The Influence

While several groups and individuals are focusing on the main issue in the bill: the criminalization of breaking digital locks, in an article in The Ottawa Citizen, we can see that the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Perrin Beatty  has a different take.

He said he's pleased the government is open to technical amendments.

"But most importantly, we appreciate the initiative that you're taking, and we believe that by creating an environment that better respects the rights of creators in Canada and that supports innovation in Canada, will strengthen the Canadian economy and will make this a more attractive place for Canadian artists and for Canadian creators to invest, to work and to thrive in the future," said Beatty, who attended the government launch of the copyright bill.

Although the Conservative government, industry ministers and some corporate executives praise the copyright modernization act as it is, we must understand that that is one point of view. Yes, we do need to compete with the US, our neighbouring economical giant that is the best and leading country at selling knowledge. We are falling behind in that respect, and it is true that several inventors and scholars/researchers have left us for our southern neighbour for more lucrative returns for their labour, and this needs a remedy. But while the US economy thrives on technological inventions and selling their knowledge to other countries, we do not operate on the same level. Profit aside, we benefit from sharing our knowledge, not blocking it and placing financial barriers on it so it can’t be accessed by many. While this is not a criticism on US practice, because they do what is best for them... do we really want to become a country that encourages building on knowledge from others, locking it, and reselling it at a price that many people can’t afford? Why not share ideas through online platforms, build upon other’s ideas, and share them back so everyone can benefit on more levels than just financially?

Loose and confusing exceptions in Bill C-11 allow for misunderstanding among Canadians who may not be clear on how they are allowed to use certain information. This uncertainty may actually end up being detrimental to innovation and will hinder the sharing of creator content and  knowledge. This emphasizes the need to be more transparent, and to encourage a more direct relationship between consumer and creator. Maybe then we will understand and respect each other’s rights in a more balanced way, on a more personal level.

Clearly we need to find a better balance than this “common sense” law provides.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/play+Ottawa+stands+firm+digital+locks+copyright+bill/5476735/story.html#ixzz1biN2tWAH

If you would like to voice your opinion, we have teamed with Open Media, where you can draft a letter to industry ministers and voice your concern at http://openmedia.ca/copyright

What You Had...And What You'll Have

 Industry Minister James Moore speaks out about on copyright reform, and "extremists" that are against it. Moore claims the new copyright law (Bill C-11) will be beneficial to our economy (because the United States has been pushing for Canada to tighten up copyright laws) and will kill piracy. However, the anti-circumvention law just provides a means so that copyright holders can keep profiting from the resales of their products, making us pay for them again, after we own them. But, this will not stop piracy, and it may in fact stifle innovation and create less exposure for creators and artists-which in turn may actually hurt out economy. Moore claims in his speech that people who are against the implementation of Bill C-32 (now Bill C-11) are fear mongers, who are against copyright reform whatsoever, and must be silenced, essentially. This is funny, because he is the one creating fear here, fear of any opposing opinion. He outlines only the good parts of the bill, hoping we will overlook the fact that the anti-circumvention provisions actually take away our rights as consumers and hands over control to copyright holders.

According to a CBC report covering the story, this is what Bill C-11 will do to modernize our copyright law and give more balanced rights to both copyright holders and consumers:

• The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
• The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
• Allowing consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage.
• A YouTube clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it's not for commercial gain.
• A "notice-and-notice" system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law. The violator's personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
• ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users.
• A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
• New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.

BUT, the part of the law regarding the breaking of digital locks would mean you  could have NONE of these rights. The bill would make it illegal for a person to crack a digital lock placed on a device, disc or file.So, it says you can copy a CD for personal use, the copyright holder could place a digital lock on that CD and it would become illegal for you to do so. So, essentially, the government is putting the power into the hands of corporations and copyright holders to actually dictate and control our online behaviour. A digital lock could be placed on anything-articles, journals, music, video, TV shows, video games...just about anything you currently download online. Please let you opinion be known to our government and visit 

http://openmedia.ca/copyright to have your say, and sign our online petition at 
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/copyrightorcopyfight/

"Balanced"

This video of The Hour with copyright activist and law professor Micheal Geist is 4 years old. We are now debating the exact same issues with Bill C-11, which the government has tried to pass in the past. 

