First and foremost, modern Canadian copyright needs to emphatically affirm the characteristics inherent to the digital medium. That is, it must tend strongly toward the liberty to freely reproduce that which is digital.

Creations manifested in a digital medium, similar to ideas themselves, are infinitely reproducible without degradation, and with virtually little effort or expenditure of physical resources. It is a huge disservice that copyright-oriented conversations often address creations manifested in a digital medium as though they're apprehended the same as physical items. A shovel can be stolen (I take it from a store and it's gone), a digital file (like an MP3 or FLAC music file) cannot. The digital file can on the other hand, be duplicated without loss of or degradation to the original. This is hugely significant in all of our attitudes toward addressing the digital economy.

Modern copyright needs to swim with both the lack of limitation and the absence of scarcity that characterize transmission of intellectual works manifested in digital media. A proper Canadian copyright policy should not include anything that enables the implementation of technologies, applications, agreements, or other methods of enforcement limiting or otherwise restricting the nature of the digital medium.

The best economic policy involving the digital medium must embrace limitless reproducibility in ways that are totally alien to physical objects. The sooner Canadian copyright law recognizes this, the sooner Canadians and Canadian businesses will be able to develop and launch modern digital-native business models that lead the global economy.

[updated 2009-09-13 12:45]

A: Fiscal advantages to help communications infrastructure and ISP's improve internet bandwidth instead of cutting it down as has been the trend the last 3 years. Here in quebec the majors like sympatico and videotron have eliminated affordable unlimited-bandwidth plans from their offerings.

[updated 2009-09-11 06:11]

85% of songs on i-tunes have yet to sell one copy.

[updated 2009-09-10 22:16]

I think that works should continue to be protected for all works of intellectual property.This means production facilities should continue to uphold copyright encryption of commercially produced works whether it be music, movies, audio books, or any other known or future format. I believe levies should either stay in place or be implemented. Royalty rates and terms should continually be amended. I could continue on but I will leave this for now.

Yours sincerely,

Gerald Lazorko

[updated 2009-09-08 19:15]

As a creator, I believe the Government must enact Copyright laws that ensure copyright is properly protected and fairly compensated. Protection of copyright is important for artists and businesses, and benefits all Canadians and the Canadian economy.

[updated 2009-09-08 12:54]

How about some kind of advertiser based solution like putting Advertisements in cover art or id tags
as well have adds next to places to listen to or download files.
It is being done now in the usa
www.reverbnation.com
And I am getting paid some $
might be worth looking into more here
maybe space to rent sign in my myspace playlist of songs getting over 1.5 mill hits , imagine the impressions that would be worth to advertisers

Would cost the government little and bring home cash to creators

[updated 2009-09-06 19:32]

Consumer confidence is necessary for strong digital economy. Digital restriction management consumer control, tivoization of devices (only approved software can run on a device), walled garden ecosystems (Apple App Store for iPhone), mobile phone locking and mobile price gouging, Internet throttling are hitting hard on Canada’s digital economy, making Canada an outsider rather than a leader. These practices are anticompetitive, not all of them are related to copyright though copyright is often abused to enforce these practices. If the law is changed to minimize copyright abuse, this would increase consumer confidence and make Canada’s digital economy stronger.

[updated 2009-09-04 02:21]

If "personal use" of music justifies that it should be free to the consumer, what about my "personal use" of gasoline and alcohol?

[updated 2009-09-01 08:39]

I believe this is the same question as the previous;

It is difficult to ensure that a particular region becomes the primary benefactor of technological innovation, it is easier to ensure that innovation is not stifled.

When looking at the IBM PC it seems clear to me that the success of the PC vs Apple was due to the open architecture of the hardware. Apple had(s) a much stronger OS, a more devoted following, and a longer history. When IBM opened the architecture, everyone started making PCs, and the market exploded.

In a closed environment one entity makes a little money. In an open environment everyone makes a lot of money.

The key then, is to ensure that the Internet remains free, uncensored, and neutral, and to ensure through strengthened antitrust laws, that no one entity gains too much control.

[updated 2009-08-30 12:57]

A move away from the scarcity model that our current copyright legislation promotes. Instead of holding fast to the belief that our creativity and ingenuity is limited and exhaustible, like some sort of oil reserve, we should model a more open, sharing-based system that focuses on our ability to create and innovate -- not on the ideas we "own".

