As a producer of copyrighted works, both as an academic and a computer programmer, it seems fair to me that I should have some say over those works. It would be tempting to add something about "especially as my livelihood depends on it", but I realize such an argument is flawed. Society has no more obligation to make it possible for me to earn my living as an academic or a programmer than it had to all the trappers, blacksmiths, farm hands, and carriage builders who historically had to find a new line of work. Indeed, protection of these careers would have been to society's detriment, greatly impeding the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

Why then do we protect certain careers through a law like copyright? The reason espoused in the United States Constitution is "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The creative process does not require copyright. Hobby programmers and garage bands continue to produce without any expectation of reward. However, society feels we are better served by providing additional encouragement for work through granting limited exclusive rights. To truly serve society as well as the creators though, these rights need to be reasonable.

We thus see the true idea of copyright is not some inalienable right, but rather an attempt to balance the creation of works with their dissemination. While it may be difficult to do given the power of lobby groups and a vocal public, it is under this light that copyright law must viewed. It raises some very poignant questions. I would like to explore a series of questions related to the public's access to copyrighted works with respect to the term of copyright and digital rights managment (DRM) schemes and anti-circumvention clauses.

Why is it that the copyright term was expanded to the author's life plus fifty years? Surely, if a work is going to be successful, it will have been long before this time and society will have reimbursed its creator handsomely. Have the Beatles not made sufficient money from their existing works that, if invested properly, it would allow them to spend the rest of their lives pursuing whatever creative endeavours they may so desire? Why should society ensure descendants are able to continue to live off the avails of their parents long beyond their childhood years? If this was the desire of the parents, could they not have invested and endowed monies already earned the same as everyone else?

Does Microsoft really need the copyright on Windows 3.1 to persist for several more decades? Will there even be a computer capable of running Windows 3.1 when it comes out of copyright? This is an important point. While copyright amendments have been extending the term, technology obsolescence has been reducing the lifespan of modern media. For example, in just a few short decades, NASA was reduced to having only one machine capable of still extracting the data on the historic Apollo master tapes, and that machine was only saved by the dogged persistence of some retired employees.

Even faster than device obsolescence, however, is format obsolescence, especially the various proprietary formats designed to implement DRM schemes. If not for a significant outcry, consumers of Microsoft's MSN Music, Yahoo's Music Unlimited, and WalMart's online music store would have found themselves losing access to the content they paid for when the companies decided to discontinue their license servers. This problem is only exacerbated by proposed anti-circumvention clauses that make the act of extracting, or providing hardware or software to extract, data from such formats illegal no matter what the circumstances. How will I be able to obtain a license key for a new computer for my purchased copy of QuickTax 2008 in a few years time if the company goes insolvent in the meantime?

Clearly the digital age poses at least as many important questions for society's continued access to its content as it does for the encouragement of content production by granting creator-limited exclusive rights. Especially threatening to the former are blanket clauses like anti-circumvention, which has implications far beyond just the restriction of copying. Unfortunately, there are no well-funded lobby groups pushing these issues. The government will have to be careful not to fall into the trap it did in 1988 when it hurriedly amended the copyright law to address producers' concerns all the while promising to address consumer concerns in a series of later amendments. We are still waiting for those.

[updated 2009-09-13 22:14]

If copyright policy introduces excessive punitive damages, the online community will push for all data transfers to be encrypted. This will seriously limit the government's ability to intercept any communications.

Currently, most internet traffic passes unencrypted from point to point. Technology has progressed to the point where the computational cost of encrypting and decrypting data is negligible. Additionally, traffic can be routed within a network without logging, where the original source and intended destination of the traffic is known only to the originator. The frameworks for Internet anonymity are well developed and user-friendly, is the world prepared for unconfinable speech to become commonplace?

Virtual Private Networks allow users to encrypt their data until it reaches the node where their data is released to the internet. In a properly anonymized VPN, not even the operator of the network knows who a communication originated from. Subpoenas are of little buse in such cases, compounded by the fact that the network can connect to computers in any country. These services are increasing in popularity, and it is possible for them to be set up in a peer-to-peer manner with no service fees.

Undesirable elements of society such as child abusers and organised criminals already use anonymity services. If file sharers popularise these techniques it will dilute encrypted traffic to the point where it is impossible to separate legitimate and illegitimate traffic.

The lasting legacy of restrictive copyright policy may very well be the loss of control over the spread of information. Is this a reasonable exchange for the protection of Hollywood's copyrights?