As the conservative government is trying to push C-11 through parliament so it can be implemented so soon as just after the holidays, it’s important to understand why this Bill is being debated. Of course it’s essential to modernize our copyright laws; the last time it was revised was almost 15 years ago. But, this brings up the question: How can we ensure effective regulation of the internet as technology changes so much, and so quickly? If this particular bill gets passed...how relevant will it be in just a couple of years?

There are parts of this law that will work towards creating a more balanced online environment for both consumers and creators, but there are some parts that seriously need to be reconsidered in order to make that true. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote on his blog http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ that the fair dealing definitions and exceptions need to be broadened and consumers need to be given the right to break locks for personal uses.

This is not the first attempt at passing this law. In 2005, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-60, which also contained the anti-circumvention provision (making breaking digital locks illegal). The Bill was criticized for siding with copyright holders over consumers and died when Parliament was dissolved that fall. Then, in 2008, the Conservative government tried again with Bill C-61, which also had the anti-circumvention rules. Similarly, that bill died. Then, they introduced Bill C-32, now Bill C-11, which is identical. Industry minister James Moore assured us that nothing has changed. They are trying to pass this law quickly, ignoring the thousands of critics (that they have heard) from both the industry side and consumer side.

We Have Rights

There needs to be policies put into place about how people can use information, what parts of the information and for what ends. We need to take the time to look at specifics and understand what their benefits and harms are, what their potential is in terms of finding ways to use other’s intellectual property for the greater good instead of limiting what can be learned from one another. The policies put into place often seem to favour the corporate side, which closely mirrors the U.S. model. We need to find a way for individuals and corporations in Canada to share knowledge that is useful to one another, while making sure the right people are accurately compensated and/or recognized for their work. 

While the internet is of course not owned by anyone, there are a few huge companies who have taken over and are governing it. So, as these companies are controlling the shape of the internet now and its direction for the future, we need to think of ourselves as shareholders of these companies and therefore as part-owners of the internet. Of course the voices of large corporations are much louder and therefore usually the ones favoured in policy making- but there are far more of us than there are of them. So if we all actually exercise our rights as part-owners, we may be able to sway things in our favour and create the digital economy that Canada needs.

Stop Thinking of the Web In Terms of $$$

We shouldn’t think it is common sense that the web is used to further business and has become corporately run-therefore can only be used for economic gain. If we begin to look at the web as it potentially has the power to be, we can turn it around for the betterment our society and to our own personal benefit-leaving space for social and educational gain.

The CTRC has strict policy on broadcast content, newspapers and magazines are heavily influenced in content by those who finance them (companies advertising their businesses), and the web is one of the most accessible places where people can share information and opinion without restriction, criticize, and take the direction of the internet into their own hands with open source platforms. The internet can democratize art, literature, learning, ownership and governance-all usually reserved for an elite few. But only if the right people are appointed to make sure it stays this way-individuals independent of short-term political goals and corporate profit minded agendas. Copyright laws that favour keeping the power in the hands of big industry players, such as Bill C-11, and spying instruments like DPIs used by companies to limit what you can put on the web by criminalizing personal activity will be the demise of how this tool is really meant to be utilized.

Clarification, Please?

It seems now as though we lack proper definitions and categorization of the media we engage in (there being so much) , which results in undistinguished and fuzzy policies which seem to be applied to mass communication mediums as well as telecommunications-which seem to have become increasingly similar. As Freedman puts it in his book The Politics of Media Policy,  it used to be that mass communication applied to broadcast, print and radio and there were therefore certain policies and restrictions concerning content ownership and censorship. Copyright laws were strict in order to protect intellectual property, while with telecoms (medium used for 2 people to communicate with one another, usually asynchronous), had their own regulations and policies. 

Now that the lines are blurred between what is private use and public use, the communication between a certain group of individuals easily becomes mass communication. Siva Vaidhyanathan describes the web a few years back saying “the web was exciting and democratic-almost to the point of anarchy, in her book The Googlization of Everything (and why we should worry.) This is no longer the case. Vaidhyanathan also points out “the mythology of the web leads us to assume that it is a wild, ungovernable, and thus ungoverned realm. This could not be further from the truth.”  And with this assumption, we behave online as if there were no consequences and that is why it is so important that we understand the current policies and bills being discussed. 

This blog will focus on examining Bill C-11, which the Conservative government hope to implement by the time the Holidays roll around in December. Do we want this vague policy, which contradicts itself, claiming it will protect the privacy and freedom of citizens, while ensuring proper use of intellectual property, but benefits most those who currently govern the web (corporations) to govern what we do online?