[updated 2009-08-25 16:48]

Require that an internet user must provide proof or covenants of his/her identity in order to obtain a new email address or profile. Online crime, identity theft, spammers etc could be reduced if security was increased. The internet is currently in the "wild west" phase. Why are we allowing criminals to act anonymously on line? I'm personally willing to give up some privacy in the interest of a more secure internet environment.

[updated 2009-08-19 00:53]

The best way to ensure a thriving online economy long into the future is to stop trying to prop up business models of the past. Information is no longer scarce. It therefore cannot be sold as distributed as though it was. In order to do so you would have to clamp down and monitor all transactions and essentially put everyone under surveillance. Unfortunately this is the direction governments (being pulled by big business and big media lobbyists) have been going. This will ultimately fail in the long run, a bit like the failed war on drugs and other such ideologically driven endeavors. However they will certainly have good run at ruining the internet and stifle allot of creative activity before it finally falls apart.

In the future there will be no copyright, only laws requiring attribution. All will be allowed and encouraged to build upon the work of others. Software patents will also be a thing of the past as they are also equally stifling not to mention totally unfair.

I release everything I do under creative commons license. I welcome collaboration and improvement. I have considered shrink wrapping and trying to control my software releases in the past but always concluded it would be a mistake. I make my money through consulting and customization. My customers are not required to use a one size fits all corporate solution.

[updated 2009-08-17 00:22]

"Canadians pay an additional tax on all blank media and at a point paid a tax per GB on ipods and hard drives. A 50 pack of CD-r's (50) will run you at least $20+ for cheaper brands and a lot more for the better ones just because of it.

Even if you never burn a single music CD or download a single MP3, that tax is still being charged on any blank media you might use for pictures and everything else. What they want is to be able to keep the levies and still be able to bust your door down and cry a river."

That's what I am afraid of what copy right law is going to become.

[updated 2009-08-13 14:29]

Copyright should be modernized, but not to the effect in which copyright protection agencies should be able to control and censor the Internet.

The kind of change I would like to see is legalization in file sharing for personal uses. Surveys and studies show that P2P has helped sales and fosters creativity.

The idea for a 3 strikes type of disconnection plan is pathetic. With basic computer knowledge a child can easily crack someone else's WEP code and use their Internet illegally. A three strikes law would be worthless. Draconian laws are not our future.

Remember the more you limit P2P, the stronger it gets. Do a study on the history of file sharing and you will find that every time copyright organizations have tried to censor the content they failed.

Also please don't confuse filesharer's for pirates. Pirates are the people out on street corners making a profit from selling bad quality bootlegs. Filesharers are the people who use a file sharing protocol like bittorrent too exchange their files freely and most of the time legally.

[updated 2009-08-12 20:04]

It is hard to know where to post this under the 5 different subject areas that Nik chose. I have published a draft of my submission to the 2009 copyright consultation.

http://www.flora.ca/copyright2009/

Many of the proposals will seem familiar to anyone who has read my previous submissions or my BLOG on digital-copyright.ca . Feedback welcome, and you may also use any of these ideas in your own submissions.

New ideas might be:

* How I see the extremes in this debate being between the suggestion that any unauthorized usage (commercial or otherwise) of a copyrighted work is analogous to "theft" vs. the suggestion copyright holders shouldn't need permission or payment (non-commercial or otherwise).

* That some of the cause of infringement will be how the general public is interpreting some of the views of some of the "infringement is theft" extremism.

* That copyright infringement may in some cases economically harm competitors more than the copyright holder.

[updated 2009-08-11 17:08]

Is there a Candian Heritage Podcast version or ipod friendly of video found at http://copyright.econsultation.ca/topics-sujets/show-montrer/24 ?

Sure would be nice if I could listen to the town hall meeting on my IPOD and not be tied to the computer.

Is there a podcast feed? or downloadable version of this meeting?

Or does this concept violate copyright?

[updated 2009-08-02 17:29]

Offside of my comments on monetizing the networks, I completely agree with David Keeble's speech at the Gatineau round table (time index 65:05 in the round table audio file).