The Internet was designed to withstand thermonuclear attack. The net views censorship as damage and routes around it.

o o
o o

IPredator, Xerobank and Tor are already successful. The next generation of anonymity networks will apply more advanced techniques, with better user interfaces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key_encryption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPREDator
https://xerobank.com/support/articles/top-10-anonymity-myths/

[updated 2009-09-12 22:29]

A: If changes are made they should be to protect citizens against media corporatism because we can wake up and smell the coffee and see the raping of individuals to bankruptcy happening south of the border.

[updated 2009-09-11 05:52]

Firstly, copyright laws will not stand the test of time. Perhaps they have worked decently well since they have been created up until the past decade or two. With the advent of cassette tapes these laws needed to be changed, the same with CDRs and now the internet. No one can predict what future technologies will enable or how the laws will need to be changed. What we need to do is look at the current situation and make laws that protect the citizens of Canada as well as the content producers. What we CANNOT do is look at what business practices past laws have created and do anything possible to continue to support them.

Prior to recording music, musicians performed live for audiences to make money. With recorded music, they could sell music to the fans - this created the recording industry. Now there is a huge industry based on recording, marketing and distributing this music. These are middle men - and suddenly with the advent of the internet - their jobs are (mostly) no longer needed. Distribution is easy, and cheap. Recording can be done _much_ cheaper and even in home studios / apartments. New laws MUST NOT reinforce the aging business practices that are no longer viable. All new technologies destroy jobs and change business practices, this has happened in nearly every single business sector. This time however the copyright holders - which are not the creators themselves, but the middlemen - have decided to sue the customers and pressure the government to create laws which remove individual freedoms from the citizens.

That being said laws need to be created to protect the creators as well as the users, and NOT the middlemen. I am not a law major, or professor or lawyer, so my ideas for what to create in terms of laws aren't terribly well thought out. That being said, if I purchase a music CD - I am allowed to copy that cd onto my computer, my iPod, my xbox, make a backup copy. This I should be allowed to do. This music should not expire, should not prohibit me from copying it to non-Sony/Apple/Etc. devices. DRM is flawed and a terrible option and should not be supported by the government. Any law which makes breaking DRM for fair/home use illegal doesn't make sense. If I spend $1000 at the Apple store on music and movies, 5 years later Apple goes bankrupt [see Walmart DRM, many others for real examples] - I can no longer listen to or watch any of my music / movies.

Canada values personal freedoms, not large corporations dictating what we can and cannot do with our possessions. We need to realize that you cannot stop people on the internet from copyright infringement (note: not stealing, not 'pirating') - copyright infringement. What we can do is encourage companies to provide the content in a manner that the public _wants_, and make to make it accessible, easy and cheap. They may not make as much money (billions) as they used to, but times change, and business practices must adapt.

Eg. [a year ago with Apple DRM] One click at a webpage can get you every single album by a band for free. This music could be played on ANY device that one owns. Purchasing a CD from a store, you must first 'rip' the music off the cd, this breaks the non-copying clause on the CD and is illegal. Or you could purchase all of the albums from iTunes and ONLY play these tracks on iTunes or an iPod. What about my Zune ? Nope, xbox ? Nope, etc. If it is easier, cheaper, faster, and more accessible to infringe a copyright than to purchase something, people will infringe those copyrights. If something can be that free/easy/fast/accessible for 'piraters' then how come companies cannot provide the same thing ? They can. Changing copyright laws for these companies only means that they will not have to adapt. Apple adapted, and one can now play their music on any device, and it is in fact _easier_ to purchase from Apple than to download a torrent. This is progress.

Holding websites accountable for the links they provide is also useless. One can shut down The Pirate Bay, or Isohunt, or any number of other sites but this will NOT prevent people from downloading content. It will move it somewhere else, or force them to create an even _better_ method of distribution (see Napster shutdown -> Limewire lawsuites -> BitTorrent). As well one can find all of this content just as easily on Google. Try to shut down Google first, then move on to Isohunt. This doesn't address any problems, is unsustainable, and a waste of time. We need to focus on actual solutions and ways to change the current business models and view of copyright, not silly websites with pointers and links.

Finally - any law created that makes the simple act of ripping a CD or creating a backup copy of a work, or watching a DVD on a Linux machine illegal, will make all citizens criminals and is also unenforceable.

[updated 2009-09-09 12:08]

Food for thought.

Only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women ... how come?

