Blog: Articles filed under copyright

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.