the magazine napster goes legit

Thanks to the Canadian Magazines blog for continuing to follow this fascinating story.

A couple years ago, an Ontario-based tech and magazine fan, Darren Budd, decided to merge his two interests. The result was mygazines.com, a file-sharing site in which members were encouraged to scan the complete contents of physical magazines and "share" them online with fellow members. As you might imagine, the people paying the bills and sweating the talent to create those physical magazines became very interested in the mygazines "business model." Through US and Canadian courts, mygazines went away.

And now it's back, promising to be a better citizen. Budd had this to say about the earlier, now defunct, file-sharing site:

Bottom line is, we didn’t handle it right. We had a great technical idea, we had a very good site that could be good for the industry, but we didn’t handle it properly... at the end of the day, you can blame anybody you want. We took bad advice and followed it, and I will take responsibility for it.

Full interview with Budd about the very intriguing mygazines 2.0 here.

My favorite part:

I came up with the idea about two and a half years ago. I was standing in a magazines store and thought, gee, I want one article from that magazine, two articles from that, and I only have a limited budget - and even if I have an extended budget, I’m going to have too many magazines to carry..."

Ow, copyright is so heavy.

the master's voice

For those at all interested in the intersection of digital technology and traditional creativity, this video on Lawrence Lessig's website goes a long way toward explaining the current copyright dilemma.

Lawrence Lessig is, of course, the name in the copyright fight, but so many of his followers fail to hear how often he stresses the importance of professional creativity and the need to continue viable business models for it. For instance, at around 8:51 in the presentation, Lessig muses about why we teach writing. His answer, in part -- to teach (and learn) respect for how hard this kind of creativity is to do. At around the 13:30 mark, he discusses the "essentiality" of copyright. At around the 30:00 mark, he declares that he does not condone piracy, and near the 49:00 mark he makes it known he is not a copyright abolitionist.

Lessig can be a bit dismissive and flippant in this talk (not all strong copyright advocates are control freaks), and I don’t agree with everything he says (I wish, for instance, he would counsel "practicing respect" for all creators, not just the new digital remixers) but this is an excellent overview of the situation, with a fascinating discussion of the hybrid economies sprouting online. The idea of a controlled "deregulation" of certain practices under copyright should, I think, give us all pause considering the recent global economic effect of too much deregulation in the financial sector.

Side note: I think I may have coined the idea of "declaring peace" in the copyright wars in an op-ed I did for the Globe last May, but since there is no copyright on ideas I understand why Dr. Lessig did not call me to seek permission to use that phrase.

return of the pledge -- explaining democracy

In previous posts and comments, I have expressed my discomfort with the idea of asking politicians to "pledge"... well, anything beyond allegiance to the Queen. This came out of Michael Geist's original copyright pledge which had to do, I believe, with keeping any politician accepting campaign contributions by way of copyright-dependent industries from having anything to do with legislating copyright.

Anyway, the whole thing reminded me of certain pledges that show up in US politics from time to time -- "I pledge to never raise taxes. Please vote for me." That kind of thing. How's that working out for the US, by the way?

Michael Geist is at it again. He's recently published his Copyright Pledge - 2008 Election Edition, in which he asks voters to try and get candidates to "sign on to" a pledge that, among other things, appears to privilege user rights in the copyright debate.

To me these types of pre-election, pre-Parliamentary binding promises feel anti-democratic, and thanks to a keen-eyed commenter on Geist's blog, I now understand why they feel this way to me. Because they are anti-democratic. So anti-democratic, in fact, that they are expressly forbidden under Canadian law. Section 550 of the Elections Act reads:

550. No candidate shall sign a written document presented by way of demand or claim made on him or her by any person or association of persons, between the issue of the writ and polling day, if the document requires the candidate to follow a course of action that will prevent him or her from exercising freedom of action in Parliament, if elected, or to resign as a member if called on to do so by any person or association of persons.

UPDATE: Michael Geist has posted a disclaimer on his blog explaining the pledge's compliance with the Elections Act. You can find the revised posting at the link above, or see Dr. Geist's response to me in the comments section for this posting.

FURTHER UPDATE: Boing Boing linked to Geist's pledge with the headline Canadians: ask your candidates to take the copyright pledge! They seem to have interpreted it as a pledge for individuals, which we now know it is not. I am attempting to engage with the Boing Boing audience in their comments section, but am having a bit of trouble getting my points and links past a moderator. Meanwhile, the author of that Boing Boing post, Cory Doctorow, enjoys unmoderated access to my comments section.