Wonder WHY.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/31/only-13-of-wikipedia-contributors-are-women-study-says/

[updated 2009-09-03 10:25]

Circumvention of a technology in itself (re. DRM) should be allowed or left out completly. As technologies change, being allowed to tranfer data/media to another format in order to continue to use the product, in my view is still within the intent and spirit of the original license. When speaking of transfer from one party to another, which would be a breach if not done within the confines of a fair use clause, language that refers to a conveyance can not be specific as to the type of conveyance. Technology and formats keep changing. To be specific about a type of conveyance limits the language to only existing technology. I suggest "any type of conveyance, real or imagined"

[updated 2009-08-31 09:21]

Legislation to stand the test of time will need to be broadly and philosophically stated so that despite changes in technology, the principles will still apply.

It is in the interest of Canadians that their ideas be available to as many others in their own country and elsewhere in the country as possible so that we can share in a cultural conversation, debate and perhaps a social project.

The depository functions of the National Library need to be broadened so that we will have multiple copies or the right to multiple copying of all Canadian creations available across the country. This will require a major investment in culture, but it is necessary.

[updated 2009-08-28 21:04]

The "freedom to own property" is not considered a fundamental freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To truly represent Canadian values and interests there should be no copyright system at all, since copyrights are a means to protect an individuals ownership of intellectual property.

[updated 2009-08-28 17:37]

To encourage innovation and creativity, I believe several changes could be made. If innovation and creativity are really the goal, the changes I would expect to see would reduce the ability of industrial rights holders to rely on their back-catalog at the expense of new creations.

I'd expect works to fall into the public domain quicker.
I'd expect increasing protection for consumers of works to use their purchases however, wherever and whenever they choose.
I'd expect derivative works to be allowed and encouraged.
I'd expect that end-user-licencing-agreements would not be allowed to interfere with consumer rights by assigning post-purchase control to the rights holder.

[updated 2009-08-21 22:14]

Copyright law has always responded, albeit usually belatedly, to changes in technology and social attitudes to authors and publishers. To expect that this will somehow be staunched in the future by making copyright impervious to these changes by making it 'stand the test of time' is alarmingly naive and short-sighted.

[updated 2009-08-19 16:30]

Copyright law cannot 'withstand the test of time' when it comes to storage formats/media. In short: if something can be played, it can be recorded. Any attempt to change this negatively impacts the user's rights to access something they bought in a fashion they want.

Changing the law to keep up with media storage technology is a futile endeavour: all known forms of encryption can be circumvented and will be, total enforcement is impossible, and changes tend to protect industry (most of it foreign-owned) at the expense of consumers (citizens) and reasonable fair use/access.

It should not be the position or responsibility of the government of Canada to come to the aid of businesses (again, largely foreign-owned) rigidly adhering to failing business models.

[updated 2009-08-18 01:41]

It is a useless exercise for the Parliament, Courts, and RCMP, to do anything.

The Chief UK scientist announces catastrophy in the next 20 years from a 9 billion population, and needs for food, water, and energy, unless governments boldly prepare.

Worrying about copyright file-sharing is useless, among other reasons, because

the files are already out there and are easily updated at local libraries,

500 gigabite digital storage drives, the size of a deck of cards, sell for about $100,

each holds somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 tracks of music, for most people, more than a lifetime's worth,

these collections are very easily shared without the internet,
and are shared like a reverse pyramid club.

Double one fifty times and i think you have more than the # of atoms in the universe.

These pocket collections are perfectly legal even in the U.S.

Unless police search for them, there is no way to prevent anyone who wants a copy to have it.

[updated 2009-08-15 23:08]

Our Government must look at the situation realistically in order to stand the test of time. If the government cannot accomplish this, then we’ll be in an endless cycle of reform. A complete ban of DRM is needed. It has been largely rejected by the market, and implementing laws of fair use or protecting DRM locks will give creators a false sense of security. You cannot enforce laws around DRM. It will be impossible to prove Bob in his basement broke the digital locks for whatever purpose in a court of law.

End the private copy regime. How many times do Canadians have to pay for content, and what technologies will we have to implement this in the future, and reform AGAIN?

It’s time that industry gets comfortable with the term “market” instead of “thieves” or “pirates” with respect to P2P downloading. This is where some of the market has chosen to go, and for many industries, it is a part of their business model and helping to push forward income in other area’s by providing exposure to product, whether they like it or not.

http://www.dime-eu.org/node/477#comment-1

We need to monetize this network for the benefit of creators and industry. It’s part of the digital economy. If we harm these networks or reduce their usefulness, than we can potential cause further damage to these industries and to those that have chosen to adapt their models around these networks. That damage could be a lot more significant to industry other than the obvious lost sale, due to area’s in which we are seeing a shift in income. The rights of creators who’ve made the choice, and invested in money to adapt to these networks must also be respected!