The creative industry need to understand that the digital economy has helped foster a cycle of "Creative Destruction" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

This Creative Destruction cycle can be found in virtually every effected IP industry. There is now clear evidence of Creative Destruction within the music industry, which also refutes the CRIA claims that WIPO nations like the UK have dramatically better results as a direct result of implementing stronger IP reforms and international treaties. Recorded Music sales are down by 6% in the UK.

PRS for Music is based in the UK who is the largest collecting body of royalties for their country released a report, that basically states this industry revenue has gone up on a whole of 4.7% in the middle of one of the worst global Recessions on record, and area's where this industry has seen the most growth, back up a lot of what I have said in previous posts.

The report also points out that the need to "understand the current ecosystem".

The wave of Creative Destruction we have seen has basically made the old model of "pay per copy" obsolete in my view, and largely unenforceable to implement and impossible to go back to. In order for creative talent to expect more money in, we need a different more relevant means of remuneration.

Without a different system in place, we could be looking at some further damage to these industries.

The PRS report also states: “Historically record companies have been the primary investor in new acts so the question the industry should ask is this: who will invest in developing the ‘heritage’ acts of tomorrow?”

Monetizing the networks will provide the necessary revenue streams needed to invest in the developing of the "heritage" acts of tomorrow. It will also allow a huge boom in innovation to occur. In the future I hope it will be the people that will be directly invest in these acts through monetization of the networks. That will create a sustainable value chain for our future creators, and force industry to relearn the ecosystem they are involved in so that new business models can emerge.

It's equally important that are creative talent understand that if monetization doesn't go through, nothing will change, and it may get worse. The past decade is evidence of this in other countries that have tried stronger IP laws, and have failed to drive in income from the consumer market on recorded sales.

[updated 2009-08-01 01:26]

ACUTE SEXISM is rabid throughout the entire 'digital tech economy'. Fact: only 1.5% women are involved in 'open source' or software development.

Kirrily Robert's, a female mathematician from San Francisco, looks at THIS PROBLEM with both clarity and understanding ...

http://tinyurl.com/mtebh8

(Above link includes video shot at OPSCON [Open Source Convention] this past weekend... see http://en.oreilly.com/oscon2009 for ADDITIONAL info)

Kirrily's blog is a 'must read' for both sexes to appreciate the PITFALLS & DANGER of continued gender based internet/apps development, globally...

[updated 2009-07-31 11:34]

Professional writers in Canada already face many economic challenges because this is such a small market. Reducing copyright protection will make it even more difficult to make a living. Creators need copyright protection.

[updated 2009-07-28 16:52]

The best way to protect a digital economy is to get a sense of the reality of the situation we are faced with. We have 2 sides of this debate and consultation that are either copy-right meaning they believe law and enforcement will create sustainable business models, and copy-left which believe copyright law is too harmful to society, innovation, and consumer rights.

The reality is that that either way this swings, it will be virtually impossible for law to be implemented or enforced on a grand scale with respect to the general population. We are in sort of like a cold war with neither side gaining ground, this is a stalemate. No matter what laws are put in place to protect creative groups, there will be equal counter measures to ensure the option of breaking those protections with the expectation of anonymity. What I think we should do is to monetize the networks. Each of us pay’s a certain amount of money extra on our internet bills, or the ISP’s are forced to contribute money without raising broadband prices. The payment scheme would be similar to cable TV. For media, remuneration will work as it does in Radio through SOCAN week, and with respect to cable TV ratings were 1 day or week out of every quarter content consumption over the networks “the air waves of the internet” is looked at and overseen by a watchdog to ensure consumer privacy.

That and combine the fact there are already newer ad models and business models currently in the production line that are tried tested and true for internet content that will pick up the slack. Apps for the Iphone through music is one such innovation, for TV and film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIqG7WgqQ-w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XftaEUYLz4

Allow the remuneration and innovation to occur through fair and professional law. Meaning let there be room for amateur content and innovation free of charge to allow to experiment, or allow a grace period on copyright for amateurs who are innovating and experimenting on newer business models for at least 2 years or up to a certain level of income that will become professional eventually, in which the monetization of the networks would pay for this to spark innovation. It is inadvisable for the government to be holding consultations on “copyright” laws that will largely be irrelevant and unenforceable when the legislation is introduced, because it doesn’t accurately reflect what’s going on in the digital economy, nor move on from this “cold war”.

