners: copyright and trademarks. But with the proliferation of the Internet, copyright is a whole new ball game. And Canada’s copyright legislation is pretty much obsolete. To give you an idea of how outdated our legislation is, here is a fact: recording a TV show on your VCR is illegal. See, that’s called time-shifting, and there is nothing explicitly in the Copyright Act that allows you do to that. Likewise, there’s nothing that lets you copy a CD to your computer or MP3 player, or record a program using PVR (DVR to those of you in the States).

Last week, the government tabled Bill C-61: An Act to amend the Copyright Act, the long-awaited copyright reform bill—or as some pundits prefer to call it, “the Canadian DMCA.” And those pundits have good reason.

Bill C-61 is supposed to update the Copyright Act for the new millennium, spruce it up, and clarify exactly what we can and can’t do with content in an era where copying someone else’s information is as easy as point-and-click. And to be fair, Bill C-61 does some of this. Let’s take a look at the fact sheets. Time shifting and format shifting … good. Oh look, private copying of music. Good. Wait … “digital locks”? What’s that. What? Oh my.

In what is largely regarded as a massive concession to the music, movie, and telecom industries, the amended Act would make it illegal to circumvent a digital lock with a fine up to $20 000. In other words, if you bought a CD with a digital lock on it and then copied it to your computer using a program to circumvent the lock, you could be fined $20 000 in damages. What I really don’t like, however, is the fact that this lends legitimacy to digital locks—it practically encourages corporate content distributors to lock up everything. Broadcasters could place locks on their television content so that you couldn’t record it on your PVR unit—and I don’t know about you, but I enjoy my PVR unit. And this kind of defeats the purpose of having time-shifting and format-shifting in the first place, if everything will just be under lock and key.

It’s depressing, that’s what it is. We are supposed to be moving forward with copyright legislation. We have to embrace the new technology, not fear it. We have come to praise Caesar! Instead, the Conservative government has folded to pressure from the industry and pressure from the U.S. government to create a bill that will turn common Canadians into criminals. You may think I’m overreacting, but I‘m not. It isn’t just the fines. Look at the highly restrictive educational provisions. How are teachers supposed to educate students—future leaders of the country—if they can’t access the content they need to do so?

It is entirely possible to create legislation that protects the rights of content creators—be they individuals, groups, corporations, or sentient potato salads—and protects the rights of consumers and content users. The overwhelming majority of content creators want their content to be used—that’s why it’s out there. Most just want to be compensated for it in some way, whether it is just recognition, or money, or a fancy theme song. And most Canadians, I think, would be happy to give them that theme song. If Bill C-61 passes, people are still going to download music and movies. People may even download more music and movies than ever before, because rather than giving Canadians a legal way to access this content, the amendment leaves us with no other choice but to pursue less legitimate ways of acquiring the content.

Our obsession with intellectual property and ownership of ideas and information is bordering on the precipice of absurdity here. So we need to do something about it.

I don’t know how many Canadians read this blog (probably about 15 people in total, so maybe … 3 Canadians?), but most of my Facebook friends are Canadian, and they might read this in my Facebook notes, so this is me doing my part. I am spreading the word and encouraging my friends to get involved. Write a letter to your Member of Parliament, to Josée Verner, Minister of Heritage, to Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and to the Prime Minister. You can send an email, but a regular physical letter is harder to ignore—remember, it’s free to send mail to your MP.

Copyright for Canadians has some excellent resources, including a template for the letter that you can automatically send to your MP, Jim Prentice, and Josée Verner. It will take less than 5 minutes, so at the very least, you could do that.

If you‘re interested in learning more about Canadian copyright, read FairCopyright.ca. Michael Geist is keeping track of various developments in the bill, such as reactions from the press and public, and government responses.

We have to send a message to the government that they can’t just ignore the public and table legislation without consulting us, the people who elected this so-called representative democracy. The Conservatives ran on the platform of accountability after the number of Liberal scandals, but now they have broken that core campaign promise and chosen to instead side with the big guys with money instead of the ordinary Canadian citizen. So take ten minutes out of your day, send your MP a letter, and know that even if the bill passes, you at least tried. Those who watch an injustice being perpetrated and do nothing to stop it are just as culpable as those who perpetrate the injustice itself.