US judge rules tag-along publication of Harry Potter not "fair"

A judge in New York City ruled yesterday that the wholesale commercial republication of sections of the Harry Potter series of books does not constitute a "fair" use under the broad and generous US copyright doctrine. U.S. District Judge Robert P. Patterson decided the proposed Harry Potter Lexicon, for which no permission was given, would cause "irreparable injury" to the original copyright holder (J. K. Rowling).

The author and publisher of the proposed reference text had argued that their use of Rowling's material was protected by the doctrine of Fair Use. This argument failed to pass the court test. Rowling has stated that she intends to create her own Harry Potter reference book, which means of course that the Lexicon in question would use her own original material to compete commercially against her.

Some more details of the ruling at CNN.com, the BBC and The New York Times.

Thanks to bookninja for the tip.

righteous babe in a pickle

(righteous babe logo courtesy righteous babe records)

I took last week off from blogging and other things. Instead, I went to Grimsby, Ontario and Buffalo, New York, and dedicated myself to approaching the finish line on my next novel (thank you Canada Council for the grant). It was a week spent blissfully not thinking about the copyfight apparently gripping this country.

And now I'm back to the end times -- after reading Michael Geist's column in yesterday's Star, one could be forgiven for assuming the apocalypse of consumer freedom is nigh. Funny, I note the car I own can technically get me up past 200 kilometers an hour; yet if I choose to drive that quickly just about anywhere I'll probably be spending some time in jail. I can't believe this government restricts my freedom so unfairly. What is this, Russia? I mean, I bought the car, didn't I?

Anyhoo, while approaching Buffalo (at a reasonable speed), I tuned into one of their two local NPR stations, WNED, and listened to an excellent interview with local indie rocker ani difranco, founder of one of the USA's oldest and most successful record labels -- righteous babe records. Not only does difranco eschew the corporate music industry (in fact, she sort of started that trend) but she, for the most part, encouraged the bootlegging of her early concerts. difranco recognized that the hard core fans in her relatively small audiences holding up crappy tape recorders were not actually competing for her recorded music earnings. Instead they were acting as free advertising for her, spreading the goodness of difranco around vibrant bohemian communities all over North America, building her audience and in essence selling tickets to her future shows. Righteous Babe is so fond of this bootlegging history, they have recently released a series of live albums called the "official bootleg series." Read the description and see how brilliantly they market the value add of professional recordings. Smart righteous babes.

Listening to the interview, which was recorded before a live audience at San Francisco's City Arts & Lectures series, I had one of those "gawd, I'm old" moments when it was mentioned that difranco's first album was released over twenty years ago. This is an artist who sold her music on cassette tapes, and then CDs. When the interviewer, Rolling Stone magazine's Michael Azerrad, somewhat tentatively asked her what she thought of, as he put it, illegal music downloading I was just crossing the Peace Bridge. Suspended over the Niagara River, I found myself gazing hopefully out across the beautiful blue of Lake Erie and repeating to myself -- "Don't say you don't want to sue your fans. Don't say you don't want to sue your fans."

Sometimes, directed meditation works. The righteous Ms. difranco paused long, sighed hard, and really struggled for an answer. In the end, she managed to point out that however freeing to the average music consumer, illegal downloading had "put Righteous Babe in a bit of a pickle." After all, in their established anti-corporate indie business model difranco's CD sales were used to help subsidize the creation of the less well-known, newer, struggling artists in the RB stable. And with what sounds like the utter collapse of Righteous Babe CD sales, they have not quite figured out how to recover the lost revenue. It should be noted that difranco is a new mother, who wants to spend as much of her time now looking after her child, and not filling concert halls. Where's the RB revenue going to come from?

I don't know the answer, but I thank whatever deity resides in Lake Erie that not every established hipster superstar stops thinking about the real issues behind copyright as soon as she makes it big.

