TVO’s The Agenda on Copyright
Last night, TVO’s The Agenda had a panel discussion on copyright. As always (and as mentioned by David Basskin and Robert Thompson), the discussion had a strong music focus (i.e. there was little to no discussion about movies, visual art, literature or software).
Michael Geist was invited to start the discussion, and said that “…tens of thousands of Canadians engaged in a national conversation on copyright…”. Thompson challenged the activity, asking how many of those Canadians actually vote, while Matthew Ingram argued that participation in something like a Facebook group counts as a vote in kind (I’m going to call that a “click vote”).
I would like to challenge just how valuable these discussions, click votes and resulting letters to Parliament are. I started a personal study of copyright a few years ago when Bill C-60 was introduced, have since been following issues of copyright and IP from various sources and have more recently been attending many of the Innovation Law & Theory Workshops at the UofT Law campus (since I found out about them). With all of that, I am comfortable having an informed position when engaged in a discussion on copyright, but still acknowledge that I have much to learn about not merely copyright, but policy and the actual administration and practise which happens hand-in-hand with copyright law. Of the 20,000+ members of the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group, how many have an understanding of copyright law? How many know much more than the alarmist information being fed to them? How many of them actually agree with Geist’s position (I’m a member of that group, and I certainly don’t agree with much he has to say)? How many of them recognize that creators and distributors are not always the same entity? How many of them have even read the Copyright Act?
Basskin seems to have concerns similar to mine, which I have transcribed from the program:
First of all, let me say that it’s great that so many people are interested in copyright law. I’m a copyright lawyer; I’ve been in this business for a long time. It’s a subject that usually makes people just of nod off. So the fact that people are interested is great. I question, though, whether they are interested in going along with the crowd… engaging in some kind of imaginary Robin Hood fight, or whether they in fact know anything at all about copyright. It’s a complex subject. Let me reduce it down to a little thought experiment. This is a piece of manuscript paper. And you’ll observe…there’s nothing on here. Just some lines, staves and treble and bass clefs. I’m going to leave it here with a pencil for the duration of our chat and see if at the end, a song has appeared. And, because there are some people who would have you believe that they just write themselves. And, well, we’ll see.
Geist was asked to respond, and provided comments which followed Basskin’s, but failed to truly respond to them:
…there’s an awful lot of creativity that’s taking place in this country, and you’re seeing some of it on that Facebook group that…isn’t dependent upon copyright law, and this has little to do with free, and frankly has little to do with party politics.
Creativity and a sustainable living from creative work are not the same thing. Obviously, the existence of creativity did not come after the creation of copyright law. But copyright law exists to give creators the first right to copy and protects their ability to recover the costs of their creation.
Basskin, again, seems to have the same perspective I do, stating:
Michael would have us believe that this is a… new thing. It’s certainly [that] the use of technologies like Facebook are new. But the government signed these treaties in 1996, ‘97, indicating a willingness to modify our laws to comply with these international standards for the purpose of protecting the rights of creators and ensuring their rights to get paid for what they do. Now…the reason why these laws have not made it into these statute books is because these pressures, these…these conflicts, these stresses, have always been with us. …It’s a difficult subject for government to deal with.
After this point, there was much talking over each other, where everyone wanted to get their two cents in. Geist was repeatedly asked what exactly he is concerned about and how he felt that a change to the Copyright Act would facilitate it, and although he talked a lot about consumer rights and the user’s right to access and copy work, he was unable to clearly and specifically indicate the root of his concerns and how his concerns might possibly happen.
Basskin reinforced the fact that it should be the creator’s choice to give away something for free as part of their marketing strategy, but that it’s the creators’ right to be able to have right to first copy. He also said, quite well, that:
What we are troubled by, as are most people in the music business, is the rampant distribution of music without compensation, without permission. We are the only people in the mix who are being told “you work for free; everyone else gets paid”.
It was tiring to hear all of Geist’s assumptions. Near the end, I found him putting words into the mouths of creators on both “sides” of the issue, and sliding more into copyright doomsday talk. Earlier in the show, Geist had been challenged by both Thompson and the host, Steve Paikin, of whether he has actually seen the legislation…and had to confirm that he indeed has not. Thompson had challenged Geist about what the actual issue it is he’s trying to push (Geist, again, failed to deliver a clear response) and said that “…we’re sort of debating ether at this point”. And that’s exactly how I’m feeling now.
How about we allow a bill to be made public so that we have something concrete to be reviewed and discussed?
Tags: Canada, copyright, david basskin, legislation, matthew ingram, michael geist, robert thompson, tvoRelated posts
By Julianna Yau
On December 15, 2007
At 3:27 pm
Comments :
Print This Post
I blogged my impressions of the show on the TVO Blog. http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&post_id=6519&blog_id=323
We definitely have a different impression of the show.
We can both agree with Mr. Basskin’s claimed goals, but I fundamentally disagree with his conclusions. The show format didn’t really allow people to get past the higher-level rhetoric.
So, Basskin says that DRM should be a “choice” — except DRM is about locks applied to devices http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ , which means that the otherwise “owner” is not left with a choice. I think business models based on revoking tangible ownership rights, a form of “theft” in their language, should not be a “choice”.
Basskin also claimed that there wouldn’t be lawsuits against people P2P sharing. If that is the case, then why the desire to change the law to make it easier to sue without evidence? He skirted around the basic question: what in *current* copyright law is failing for them (Copyright, not unrelated business models), and what of the proposed changes would improve that?
