By Geof Glass
Canada is about to reform its copyright law. Our government is holding a public consultation, and we need to be involved.
Big media companies are pushing hard to make more activity illegal and to institute extraordinarily harsh penalties. They want your Internet provider to spy on your private communications to make sure you aren’t sharing anything you shouldn’t. They want to terminate your Internet access on the basis of mere accusations of infringement—with no need to prove you did anything wrong. They want to outlaw DVD players capable of playing legally purchased movies from Asia, Europe, or South America. They would allow teachers to critique popular culture without asking for permission—but then force them to destroy the lesson materials, and ensure that all students’ copies are also destroyed.
See also
Elizabeth May and Griffin Carpenter: Canada needs principled approach to copyright
Charlie Angus: Will the Conservatives get the message on copyright reform?
Marian Hebb: Collective licensing would help Canadian writers get paid on-line
This is not hyperbole. In the United States, many of these measures are already a reality. Amazon sells electronic books. It went into customers’ e-book readers and deleted books they had paid for. Copyright law was on Amazon’s side: not because the customers had done anything wrong, but because Amazon manufactured the readers. One of the books? George Orwell’s 1984.
An American woman was recently fined $1.9 million for sharing 24 of her favourite songs on-line. The response of the Department of Justice? That the judgement was not “disproportionate to the offense”. Bankers who have cost the economy trillions receive bonuses, while file-sharers are driven to bankruptcy. U.S. copyright law has suffered regulatory capture by media and technology behemoths. The U.S. in turn has threatened Canada with non-cooperation on trade unless we follow its lead on copyright.
Many of these measures were proposed in Bill C-61, introduced in Parliament last year. When Canadians found out what was happening, tens of thousands wrote to their MPs. Appropriation Art, an artists’ group, described the bill as “censorship”. Documentary filmmakers said that the law would block them from commenting on aspects of our politics and culture. Hundreds of Canadian musicians, who had already broken with the American-led Canadian Recording Industry Association over this issue, responded that they saw nothing in this bill for them.
Following the unexpected resistance to C-61, the Canadian government decided to ask Canadians what kind of copyright we want. Until September 13, the government is holding public consultations about what should be in the new law.
This law will affect you. It will shape the kind of society and culture you live in. It will effect fees of up to 25 cents a page to be paid by students to study their own culture (American law exempts educational use). It will determine whether we get to decide how we use our cellphones and our computers, or whether manufacturers can dictate exactly what we can and cannot do—regardless of whether it has anything to do with copyright. It will determine whether artists need permission before they make political and social comment on our society.
All the evidence from around the world is that draconian copyright laws do not work. They fail to stop freeloaders. But they are devastatingly effective at restricting artists and innovators—because they operate in the public eye. People see this. When they see copyright blocking the creativity it is supposed to promote, they lose respect for the law. For copyright law to be effective, it must be respected. To be respected, it must be fair.
I am a member of the Vancouver Fair Copyright Coalition. We want a fair law that benefits all Canadians—artists, innovators, educators, citizens, consumers. At faircopy.ca/, you can find more details. You can download a guide that makes it easy to write a submission reflecting your interests. Please participate in the consultation. Please help our government write a good law.
Geof Glass is a PhD student studying communication at Simon Fraser University, and a professional software developer.




Comment (27)

Comments
http://faircopy.ca/anticircumvention/
Anticircumvention provisions would cause the problems with cell phones, DVDs, and the Kindle cited in the article.
Under C-61, the penalty for circumvention tops out at $20,000 (the $500 cap does not apply). If you circumvent a digital lock to copy a CD worth of music (say 12 songs) to your iPod, it appears you could be liable for $240,000 - even though you own the CD, and did not share the music with anyone. Each song actually typically has three copyright holders, so I believe that number should probably be more like $720,000. But then I am not a lawyer, and even the Minister responsible did not seem to understand this bill.
Appropriation artists take elements and images from popular culture and use them to produce new art or messages - collage for example, or Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup cans. Though it might be legal for them to use certain materials (clips of text, images, sound, video, and so on), the manner in which they obtained them could be outlawed. For example, an artist who wishes to use a clip from a film whose copyright has expired would be permitted to film it off a screen. But under anticircumvention law, copying it from a DVD could be against the law. As more and more of our culture is digital, more and more of it could become off-limits to artists. The same applies to documentary filmmakers.
For education, U.S. law has the doctrine of Fair Use. This permits broad educational use of cultural and intellectual materials. In Canada we have Fair Dealing. The exemption for education only permits private study. This does not include use by teachers or in classrooms. Canadian institutions must pay license fees to copyright collectives like Access Copyright, which permits access only to works covered by the collective. These fees can be extremely high - I have paid $170 for courseware containing poor-quality photocopies. C-61 included a provision to allow broader use, but with the caveat that educators must ensure lessons using copyrighted materials are comprehensively destroyed after the end of the course (Bill C-61, section 18). The collectives have been widely criticized for failing to be transparent, and there are questions about how much of the money actually makes it to creators (I spoke to a world-famous professor with several widely-cited books: in his case, the answer was “none”).