We not only need remuneration to be built into the networks, but we also need industry to be forced into new business and advertising models that work, and allow them time to experiment with them and prefect them. The monetization of the networks will allow them time to do this. It’s a win/win. Other industry will follow eventually. We need a forum where data is treated as a commodity, in order to prepare for the very near future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InI5n3NTvR4

Apply this quote from the above video to this consultation: “Everybody is focused on compliance, and nobody is thinking about innovation and how to drive change”

[updated 2009-07-28 00:09]

'The Pirate Bay' is about to be 're-packaged' into a 'legit' company. Global pirates are scrambling to 'share' the existing archives using this mirror app:

http://tinyurl.com/lvpkfl

And, as is rightly stated, it is near impossible to prevent this kind of p2p/copying, especially when there is such an aggressive community that supports 'creative theft'.

I do not. I post the above link for people in this forum to UNDERSTAND how malignant this cancer is.

Every download for 'personal use' (blah!-such pigspeak!-) is a slap in the face to the original artist, regardless of all the 'yah, but, ya know, let's SHARE, why not' "Righteous Rebels" out there who so vehemently oppose 'Copyright'.

'Rip off' artists are bullying slime. They are equal to the "vampire squid" that are slithering thru the corporate world who are also trying make 'a back-hand buck' off this reprehensible behaviour.

Come on people.
Time to vote 'em off the island.

Protect, encourage, and support artists.
Straight up.

[updated 2009-07-27 17:11]

A successful economy requires a healthy balance between the rights of the seller and the rights of the buyer. This is what is missing today. Companies with a 70 year monopoly are dictating the terms of the sale, applying non competitive practices on their hardware platforms and ignoring the rights of the consumer. They are then lobbying for tougher laws to protect them because their sales are dropping.

Any changes to the copyright laws have to be balanced with updated changes to the consumer protection laws. In my opinion this is where the previous Bill C61 failed. It contained some recognition of consumer rights but then allowed digital locks to be implemented that didn't recognize the consumer rights. We can't make criminals of consumers that are exercising their rights.

A Digital Rights Management (DRM) system must manage all rights or none. The vendors can not continue to implement digital locks that protect their goals at the expense of consumer rights. This just devalues the digital content. The laws must limit what the digital locks can and can't do. If the digital lock violates the consumers rights then the consumer requires either the legal right to break the digital lock or the ability to take legal actions against the company that implemented them including compensation.

The digital locks must not be able to lock the content beyond the copyright limit. If the copyright is for 50 years then they must not be allowed to lock the content beyond this period of time.

The digital locks require a fail safe mechanism. If a digital lock is deployed in Canada the party that implemented the lock should be required to register with a third party a utility that is proven to unlock the content. The third party firm (i.e. Accounting firm) would the be obligated to publicly release the utility if the company goes out of business or decides to exit the market. If the rights holder still requires the content to be protected they must provide replacement content.

The digital locks must not be able to limit the content to a single vendors platform. If the consumer purchases content from Vendor A they must have the ability to export the content to Vendor B's platform if the content is the same format. In other words the vendors must not be allowed to use digital locks to create incompatibility.

The consumer must be recognized as owning the right to consume the content in any form they desire.

What I'm suggesting only increases the value of the digital content that is being purchased and would make for a sustainable digital economy. Canada should be leading in this area rather then following other countries mistakes.

[updated 2009-07-25 11:57]

In a digital commodity market do we not see environmental benefits in less consumption of physical goods? If our global reputation suffers from our lack of progress on the negative environmental impact of resource-driven activity, could we not see our environmental reputation improve from making the transfer of digital goods less punitive?

Part of the reason that I no longer buy DVDs is because the digital distribution alternatives made me much more aware of the environmental footprint associated with it. The other was that I was no longer willing to keep repaying for the same content due to VHS to DVD to HD-DVD (yes, I got burned on that failure) format shifts.

While not a primary driver for the consultation I feel that enviromental impact is a valid point to bring into the discussion. It could be likely that we would see more DRM that is tied to the actual physical possession of a product if DRM is given the weight that it would be if bill C-61 was passed.