Put forth massive restrictions on Governments time on those that refuse to follow the market in the future. In a free market environment, let those who can’t adapt die off, and those that have adapted rise and create new opportunities through innovation. Let industry sort itself out. We should assist in insuring laws can adapt quickly and properly to new innovations and business models to help offset the destructive process we are seeing.

[updated 2009-08-13 04:41]

to pass the test of time a new law should enshrine fair use and clearly define fair use. This should include use such as - using as reference material for research and education, parody, news reporting, private copying, format shifting. Content producers rights should be clearly spelt out and commercial and non commercial infringement should be kept separate. What is needed is a charter of Digital Rights which ensures that consumers are not hurt by restrictive digital locks or DRM, educators can freely use content, and content can be accessed in forever without the need of breaking any kind of crippling digital locks.

[updated 2009-08-05 01:10]

Education regarding IP and copyright is essential at provincial and federal levels of engagement. Meaning federal and provincial employees need to understand the law of intellectual Property and protocols regarding all property rights.Most of the time there is no discussions or protocol. However the cultural economy and innovation based economies are balanced upon the understanding of this law. I am from Prince Edward Island. How can a province make this a reality? What is the engine and how is it managed? How can a person protect against theft and how much will it cost to protect your property in this new economy?

I can tell first hand that management do not understand the new economy and the rules of the road. In my opinion this is a travesty of justice in the new economy and in the world I live in. Their are no rules or policies that people can point to. How do I protect myself from theft?

[updated 2009-08-01 17:50]

The law needs to be format neutral. The test of a good copyright law is one that can last one hundred years rather than ten. This trend of updating the Copyright Act every 8-12 years because of changes in technology is ridiculous. Good law should be applicable far into the future. There is nothing about the Internet and the digital world that doesn't echo the copyright controversies around player pianos, the introduction of radio, and horror of horror the photocopier.

[updated 2009-07-28 16:41]

A new copyright system that will stand the test of time:

The problem we are currently facing within our copyright system is that it is a product of the Industrial Age. The current system worked fairly well in protecting individuals and corporations from predation by other corporations, an Industrial Age problem. However, we're in the Information Age now and the old copyright laws have been perverted to protect corporations from individuals, which is absurd. The existing copyright laws don't work this way, they can't work, and we shouldn't even try to make them work. We should toss them out and build a new system.

As the Industrial Age unfolded, and corporations sprang into existence off the ability to mass-produce stuff, there was a natural progression towards packaging and selling copies of 'ideas', a term I'll use to describe stories, songs, and other works currently defined as Intellectual Property. Mass-production technology and equipment was required to take advantage of this packaging, and this made the packaging and selling of ideas profitable for corporations. For example, while it was possible to sit down and copy the story from a book by hand, it was not economical to do so for profit. Only corporations had the resources to mass-produce enough copies of anything to make any difference and the legal framework that grew during this era reflected this. Copyright law works reasonably well to protect individuals and corporations from the greedy profiteering of other corporations that were attempting to mass-produce works that they were not entitled to. The more flagrant the un-entitled copying, the larger the target these corporations became, and, hopefully, the more money they could be sued for. However, this system fell apart during the Information Revolution.

In the Information Age, ideas don't need to be packaged. They exist as information and once produced they can be copied, transported, distributed, and consumed for virtually nothing. A story, a song, a movie, this site, everything digitised exists in an ephemeral state, merely a pattern of encoding. They aren't even the bits that they are stored in, just the orientation. Moving a song from one place to another doesn't make the original place lighter, the new location heavier. Nothing really moves, except information. Copying a song, a movie, or anything digitised is no different than telling someone an idea you had, a thought shared between friends. This is the result of the Information Revolution, the free flow of ideas, in whatever their form. Of course, this causes a few problems for corporations in the business of selling copies of ideas.

Corporations, claiming a erosion of profits, have pushed to use the old copyright system against individuals instead of other corporations. This makes no sense. When ideas are freely copied between people, or even millions of people as it the promise of the Information Age, there is no profit making, no legal target getting rich through ill-gotten gains, just individuals. The most flagrant violator, responsible for sharing huge quantities of protected information to millions of people, could be child with no income at all. What's more, said child might not have even intended to share with so many people. Copyright is a legal system designed to punish abusers through financial levies. How can this work against people that are not profiting from said abuse? Where will the money come from?

