That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.   It reads as follows.

The new copyright bill is expected today.  There has been much anticipation about what it might contain.  That is understandable given that several failed and controversial attempts have been made to pass a reform bill over the last few years.  And that there were extensive hearings around the prior bill last summer that attracted a significant amount of commentary.  And that digital media is considered by many (e.g. the Canada 3.0 initiative) to be a crucial part of the economic future of Canada.

The anti-spam and privacy bills introduced last week are important bills that have effect on business and individuals alike. But the copyright bill fundamentally affects how every Canadian consumes media. 

Roughly speaking, copyright interests line up in two camps.

First, the entertainment industry, which wants tight controls on copying, including things like digital locks and notice and takedown provisions.

Second, consumers who want less control by media providers, and broader fair dealing rights.

It will be interesting to see what the bill looks like, what the reactions will be, and what changes may result from that reaction.  Fundamentally it is about balancing the various interests to give the right amount of protection to creators, while at the same time giving users reasonable rights to do the things we are accustomed to in this century, such as time shifting, format shifting, and perhaps downloading.  Clarity is important, as is language that doesn’t antiquate itself by tying it to specific technologies.

My message today is that this bill is important, and worthy of close, thoughtful scrutiny and discussion.

Techdirt has a post that’s worth a read that talks about a debate sparked by the NY Times and Computerworld about the ethics of downloading something you have already paid for.  Its an issue worth considering, especially in light of an expected new copyright reform bill in Canada.   It ties into issues about format shifting and whether copying is theft when it doesn’t deprive the owner of what they have.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

We have seen much pressure over the years for governments to enact tougher laws for piracy and counterfeiting – often based on statistics that lead to conclusions that billions of dollars are being lost because of it.   

It leads to questionable things like three strikes laws, the Digital Economy Bill, and the ACTA treaty discussions.  Many people have questioned the statistics, and the conclusions based on them.

The US government accountability office (GAO) just released a report that concludes that while the problems are real, “Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies”.  Also that assumptions are used to compensate for the lack of data.

For more commentary on this issue, see the reactions of Mike Masnick and Michael Geist.

I’ve written before about how the three strikes law that is in force in France, and is being contemplated in other countries, is fundamentally wrong.

Take a look at this short video interview from author Cory Doctorow that puts it in perspective.

For the London Free Press – November 23. 2009

Read this on Canoe

INFRINGEMENT: It addresses concerns of creators and publishers of movies and music

The “three-strikes law” is a controversial proposal to address download infringement concerns of creators and publishers of movies and music.

The concept is that if someone alleges an Internet user is downloading copyrighted material, they can advise their Internet Service Provider (ISP). The ISP then tells the customer to cease this illegal activity. If this happens three times, the ISP must turn off the customer’s Internet access.

France recently approved such a plan, but not without a struggle. An initial version was ruled unconstitutional by the French courts. An amended version was approved this fall which calls on a judge, not a government actor, to sign off on account suspensions.

France is now viewed by supporters as a pioneer against piracy, leading the way by implementing this legislation.

The same proposal in Britain met with public backlash. Public consensus is these measures are too drastic and draconian. The measures will generate a bureaucratic nightmare while having little impact on the overall prevalence of file-sharing.

Other critics argue the increasing prominence of the Internet in everyday life makes suspending that privilege a limit on individual freedom of expression.

Even holders of copyrighted material are split on the subject. Artists, such as the music group Radiohead, argue that any effort to criminalize file-sharing is in vain. They believe artists would be better to embrace the potential of file sharing to share their work with a larger audience. This will allow them the opportunity to generate revenues through concerts and merchandising, and even the sale of their music.

Other artists are of an opposite view, believing that file-sharing restricts the ability of young artists to make a living, lessening the likelihood of success for emerging artists.

The three-strikes law is misguided, even if you believe such activity should be controlled.

Whether someone has violated copyright is often not a black-or-white issue. Copyright law is complex, and knowing in any given instance whether an infringement happened isn’t easy.

To implement these policies on a mass basis, in a similar manner to handing out parking tickets, ignores this complexity. And the penalty is more than paying a few dollars in parking fines.

The proposal is also open to abuse as sanctions imposed at the request of an alleged victim can be taken advantage of.

There are numerous examples of questionable takedown notices under the existing U.S. DMCA rules. In fact, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a Takedown Hall of Shame, which lists “bogus copyright and trademark complaints” which “have threatened all kinds of creative expression on the Internet.”

This points up another problem with the concept: violations need only be alleged, not proven. An individual may be accused and given a strike by their ISP with no proof of misconduct. Guilty till proven innocent is not something we should condone.

The issue of digital piracy will continue to be a contentious topic. The three strikes proposal is not a palatable solution.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today. It reads as follows.

Last week I posed a survey on copyright reform. Here are the results.

The result is overwhelming.

So in anticipation of comments pointing out the following:

- it clearly was not scientifically accurate

- it is quite possible that the question was biased

- it may reflect the large proportion of users to creators and thus shows the tyranny of the majority rather than a principled view.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.   Please vote.

With the copyright reform hearings and public input now in full gear, I thought it would be interesting to get a feel for where readers are at with this issue. So I created this quick, clearly unscientific poll. Copyright issues are really about balancing the interests of creators, users, and society as a whole, and are far more complex than a short question – but lets see which side of the larger debate readers fall on.

Take the survey

Survey results

Michael Geist just launched a new site called Speak Out on Copyright.

Its worth a look by anyone interested in the current copyright consultations.    The intro to the site says:

On July 20, 2009, Industry Minister Tony Clement and Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore launched the first Canadian public consultation on copyright policy since 2001. The consultation, which runs until September 13, 2009, provides Canadians with an exceptional opportunity to have their voice heard on the future of copyright law in Canada. I launched SpeakOutOnCopyright.ca as a platform to give people information and tools to participate in the consultation. The site includes my short response to the consultation, dozens of posts and videos on Canadian copyright law, and a Take Action page that “highlights the ways individual Canadians can speak out on copyright.

The Federal government has just launched public consultations intended to lead to a new copyright reform bill.   The last few attempts to revise copyright law have not become law – but have been highly controversial. This is an important topic that affects things we do every day.   The difficult part is striking the right balance between the entertainment industry desire to charge for and control everything, and the consumer expectation of getting everything free all the time.   Past efforts have not accomplished that balance, and in some ways took a step backwards by being stuck in a digital time warp.

These consultations will be over quickly – so if you want your position heard  -  now’s the time.

See the government’s Copyright Consultations web site for more details.   Also keep an eye on Michael Geist’s site for his thoughts as this unfolds.

Michael has a must read post entitled  Tell Me Lies  that is the text of his remarks at a copyright conference yesterday.

He starts with a quote from a recent article by Clay Shirky ( another must read) on the future of newspapers that says:

“When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.”

Michael goes on to relate the last sentence to copyright issues, giving 8 examples where over the last few years we have been demanding to be lied to about copyright issues. 

Basically, as Michael Wesch said a couple of years ago in his video Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us – copyright is one of those things that we must rethink.