BCCLA response

I have received the following letter from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in response to my open letter. I'm out of the fray briefly on a writing sabbatical but, in the interest of timeliness, I will load the letter here and leave it to commenters to shake out the meaning of it all. I'll comment more fully later, but I will say I'm immediately a bit confused by the reframing of my own points in this response. I have no idea what the "other concerns" are that BCCLA has farmed from this blog, or why someone would do such a thing in response to a letter:

August 8, 2008

Dear Mr. Degen,

Re: BCCLA’s position on Bill C-61 – Copyright Reform

Thank you for your letter dated August 7, 2008 regarding our recently adopted position paper on Bill C-61. You describe your missive as an open letter that you will be publishing on your blog (www.johndegen.com). In visiting your blog, I have learned of some other concerns that you have regarding this position paper and I am pleased to have the opportunity to address those matters as well.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that the BCCLA’s Position on Bill C-61 is entirely independent of Fair Copyright For Canada (“FCFC”) and determined solely by our Board of Directors. We have no affiliation with FCFC. Additionally, although we find ourselves in agreement with many of the positions taken by Dr. Michael Geist and welcome opportunities for collaborative efforts on civil liberties matters, we have not in fact collaborated with Dr. Geist on Bill C-61.

As you know, Greg McMullen and Chris Brand wrote our position paper. They were invited to a recent Board meeting by one of our Board members and asked to give a presentation on Bill C-61. We frequently invite people with expertise in particular topics to address our Board and write papers for our consideration. It was my request that they provide a written summary of their presentation points in the form of a draft position paper to be debated by the Board. This document was approved as an Association position with various amendments from the Board. As we would like to recognize the efforts of volunteers who write position papers for us, we acknowledged Mr. McMullen and Mr. Brand as the authors of the paper and they chose to cite their affiliation with the FCFC.

For more than four decades, the BCCLA has developed positions on various pieces of proposed legislation. This is not, as you have described our efforts to date on Bill C-61, an “interruption” of important democratic processes. Indeed, it is full participation in the democratic process as we contribute to the public debate and, frequently, make submissions to Parliamentary Committees. The crucial Committee process relies entirely on interested citizens bringing their considered positions forward. We are not, as you put it, “prejudging” Bill C-61. The bill exists and the time to develop a position is now, not after the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee is lost.

As you note, our position paper deals primarily with the issue of digital rights management (DRM). You say that you feel that this matter does require clarification and that this should be an important aspect of the legislative process to come. We do not appear to disagree on this point. Our role is to make legislators and the public aware of the civil liberties concerns about DRM as it appears to be envisioned by Bill C-61. It is not clear to me that you have substantive opposition to what we have set out as our concerns. You say that the current exceptions to copyright, such as fair use, are very important civil liberties worthy of protection. In stating that we are being insufficiently attentive to authors’ rights I gather that you feel that our opposition to Bill C-61 amounts to supporting a substantial broadening of these exemptions. Rather, our position is that the bill impermissibly narrows, or makes practically impossible, these crucial exceptions.

To clarify, we have not taken a position opposing copyright nor opposing copyright reform. Rather we believe that Bill C-61 does not represent an appropriate balancing of rights and constitutes an unacceptable abrogation of privacy and expressive rights.

We have amended positions in the past and are always prepared to learn more about any given subject. If there are specific, substantive objections that you have to any of the points we make in our position paper, we would be happy to consider them.

We would welcome your posting this letter on your blog as our reply to your open letter.

Yours truly,



Micheal Vonn
Policy Director
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

cc. Greg McMullen
Chris Brand
Michael Geist

open letter

Yesterday afternoon, I sent this open letter to the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and copied it to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. This is the full letter as sent, but I have removed personal info for BCCLA contacts (you can look them up yourself):

Dear ____,

I am writing with concern over the BCCLA’s recently adopted position paper on Bill C-61, the federal government’s Act to Amend the Copyright Act. I feel the paper is unbalanced and prejudiced against the rights of creators and copyright holders in the consideration of digital copyright matters. Furthermore, I worry that the BCCLA has been hasty in adopting the opinion of only one side of what is essentially a three-way discussion. The fullness of creator concerns is missing from your adopted position.

Copyright reform is a complex topic that has caused a great deal of confusion and inspired an unfortunate amount of misinformation in the public discussion. The most simplistic interpretation of the issue frames reform as a fight between powerful and domineering corporate interests and the ‘little guy’ consumer. While this characterization is one element of the broader reform picture, it does not represent a comprehensive understanding of what is at stake – especially from a civil liberties perspective.