The reality of the situation is that in the Information Age, there is no longer any money in distributing copies of ideas. How could it be otherwise when it costs nothing to make a copy? The Industrial Age is over, replaced by the Information Age. Unfortunately, as with most revolutions, there is a messy side. Corporations, and the individuals that create ideas, must adapt to this new reality. Clinging to the past, attempting to enforce a legal framework that no longer makes sense, will only delay the inevitable. Things have changed, ideas can now be freely copied, and attempting to profit from the distribution of copies is an idiotic thing to do. Yes, corporations will fail, business models will have to dramatically alter, artists will have to find a new way to earn a living. But, these old business models and ways to earn a living did not always exist. They were products of the Industrial Age, but that age is done. We're in the Information Age now, and people are going to have to adapt to this new reality. So too will the laws.

How should the new laws look?

First, they must reflect the reality of the Information Age. When ideas; stories, songs, movies, anything that can be digitised; can be copied for free, the concept of "distribution rights" makes no sense. No one can control the flow of information once it has been published; any obstacle put up to obstruct this flow will merely divert the flow to another path. As such, laws that protect distribution rights must go; they are anachronistic and have no place in our future.

Second, ideas will always have creators and these people need this status protected. Within the academic community, people that copy the ideas of another are expected to cite their sources; to not do so is called plagiarism and is a serious academic offense. This concept must be extended through legal protection for all distributed works. Any distribution or use of an existing idea, in whatever form, must be accompanied by a citation of its source, the creator. Failing to do so should result in some form of punishment.

Third, the right to profit from an idea must be protected. Now, this concept must not be bastardised, like the current copyright system, to include the right not to have profits eroded through un-sanctioned distribution. Vague "potential future profits" cannot and should not be protected. However, if anyone is to actually profit from the distribution or use of any idea, then the creator of said idea should be entitled to at least a reasonable share of these profits. Assuming there is a clear citation path outlining all that have had a reasonable input, as would be the case if the second point were legally implemented, then legally established royalties would make sense.

If the above three points were implemented within a legal framework, Canadian creators of ideas would feel comfortable publishing them because they would know that those ideas would be accompanied by citations, thus improving their ability to raise income for new ideas. These creators would also have legal recourse if some corporation managed to find a way to profit from their ideas. Together, this approach will encourage publication, which is the fuel of the Information Age.

We have gone through a revolution and are now firmly within the Information Age. As with all revolutions, there is some turmoil and change. The Industrial Age concept of packaging and selling copies of ideas is an obvious loser and those profiting from this now-defunct business model must change. Protecting them through a flawed and unenforceable legal framework will only delay the inevitable. These people must find a new way to earn a living, just like the blacksmiths and stable-boys of old. We simply don't need them anymore. Many people decry that this change will leave artists, the creators of ideas, with no way to earn a living. However, this argument is absurd. If there is demand for what a person creates, then the business model to pay for this will evolve. If people want the creative output of an artist, they will find a way to pay that artist to create. Just because one approach, the selling of copies, has now failed, it does mean that there is no way for artists to earn a living. Yes, times have changed and some old ways of doing things no longer work but new ways have and will be created in their stead. The Information Revolution promises far more gain than loss.

[updated 2009-07-26 21:41]

How about really soliciting public input on a new copyright act, rather than trying to bury a sham public consultation away in the summer months when consumer protection organizations are hard-pressed to respond?

[updated 2009-07-26 02:47]

A put-back notice should take effect immediately. Once the party that files the take-down notice has received the contact information for the poster, this should be entirely sufficient to allow normal legal procedings to be pursued. The 14-day waiting period for restoring sites that are subject to a take-down notice is punitive for those against whom wrongful claims have been submitted, and serves no legitimate purpose.

There should be penalties AND damages for a wrongful filing. Damages are too difficult to establish in the case of takedown notices against non-commercial sites. The lack of penalties for a wrongful take-down notice mean that malicious parties can file take-down notices to suppress material they don't like.

[updated 2009-07-26 02:38]

We don't need DRM or a Digital Millennium Copyright Act because Copyright holders only abuse these in the states sending DMCA take down messages to people with little proof and many of these are automated. If anything the corporation's doing this and other suspicious behavior should be investigated for surveillance and packet "sniffing" but they have money so why would they be investigated [particularly in America an even more money driven society]. Maintaining our current law would be very helpful to everyone and keep a firm balance between copyright holders and your average citizen who may download a song or two every month or two.

[updated 2009-07-25 13:44]

Increasingly innovation is a matter of building upon previous works. Very few new elements are discovered these days. This isn't to say that the originator shouldn't get credit and compensation for their efforts, but individuals rather than corporations are going to want to manipulate and build upon their works. Before, this was balanced by making works go into the public domain after a certain amount of time, but now the length of time before something goes into the public domain is ridiculous. Sixty years from now nobody is going to even remember the iPod, so waiting that long before allowing people to remix music is ridiculous.