Finally, here is an interesting quote from a 2007 article titled "How the Physical Distribution of Digital Goods Impacts the Environment" by Carolyn Pritchard:

"It is difficult to place an exact estimate on the total environmental impact of an individual CD. In relation to just greenhouse gases, one study estimates an impact of 1 kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalents for each music CD produced, packaged and delivered. About half of this comes from the production of the CD and half from transportation. Another study, which focused on alternative approaches to music reproduction and distribution, estimated a net difference of approximately one 1 kilogram of greenhouse emissions between physical and electronic distribution (assuming that the electronic media isn’t simply burned onto a CD by the recipient)."

[updated 2009-07-24 17:28]

The internet has revolutionized our society in every conceivable way!

Piracy will never, EVER be abolished unless content is given away freely by its creators. Trying to create laws to stop it or laws to control it are doomed to fail every single time without fail!

To make Canada a leader in the digital economy, I believe freedom of content distribution MUST take place. The internet can simply not be held back and there are always ALWAYS going to be work arounds to DRM and paid (iTunes) or subscription (Napster) systems.

The content is ALWAYS going to be floating around online for people to download for free. Don't try and control that because it CANNOT be controlled in a Democratic free country. Nothing short of a Socialist society can control that and we don't want that now, do we ;)

The ONLY solution for the problem of royalties and compensation (of content creators and distributors) while maintaining this digital economy is an Entertainment Tax on digital devices used to Acquire, store, display and play digital content.

Take the digital media tariffs. I think the tax on the iPods was a good thing! I think the tax on blank media is a good thing. So, take that idea and run with it!

As an example;

Allow file sharing. Allow the LEGAL downloading of movies, television shows and music. To compensate, tax the devices used to acquire store and play the content. These devices are (but not limited to)

-digital media (blank DVD, Bluray, USB sticks)
-hard disk drives (internal and external)
-internet connections
-personal computers/laptops/net-books
-televisions
-home theater equipment
-car audio equipment

Basically, any device capable of playing or acquiring the content should be taxed. This tax should be the same for every product. Don't make it confusing for the consumer or end user. Everyone should know they are going to pay x% on any of these products.

I do not believe that the content itself needs to be taxed, as it is unable in its own capacity to be copied or distributed. The above list of products are what need to be considered.

If you consider how many homes are going to purchase a new LCD or Plasma TV or a new computer each year, or how many cars will get new CD players or DVD screens or speakers, you'll begin to see why this makes sense!

I'll use the automotive industry as an example. Each and every oil service performed has an environmental levy imposed. Each tire sold has a levy. Every time a new car is sold with air conditioning, there is a levy.

These levees are imposed to negate the cost of environmental programs and protection. People don't complain about this. In fact, 99/100 times they understand and agree with them!

The goal is not to go crazy and make products/services difficult to purchase or afford, but make it reasonable enough that consumers can accept and embrace the tax because they can tangibly see and hear the benefits.

Like the automotive example above, it shouldn't cost you $100 tax per tire... that is unnecessary!. But $2/tire is a lot in the long run considering how many tires are sold in Canada and yet, it does not affect the purchaser of the tires in a negative way.

<b>Let them know how the tax will benefit them and what it can do FOR THEM</b>

In my opinion, the consumers are more likely to pay a slight tax on their digital products to enjoy extra freedom with their use!

This is the only way that, artists, actors, directors, content providers etc... will ever be properly compensated for the wonder called the internet.

This is all my 2¢... so please respond accordingly.

[updated 2009-07-24 01:31]

My main concerns about "modernized" copyright laws were very apparent in C-61.

Fair dealing is a vital piece of any reasonable copyright law, and needs to be preserved. While specifically enumerating fair dealing's provisions as in C-61 may be useful, it must be clear that these provisions are not exclusive; I was concerned that the specific measures in C-61 could be interpreted to have meant that consumers of copyrighted media had the rights specified and no others.