We believe that the circumvention of digital locks should only be illegal if it is for purposes of copyright infringement. Legitimate activities, like the work of artists, should not be made illegal solely because there happens to be a digital lock. We also support flexible fair dealing, along with specific exemptions for any educational use, for parody, and for satire. (Jon Stewart’s Daily Show would likely be illegal if made in Canada because his use of news clips would constitute infringement - and good luck getting permission from the rightsholders.)
If I found out that my private life was being spied on by my internet provider - lawsuit or not - I would hypothetically take names, numbers, and home addresses. That would just be the tip of the Hindenburg.
You spy on me - I spy on you. Quid pro quo.
I wouldnt hold your breath. Look at all the anti-smoking laws that were put in place regardless of the effects on businesses, sure ppl cried the blues, but more self centered political A holes cried louder and won. If they decide something is in thier best intrests, all the bitching in the world wont stop it.
Im sure if they could say HA or some other biker gang is running the MP3 Ring or that they are responsible for recording and releasing the crappy cammed movies that "they" claim is ruining the movie industry. Or hey, maybe say the chinnese extacy is funding copyright infringment, that would pass this damn fast! Seems to be the trend in this country.
The fundamental question here is whether the rights of the entertainment industry to copyright protection outweighs the right of the average citizen to privacy in their own home, or using modern communications technology, and whether communcations providors should have the right to spy on the activities of their subscribers for the benefit of private interests. I find neither of these prospects either logical or within the boundaries of the Charter of Rights, and have great confidence that such legislation will not stand up to a challenge on that basis. The only question remains, then, is now that the Conservatives have tabled yet another US pandering, big-business sopping attempt to deny Canadians their civil rights, how long will the average citizen put up with this continued poor management?
I realize many people are cynical about the consultation exercise. At this point, we need to act in good faith. Last time around one of our main demands was for consultation: the onus on us now is to participate. The more we do, the more likely they are to take our interests into account. What if the cynics are right? What if we make our interests clear and are ignored? In that case, we point to our good-faith participation when we criticize the proposal. It does us no good going into this assuming the worst, because then there is no incentive for politicians to pay any attention. Keep in mind also the powerful forces pushing for extreme laws. If our government is to face down the demands of big entertainment and foreign lobbying, it needs our support.
Whatever their merits in theory, the draconian reforms being proposed have failed in practice. The force of law is a last resort when social norms fail. Effective laws succeed not because government enforces them with a heavy hand, but because people see them as legitimate and choose to obey them. Extreme copyright is not seen as legitimate. It destroys respect for copyright. The ineffectiveness of bad law, the broad regulation of legitimate activity, and disproportionate penalties result in disregard for the law. People break it whenever they believe they can get away with it. The law cannot be everywhere: anyone, anywhere can break the law with equipment they already have. Perversely, while these measures have virtually no impact on freeloaders, they have near 100% effectiveness on artists and innovators.
If you want to stop infringement, you need people to respect the law. You cannot force that to happen. At some point, if enough people do not respect the law, then the law will indeed lose its legitimacy. That is the fear many who oppose extreme measures: that the backlash will ultimately lead to the collapse of copyright.
Many writers and other artists are struggling (for a variety of reasons, including funding cuts). They point to infringement and cry, “something must be done!” But this “something” is not the right thing. They are being sold a load of snake oil by middlemen who stand to gain increased leverage over consumers - and artists. Please read my faircopy.ca article on anticircumvention, linked in the second comment above.
Copyleft is actually a specific kind of copyright license, one that allows others to copy a work freely so long as they release any changes under the same terms. I have used a copyleft license with my software to make money. After the initial release, several organizations found the software, tried it, liked it, and came back and offered to pay me to make specific improvements. In my case, I believe this is more profitable - and satisfying! - than my decade of proprietary development.
Speaking as both a copyright lawyer and someone who has been observing the copyright debate in Canada since the first public consultation on the WIPO Internet Treaties conducted over 2001 and 2002 (yes, there were public consultations before this, *and* at least 4 separate Committee hearings, *and* several Government reports...but that's another story), I can say with the utmost confidence that I have never seen or read any proposal that demands that "your Internet provider to spy on your private communications to make sure you aren’t sharing anything you shouldn’t". Even the harshest of proposals for graduated response do not demand that ISPs monitor all Internet communications, primarily because most groups (even special interest groups) appear to recognize that this would not be feasible. Rather, most proposals I've seen for online enforcement put the onus on the copyright owner to detect the copyright infringement (by combing the web and hosting services, and monitoring p2p networks) and reporting the infringement and IP address information to the ISP for action. Even the relatively light "notice-and-notice" regime included in both C-60 and C-61 (and which I assume that your organization endorses) would require this level of online monitoring by the rights holder ... otherwise, the ISP would not know who to forward the notice of infringement to.