No matter how much people get misty-eyed over the old days or get bitter over young people these days (if you ever think this, think about whether or not your parents said the same thing about you, and their parents about them) turnover in our culture is speeding up and the internet both spreads us out in terms of our tastes ("the long tail" phenomenon) and brings us together.

Copyright needs to favour the rights of the individual, but also balance that with the needs of society as a whole for new culture. Increasingly artists are choosing not to sign with big record labels because it is becoming more and more apparent that they are not the future of music. Yet, they blame copyright for their slipping profits. Since when has it been the responsibility of the government to maintain outdated and culturally irrelevant institutions through law? Time Warner is not a Historical Site.

The children that are growing up now never knowing what it's like to be without the internet are going to expect everything that is public to be remixable, instantly, without explicit permission. Copyright law should receive a review every two to three years to make sure it is still serving the public interest. Individuals, not corporate lobby groups, are the future. And, in fact, Canada isn't even as bad as many countries when it comes to illegal copying. The numbers presented by American interests have been picked apart again and again. Canadian people want to obey the law, so the law has to give them something they can live with.

The future is changing too fast to know where we're going to be in five years, but it's clear through the example we've been given from the Americans that DCMA-style crackdowns will not help. So we have to try and go in the other direction, with greater flexibility and less reliance on litigation and punishment. I have never met a person of my generation who hasn't broken copyright law at least once, more often than not unknowingly. This is not going to change, it's only going to become more pervasive, and copyright law needs to adjust to social norms as it was always always intended to and then continue adjusting.

[updated 2009-07-24 13:48]

"A law that cannot be enforced is no law at all."
"An unjust law is no law at all."

These two quotes are the basis of this discussion.

How can copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time? Any debate regarding changes to our copyright system need also consider how such laws can be enforced. Otherwise, they will not last.

Talk has circulated about holding ISPs responsible for illegal file-sharing practices. I ask, how? Deep-packet inspections? Sure, an ISP can find out what file types you are sending out, but that doesn't discriminate between legal file-sharing and illegal. They could go further, and actually intercept your transmissions, finding out what's in the files you're sending, but there are many flaws with this plan outside of the extreme breach of privacy.

Now that the ISP knows exactly what files you're sending, how do they determine whether it's fair-use, illegal, or has consent by the rights-holder? The only way I can see that happening is by the creation of a database of all copyrighted works, then sampling all internet traffic, and comparing files against the registry.

That would mean a lot of computing power on behalf of the ISP or authorized regulatory body, a very large and comprehensive database, as well as a registry for copyrighted works.

Some argue that websites that facilitate file-sharing should be held accountable. Well, same problem.

Do we ban file-sharing completely? That's unjust, and discriminates against the many legitimate uses such technologies facilitate.

Just go and sue everyone sharing a copyrighted file? Did they know? If no copyright information is attached, are they knowingly infringing upon a rightsholders interests? Again, that seems unjust.

Digital Rights Management? There are many examples of how such practices are more harmful and distainful to the legitimate consumer, and many companies have started to realize this and phase out such practices.

I'm all for going after the initial infringer. But how might this be facilitated? Watermarking is one option. Online sales might barcode every item, linking it to the registered consumer. Should the file turn up online, they need only go through the books to see who did it.

Perhaps take-down notices on file-sharing services. Most companies are quite happy to blacklist any file that a rights-holder identifies. Mind you that means some work on the rights-holders behalf.

What are your thoughts?

[updated 2009-07-24 11:18]

To withstand the test of time it is essential that our copyright law not make any reference to specific technologies (mp3, DRM, Internet). Instead, refer to concepts such as technical protection measures, consider content creators (not musicians, artists, photographers, etc) and content consumers; and actions such as creating derivative works or remixes and sharing of content for specific purposes. Also, it should clearly separate commercial and non-commercial uses of content because the purpose of those uses are significantly different.

I would like Canadians to consider that in 10 years, 3D printing technology should be widely available. When it is will be dealing with issues of pirated designs and the rights of consumers to significantly customise hardware which they have purchased by modifying designs to suit their purpose. I know we're only beginning to see the concept of customised software, but it is more prevalent than most people realise.
While jailbreaking the iPhone is probably the most well known, you should know that many off-the-shelf mp3 players are capable of running an open source operating system that allows the device owner to significantly augment the capabilities of their device, and customise its behaviour accordingly (www.rockbox.org). It has allowed people to customise their device to support 30 languages and even a spoken interface for the visually challenged or hands-free operation.