My biggest concern however is the so called "digital locks" provisions. While I could understand an increased penalty for breaking various protection schemes FOR THE PURPOSE of violating copyright, banning the bypassing of these provisions in general only serves to weaken fair dealing to no positive end. In effect it says that fair dealing gives certain rights, unless the copyright holder says otherwise. This is not reasonable, fair dealing is, and should be based in giving the user of content the ability to use as he or she sees fit. Equating the act of bypassing a system intended, for example, to restrict music to a specific brand of player with a violation, while also stating that consumers may, in general, "platform shift" content makes no sense whatsoever.

Beyond this I have few concerns about copyright provisions. Ideally I believe shorter terms are better for the public at large, but in practice this doesn't so much mean shortening Canadian terms avoiding the American "author's life plus 95 years" term length. Life +50 should be more than sufficient, and I do wonder if a shorter time might be reasonable.

Finally, crown copyright should be eliminated. It serves no purpose but to restrict the availability of government information.

[updated 2009-07-23 16:36]

I'm going to take this question for my discussion about copying. I think this is something that is sorely misunderstood by many people because so few of us actually know how a DVD player, or a CD player work.
Copying is REQUIRED to play any CD, DVD or Blue-Ray disc, or even mp3s and other non-physical media. I'm not going to spell out the circuits and data path of a disc player or personal music device. What you need to know is that every one of these devices must copy, in part or as a whole, the content they are to play from the source medium (disc or hard drive) into their internal memory. The only difference between this and ripping the content to another device is the level of persistence. It is illegal to steal a million dollars, even if you give it back a week later.
Copyright law should reflect technological realities as much as the purpose of use. To foster a digital economy this is essential to allow device/software creators to understand the legality of their creation based on its technical capabilities and operations.

Writing this I cannot help but see the similarities to how our brains work. We copy and imitate from birth, it is how we learn language, listen to music, watch movies, etc. Studies have even shown that the brain cannot differentiate between a memory and a current experience, which is why dreams are so real. We are copying machines, it is how we are fundamentally built.

[updated 2009-07-22 22:43]

Besides being a "buzzword" what it meant by the phrase: "global, digital economy?"

Most "Intellectual Property" such as patent and trademark law appear to be beyond the scope of this consultation. However, patent and trademark law is being leveraged in an attempt to enforce Digital Rights Management. For example, I have heard rumours that digital video standards are a patent mine-field. Trademarks are use to signal "authorized players" that must license the patents in order to decode the content.

The biggest difference between "analog" and "digital" is the ability to use (forward error-correction) or (re-transmission) to facilitate loss-less copying.

I think loss-less copying is what really scares the so-called "content providers." One thing that becomes lost in the debate is: that EVERYBODY is a "content provider" to varying degrees. Digital Rights Management systems would have "content providers" pay a license fee to play only on "authorized players." The wide-spread use of DRM threatens free-speech.

Wow, that was dense.

[updated 2009-07-22 21:12]

One of the most important things is to decide to lead, rather than follow. In particular, following the USA is not the way to lead.

The global digital economy will be led by countries with extremely fast, cheap connectivity (both wired and wireless) very widely available with the users determining the best use for it, and maximum ease of use of digital material. That means a vibrant public domain, broad fair use, easy location of rightsholders, minimal number of people to deal with to clear rights, and maximum freedom to use material in a novel manner even if the rightsholders don't agree. It also means that governments at all levels need to make all the raw data they collect and the results of all the research they fund freely and easily available.

Finally, we need to lead the way internationally by pushing for agreed minimal standards for exceptions to copyright, for a follow-on to Berne that reduces the term of copyright to something more reasonable in an era when business moves much faster than it used to and more in line with the expectations of most Canadians, for no new copyright-like rights for broadcasters, and for recognition that "counterfeiting" is about deceiving the consumer, not harming the producer.

[updated 2009-07-22 13:26]

Nik, nnanos@nanosresearch.com <nnanos@nanosresearch.com>

Can you fix the website so that is not locked to 800x600 some of the threads are being squished...for users that are out of the 90s we can see wider screens and would appreciate it.

Thanks,

[updated 2009-07-22 01:15]

Reduction of copyright term to the 25-year range. Elimination of Crown Copyright. Resistance to prohibitions on reverse engineering, to media industry-influenced technical specifications in electronic devices, to a regime where a notice of infringement can suppress speech without verification of infringement.