"They want to terminate your Internet access on the basis of mere accusations of infringement—with no need to prove you did anything wrong." Really? You're clearly referring to graduated response with this statement, but I've yet to see any specific proposal from a Canadian organization on graduated response. The closest I've seen was in a National Post article by Barry Sookman and Stephen Stohn, which calls for "a graduated response process to help stem infringements in peer-to-peer (p2p) networks", but references the need to develop "nuanced processes with due-process considerations and alternatives to stopping illegal filesharing other than terminating Internet accounts." This doesn't sound like terminating Internet access without proof to me.
[cont'd]
"An American woman was recently fined $1.9 million for sharing 24 of her favourite songs on-line." True (well mostly true...the recording company plaintiffs were awarded statutory damages of $1.92 million for infringing the copyright in 24 songs, which is not the same as a fine), but I'm not certain of it's relevance. The current range of statutory damages in Canada ($200 to $20000) renders an equivalent verdict here impossible, and even C-61 did not increase the maximum statutory damages available. Moreover, given that the maximum amount of statutory damages for copyright infringement is never awarded except in the most eggregious of commercial cases (it's only ever happened a handful of times), a Canadian judge never hand out anything close to the max for any non-commercial infringement case. For more info, Canadian copyright lawyer Catherine Lovrics has written an interesting article on whether Canada could follow recent US cases on p2p filesharing: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cf60e4a3-c044-4153-8409-72...
"The response of the Department of Justice? That the judgement was not “disproportionate to the offense”. It should be in no way surprising that the US Department of Justice filed a brief arguing that a federal law (namely the Copyright Act) is constitutional. After all, defending federal laws is part of their job.
"The U.S. in turn has threatened Canada with non-cooperation on trade unless we follow its lead on copyright." Really? I assume you're referring to the US Trade Representative's elevation of Canada to it's Priority Watch List. This is hardly the same threatening "non-cooperation on trade" ... in fact, according to Western's Chi Carmody and CIPPIC's David Fewer, it was just bluster and nothing to worry about. See http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/04/tech-090504-priority-watch...
"This is not hyperbole." Sorry, but I have to say that much of it is...and inflammatory statements like those contained in this article are hardly conducive to a reasoned and informed debate over copyright policy. As @Rickd said, "This is inciting revolt"
In France, the government tried to pass a graduated response law with no judicial oversight. It was thrown out by the constitutional court, so they amended the law: a judge would have 5 minutes to adjudicate each case. The big rightsholders responded that they want to do takedowns in bulk: they don’t want to have to have each case judged on its merits. Similar laws have been proposed or passed elsewhere. You may say you have seen no *specific* proposal from a *Canadian* organization, but this is something many multinational entertainment companies clearly want - and they are at the forefront lobbying our government. As for notice-and-notice, in Canada we have lobbyists pushing notice-and-takedown, which has been used for censorship in the U.S.
You are right that copyright should not be the issue in the Kindle case. It shouldn’t. And the class action lawsuit might well win. But in the matter of *copyright*, which I specified, the law is indeed on Amazon’s side. A “tethered device”, as you call it, is one that is controlled by the manufacturer, not the owner. It is locked down. Some anticircumvention laws, like the DMCA in the states or C-61 here, make it illegal to remove the locks - even though you own the device, and even if the purpose of the removal has nothing to do with copyright. So even though you might not want Amazon going into your Kindle to remove books, it would be illegal to prevent the device from doing so. Not only is it *possible* for Amazon to delete your books remotely, but such copyright laws create a positive *right* for Amazon to do so. This is why the such measures have been described as creating “private law”, allowing manufacturers to invent whatever restrictions they like and have them enforced by copyright law.
You are right that we have not seen anything like the $1.9 million award in the U.S. But the industry associations and the government that have applauded it as reasonable are the same ones lobbying for draconian copyright in Canada. The Department of Justice not only supported the constitutionality of the law, it specifically argued that the high damages in this case were appropriate: that the high amounts are not reserved for commercial infringement, but should be used against individuals in order to deter others. Once the amount of the damages (thank you for correcting me) is sufficiently high, the amount doesn’t matter: it simply means bankruptcy. Given that most filesharers share far more than 24 songs, a similar verdict in Canada would be entirely possible.
Howard Knopf calls the U.S. priority watch list “a blatant bullying attempt to influence domestic Canadian copyright reform” - and is regardless flat-out wrong in its claims that our laws are weak[1]. But I was actually referring to the meeting at which “the USTR . . . made veiled threats about ”˜thickening the border’ between Canada and the U.S. if Canada refused to put copyright reform on the legislative agenda” [2].
[1] http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2008/02/iipa-dmca-and-canadian-copyr...
[2] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3040/308/
That's because he didn't write it, the American Copyright lobby did.
New article on the subject:
http://www.orato.com/business-career/chris-andersons-free-sparks-debate