Copyright law should ensure that the owner of a device has the right to use, reuse and remix their devices. If Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak could not customise hardware which they owned, there never would have been an Apple computer.

It should also ensure that consumers have the right to reverse-engineer or modify their devices for interoperability, so that they may use their devices for novel and ingenious purposes because it is in the spirit of creation and innovation for individuals to imagine new uses for their devices and modify them to achieve that purpose.

I know I went into innovation and creativity, but these questions are very interdependent.

[updated 2009-07-22 21:59]

Are the responses in this forum really going to be considered?

How are the information and recommendations given here being saved and prepared?

How will our comments be presented when the time comes for officials to make decisions and create law?

What balance of requests from individual canadians versus industry and big players will there be in decision making?

[updated 2009-07-22 13:52]

Despite the speed at which technology has changed, I don't see any real reason copyright needs to dramatically change. The principles of copyright should always have been the same, ever since copyright was created.

There are three principles I see for copyright, "personal use", "publication and distribution", and "fair dealling". If we define these in technologically agnostic terms, we won't need to worry about updating the copyright law the next time something new comes out.

For "personal use", anything I do for myself, such as ripping a song from a CD so I can play it on my iPod, or transcribing an entire poem from a book so I can carry the words around with me, should be allowed. To misquote a former prime minister "the government has no place in the bedrooms and pockets of the nation". What I do in the privacy of my own home with materials I have purchased is my business and no one elses.

For "publication and distribution", anything that will place an unauthorized copy of the work as a whole or a substantial part in to the posession of another person, should not be allowed. This means I wouldn't be allowed to rip that new DVD so my friend could have a copy. While a lot of people do this, it's clearly unacceptable.

But fair dealing is a different and difficult matter. It has always been a grey zone and probably should remain this way. I recognize that law makers don't like grey areas (but if you've ever painted a modern cityscape with lots of concrete, you'll see there are lots of grey areas).

Artists and innovators derive inspiration from other artists and innovators. In many ways, all art and all innovation is derivative. It has a starting point from which it is derived. One creates something, and that inspires the next one to take the idea, transform it in some manner, and make something new from it. This is how a great deal of art and innovation is created. To reduce fair dealing would be to limit creativity and innovation. This is something we must allow to happen.

Schools, especially colleges and universities, are places where a large number of individuals will be inspired by the works of past creators in order to make something new. It is importnat that fair dealing be expanded to cover this properly. Of course, not every student will end up being an artist or an innovator but I think we should encourage them in this direction instead of discouraging them through prohibative laws.

But what degree of compensation should a copyright holder have? If I, the creator of something, decide to publish it in a public location, such as the internet, then through fair dealing, others should be allowed to create derivative works of it. But to copy it lock, stock, and barrel, without permission, is not fair dealing, it's plagerism. By publishing the original in a public place, should I be compensated against the plagerism to the same degree as if I had published the same work through a private sales channel (e.g. book, CD, DVD, etc.)? Also, if my work was published in a public place without my permission, should I not be compensated more by the courts than if my work was published without my permission through a prive sales channel?

Notice I said "public location, such as the internet". The internet may be new technology, but conceptually, it need not be new at all. This is what I mean by a technologically agnostic view.

Where copyright law has gotten complicated is in that we made it to allow acts which were technically, against the principles of copyright. Audio tapes allowed people to make copies of their vinyl records so that could listen to them in the car stereo and in their walkmans, both valid personal use items. It was when we started charging more for audio tapes because we recognized that people were making copies for their friends and families that we started down a slippery slope. In effect, we said it was allright to copy/publish and distribute to certain others. New technologies have only dragged us further down this slope. In order to save copyright for the future, we may need to go back to the first principles and start over.

[updated 2009-07-22 00:12]

Balance is needed. Copyright law should be based on a fair evaluation of competing interests. That evaluation should be based on independent research, and not on the verifiably distorted numbers and messages put forward by industry and other interested parties, such as the RIAA and lobbyists.

[updated 2009-07-21 18:55]

First, copyright law based on Canadian values would be non protectionist and would strike a balance between the creators’ rights to make a living off their work and the general public’s rights to use and enjoy that work.

Second, copyright law should meet today's practices and business needs before worrying about tomorrow's potential. The law should be nimble and easily updatable by the Canadian groundswell, kinda like being in a perpetual beta state.