The honest answer is: *nothing*
Current copyright law is sufficient to deal with the legitimate interests of creators and non-creator copyright holders, and what is being asked for are rules which impose specific business models against the interests of both creators and other Canadians.
Mr. Geist has done hour-long talks himself that talk about the different forms of creativity enabled by the very technologies which the 12 lobbiests Basskin was representing is working to shut down. It’s hard to get into these details in a panel format where first principles haven’t been discussed yet.
You are correct: the average Canadian doesn’t understand copyright. This is a critical flaw with current copyright, given given with modern technology copyright has been interpreted to regulate the activities of all Canadians. Either we can modernize copyright to be simple enough for those it regulates to understand it, or we can carve out the non-commercial activities of private citizens. The direction that the 12 extremists that Basskin is aligned with are calling for is simply not rational: making copyright regulate more activities, be more complex, and have far greater remedies.
Don’t let Basskin’s rhetoric claiming he is just trying to protect the interests of artists confuse you with the actual impact of the policies that these folks are proposing.
Personally, I am most concerned with some type of anti-circumvention clause. I feel that this goes over the line into my rights territory and has a chilling effect on new technology and research.
Because TPM technology is not regulated in any way, and circumventing it is illegal, it makes TPMs law. If distributors don’t have competition against TPMs and TPMs are legally protected, then I feel that TPMs will be used to their fullest extent.
Examples are available of the DMCA having chilling effects on research in the US. And using TPMs to step on user rights is very readily available right now, iTunes enforces a 7 song CD-burn limit in Canada… where we paid over 37billion last year in levy charges for the right to make Mixed CDs. Now, I can download a program and remove the DRM legally in Canada to protect my rights, but without that option this is a very visible example of a group of Corporations re-writing “Canadian Law”. (this has personally affected my life, I enjoy making Mixed CDs for my cars CD player and was burnt by the burn limit). This also has an impact on my PC usage, since I run Linux and don’t own or want Windows, forcing me to have TPMs on my PC to make use of something I purchased is of great concern to me (since, historically, no ‘big name content corporations’ want to work with Linux).
I think one of the main points required is clarification on Copyrighted file swapping. I think that “P2P Downloading [of Copyrighted material]” should not be legal, I imagine most people agree. But there is quite a bit of confusion in this matter because of the Private Copying Levy scheme - this will only increase if/when the “iPod Levy” is introduced. Google searching that comes up with a million different interpretations (like: downloading is legal, uploading isn’t. Or, as long as you burn the download to a music CD then it is legal. Or, because downloading is legal and you are forced to upload to download, uploading is legal, etc. etc) I think this massive consumer (and legal?) confusion is a cause of a good chunk of the problem.
Stepping away from the confusion of music, I think most other types of works are pretty clear. In fact, even in school I remember being taught (the cliff notes version) what is and isn’t Copyright Infringement regarding copying from books, texts, pictures, etc.
I guess one other hope of mine regarding new legislation is Time and Format shifting covered under fair dealing. Even now Shaw and others are selling PVRs (aka:TiVo-like machines) to their customers - but time shifting is not necessarily a fair dealing right as of now. But, the big one is, no legal protection for TPMs.
(I also agree with needing to see the legislation, though I am concerned with the whole ‘fast track’ aspect of it. I want consumer rights to be one of the various stakeholders they get input from. And, I am sure, some of the scare is that the US does not seem to ever consider the public a stakeholder)
So it seems Basskin’s rhetoric was quite successful at wowing me. His comments on choice are indeed relating to DRM, not copyright licenses (which is the choice I support).
I’m still just getting into the intricacies of DRM, but I wonder why it’s a negative thing for a song to be sold with a copying limit. Aside from the issue of being charged twice for the right to copy (once by the cost of the song which comes with that limit and once for the CD onto which it is copied), of course. It seems that users and creators (and creators and other creators) need to come to an agreement on what exactly a consumer is paying for when they buy something.
Copyright law is certainly complicated, but I maintain that it is not impossible to teach or learn at a general level. Maybe I’m having a naive moment, but it seems that it’s better for people to have a basic understanding of the concepts of copyright than no understanding at all.
I dunno, I don’t see it as ‘copying’ so much. If I purchase a song and place it on my computer (at home, to listen to on my stereo) and then on my iPod (for the bus ride) and then onto my computer at work (to listen to while programming and not having to have my iPod draining it’s battery all day) I see that as still 1 copy. Sure, technically, I have it in 3 places. But, to enjoy the song that I purchased in different physical places, that is what I need to do. I see that has having 1 song in 3 different ‘formats’. I see that as still me having paid for, and using the 1 song I purchased.
If I copy it for a friend, IE: If I make a copy and give that copy away, that I see as a real _copy_ (and should have some limitations), while the other copies that I only used for my personal use of the song doesn’t really ‘feel’ like a copy to me. ha, does that make sense?
It does make sense.
I guess we need to figure out what a copy is these days. Have you seen this post?
http://blog.juliannayau.com/2007/12/16/copyright-the-physical-and-the-not-so-physical/
“Creativity and a sustainable living from creative work are not the same thing.”
No, but copyright law applies to the products both of “sustainable living from creative work”, and works that are merely the function of non-economic “creativity”.
The broad scope, and long duration, of copyright, is why we have to be very careful about tinkering with, let alone making wholesale changes to, the copyright laws, solely for the interests and at the behests of those who make a “sustainable living from creative work”. They are not the only ones with a stake in copyright law, and the powers that be have to stop approaching the question as if that was the case.