The US model is an invitation to failure. When industry reponds to the new environment creatively instead of defensively, there may emerge more tenable methods to promote innovation and investment. DCMA sytle reactions only prolong the transition and reduce innovation.

[updated 2009-07-21 18:57]

People pirate because of a few main reasons:

1. There is little to no DRM free, reasonably priced alternative (not really true anymore for music, depending on what you feel a reasonable price is)
2. There is no reliable, easy way to get the content digitally through legal means (Movies, TV, some Music, E-Books, etc).
3. Its very easy to get pirated material. Much more so then to get the digital equivalent.

The answer, IMO, is for the industry to smarten up, remove DRM form all media, and provide the media, digitally and DRM free at a reasonable price (RIAA recently conceded that DRM is dead).

Digital downloads do not require packaging or shipping, storefronts, etc. They require much less staff to produce and sell. Really, a huge portion of the costs are gone when compared to traditional media. So technically they should be cheaper than their physical counterparts.

As someone else pointed out once you've purchased the licence for a particular work, its yours, you should be able to switch formats (iPod, HTPC, CD, etc) without incurring any additional costs as long as you are not increasing the bit rate/quality. (ie: if you purchase a DVD version of a movie, it does not give you the right to download an HD version, but the opposite is true.)

- Recent studies show that piracy may in fact increase digital sales, not decrease them.
- Certain people will always pirate. If you add throttling, and web snooping capabilities they will (and are) switch to encryption and private VPNs.
- I believe that it is much more cost effective to give up this ridiculous fight and offer people cheaper, easy to use methods of getting what they want.

[updated 2009-07-21 13:24]

Copyright should be modernized to ensure that copyright holders are fairly compensated in some way, but prevented from abusing their privileges and unduly influencing the Canadian marketplace.

Copyright infringement should only be enforceable if the work is in fact made available by the copyright holder in the format of the alleged infringement.

Fair dealing needs to be explicitly specified in the Copyright Act. If the term of copyright is not shortened, it should irreversibly lapse once the work is no longer commercially available from the copyright holder.

Modification, reverse engineering, and distributing patches for the purpose of ensuring software or hardware functionality should be explicitly allowed.

For works where the copyright is held by a corporation, the copyright term should be a fixed time from the date of publication.

Statutory damages should only be available in cases of commercial copyright infringement. For non-commercial infringement real damages should have to be proven in court.

If a copyrighted work is licensed, moving it from one format to another should not constitute infringement.

Lastly, there should be fines for frivolous allegations of copyright infringement or intentional interference with protected fair dealing.

[updated 2009-07-20 20:27]

As a Professional Photographer posts personal works on the Internet and licenses stock photography worldwide, I hope that the Copyright law will protect what is mine.

NO ONE should be able to use my work unless I (or my representative(s)) have given express permission for that party to use my work, derivative or otherwise whether in print or digital media.

If the license states a specific usage, that should be the only usage permitted until or unless the party requesting usage gets a specific license (again, from myself or my representative(s)) to use the work beyond its original licensed media and terms of usage.

Just because a new media exists, should not give a party the right to use my work in or on that media unless expressly permitted by me, the author.

Canadian Copyright should also uphold the traditional, common copyright that exists when an author creates a work it is immediately owned by that author (whether music, photograph, digital image or other handmade art) and if and when the author posts an original work, that it should not be allowed to be posted or otherwise reposted, whether original or derivative, in a digital or printed format without the original author's (or his agent's) express permission.

I am confident that the Canadian Government will protect my work and the sovereignty of all Canadians through copyright protection.

[updated 2009-07-20 18:42]

Net-Neutrality should be the cornerstone of any Economy.

ISP's and other service providers should not be able to limit or substitute information to me without my consent (add's etc). If I pay for a service I would expect to be able to take advantage of the complete service and not just want is convenient to the service provide.

Cell phone locks should not be allowed...If I want to switch carriers, I should be allowed...cell contracts should have a 30 out day clause like all other services.

On Throttling, If a car manufacture sold you an automobile that could do X, Y and Z, and then 2 months down the road it would only do X, and sometimes Y and Z then the company should provide our money back or fix the issue with the car. Service providers should be held to the same standard or release us from any contract and provide a portion of the money back for the descrease in service.

[updated 2009-07-20 15:38]