My $0.02

[updated 2009-07-21 17:08]

Copyright has expanded throughout the world to become something far larger than was reasonably intended. The expansion appears to be radiating from the US, where, each time Disney's creations approach the end of their copyright lifetime, the period of coverage is extended by another quarter-century. This expansion problem has now extended, via American music and film producers’ associations to Canada.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage innovation by providing a period of exclusivity to a work's creator in much the same way that patents do for physical products, but the constant lengthening of the covered period serves chiefly to prevent any expansion upon existing works during the lifespan of the creator and any of his/her offspring.

I submit that a copyright system to match the patent regime of 17 years would be quite sufficient to encourage innovation and permit payment for the creator's effort. This would allow for a more reasonable time of entry into public domain than currently exists and would harmonize the administration of physical and artistic innovation protection.

[updated 2009-07-21 10:22]

While this web site could use some sprucing up, I commend the government for moving further into the digital age with a more interactive web presence for the consulation. Hopefully it's just the start of more things like this to come.

[updated 2009-07-21 00:52]

They are fine the way they are. This question is slanted to imply that a change is needed in the first place when it is not.

[updated 2009-07-20 23:46]

Transmission of digital copyrighted media is the main need to update our copyright laws. Artists, creators and owners of copyrighted material need to be reimbursed for the use and acquisition of it. However, the users and appreciators of this material have found that the most affordable and convenient way to acquire the material is often through the illegal downloading of it through the internet.

The convenience and ease of acquiring material like this should not be hindered. In fact it should be further streamlined to increase the efficency of acquiring the digital data.

I believe that to do this, and still have copyright owners reimbursed will require internet service providers to provide subscriptions to media downloading with tiers of service. These subscription fees would then be managed by an organization that would divide them out to registered copyright owners and download sites in need of a commission based on download usage recorded by the registered internet sites.

This system would reduce the possibility of lawsuits by copyright owners, increase competition to provide the media and ensure that users have ease of access to the data.

[updated 2009-07-20 19:45]

I agree with many of the statements below on digital protection measures.

It is clear that any legislation that is going to "stand the test of time" will need to limit the time for copyright and allow for these protection measures to be bypassed for legitimate fair uses.

The Canadian Federation of Students has a statement that includes a position on Digital Rights Management that I strongly agree with. It states that:

The danger of over-broad anti-circumvention legislation (such as the DMCA in the US) is that, while it may have some minor effect on commercial piracy, it can also prevent otherwise lawful activity such as fair dealing, accessing works in the public domain, archival preservation, time and format shifting, device interoperability and library lending. We should reject DMCA style amendments.

Any effort to address the issue of circumvention/anti-circumvention must not limit the ability of users to by-pass measures that undermine personal privacy or statutory rights of access.

In particular, the Copyright Act must not prohibit devices capable of circumventing the protection measures, as such devices are often used for purposes that do not infringe copyright.

[updated 2009-07-20 17:25]

We need to ensure the principles of copyright are applied to new technologies, not merely addressing at ease of copying, it's ability to ease broad distribution, but also the unreliability and rapid obsolescence of the individual technologies.

In particular, granting legal protection to particular protection schemes can leave customers without the books they bought when the author of the technology goes out of business, suffers from a technical problem or simply decides to breach the sales agreement.

The latter appears to have just happened in the United States: copies of "1984" and "Animal Farm" purchased for a hand-held book reader were removed from their readers by the bookseller.

That they deleted these particular titles was more than a little ironic.

[updated 2009-07-20 16:43]

The most important aspect to consider when looking at copyright and "the test of time" is whether we will still be able to use and access our 'media' in 10 years if we let copyright holders lock-down our legally purchased media with "DRM" or digital rights management tools and locks.

If I buy some media today, with a DRM lock on it, that requires the company to provide an online server that "authenticates" my rights to utilize this media, and that company goes out of business (which seems to be very likely looking at the trends of today), then how do I legally access my media?

Allowing companies and copyright holders to "trump" any other rights (as laid out in Bill C-61), would prevent citizens and consumers from ever accessing their media if a company puts a Digital Lock on their materials and then does not survive.

There must be legal avenues available to consumers to bypass DRM locks in 10 years if companies and rights holders no longer exist.

What happens when I need to shift my media to a new format (for when the new DVD's come out?) Or what happens if my new car has a new competing format for playing music, how can I transfer my legally paid for music to this new format?

DRM is a short-sighted and un-balanced way to deal with copyright. It is extremly unfair, undemocratic, and undermines the "rights" granted consumers through these copyright laws.

[updated 2009-07-20 15:15]