The individual citizen’s relationship to copyright law is not as either creator or user. It is as both, simultaneously and often with little obvious distinction. The already present exceptions to copyright (fair dealing, personal use, private study) are very important civil liberties that must be protected. They are the very foundations of our free press, our freedom of expression and our freedom of education.

But these civil liberties are necessarily tied to the equally important civil liberty of personal ownership and control over one’s own creativity. When individuals lose significant care and control over their creative works, either through state intervention or unchecked consumerism, creative freedom itself is threatened. It is for this reason, presumably, that the United Nations linked these two important rights under Article 27 of their Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

The Fair Copyright for Canada position paper your organization has adopted focuses on the issue of digital locks (TPMs and/or DRM) as it appears in the tabled Bill C-61. I do not believe the full effect of the digital lock provisions in
C-61 has been sufficiently clarified by the Bill as written, and I agree with your position that we all need clarification about how digital locks would work in relation to existing user rights and exceptions. I think this will be an important focus of the Parliamentary debate, committee discussion and amendment process.

On the other hand, originating as it does from a recognized consumer lobby group whose very public aim is to see Bill C-61 defeated, I feel your position contributes to a prejudging and interruption of these important democratic processes. At the very least, a civil libertarian position needs to balance the now standard attacks on corporate excess with recognition that the vast majority of rights holders under copyright are individual citizens protecting their personal creativity.

I respectfully request the BCCLA consider a special review of its adopted position on Bill C-61.

Sincerely,


John Degen, novelist

Disclosure: I also work as the Executive Director for the Professional Writers Association of Canada (PWAC), and am a proud participant in the Creator’s Copyright Coalition and a creator affiliate at Access Copyright, Canada’s copyright licensing agency. In my professional capacity with PWAC, I regularly advocate for the professional writer position on copyright against both corporate and consumer excess. This letter contains my personal opinion only, and should not be considered the official opinion of any of the groups mentioned.

cc: The Canadian Civil Liberties Association

This is an open letter, and will be published on my writing blog at www.johndegen.com after being sent to the parties addressed.

oh, I get it now

Way back when in ancient days -- two years or so ago -- I wondered about all the anger and nastiness that continues to define much of the copyfight. Then I started this blog, and received the continued attentions of a number of delightful souls who see it as their mission to reflexively disagree with every word I might utter here in my personal digital space.

This evening, doing some online reading written by actual journalists, I have been given some insight. From this past weekend's New York Times Magazine -- there aren't trolls under every bridge, but there sure are trolls:

The Trolls Among Us

UPDATE:

In related news, this item appears in The Onion today --

Local Idiot to Post Comment on the Internet

Be warned; there's some spicy language. (thanks bookninja)

holy astroturf Batman, whatever happened to disclosure!?

Professor Michael Geist, founder and administrator of the Facebook group Fair Copyright for Canada, a consumer advocacy lobby opposed to the new federal copyright reform legislation, reports today on his blog that the BC Civil Liberties Association "has adopted a position paper on C-61, warning of its effects on freedom of speech and privacy."

Geist, a noted academic, fails to mention what you only find out when you reach the end of the 5-page position paper, which is that it was written by "Fair Copyright for Canada: Vancouver Chapter."

Dude (sad shaking of the head).

This copyfight just gets deeper and deeper into the artificial muck beneath the grassroots field turf, doesn't it?

The paper itself is not entirely inaccurate, though it could use a serious copy edit (several references to the United Sates lead a parade of grammatical issues). On the other hand, it is one-sided in its strong focus on user rights over the rights of professional creators and copyright holders -- but I've become kind of accustomed to that being the initial stance for anyone new to the discussion. The four conclusions and recommendations the BCCLA have "adopted" start with the statement: "In its current form Bill C-61 is fatally flawed..." I don't even necessarily disagree with the rest of the conclusions or recommendations in the paper. I think they are good, debatable points that should be addressed in the committee process leading to the amendment and passing (or not passing) of Bill C-61.

I think the BCCLA does outstanding and necessary legal work. Clearly, though, they need to sharpen up their advocacy adoption policies. I consider my limited rights of ownership and control over my own personal creative works to be very important civil liberties. I would expect an organization like BCCLA to take them into consideration before adopting policy that ignores them.

grandmother jailed for...

In the posting below, I go after the tired copyfighter rhetoric that results in almost every discussion of digital copyright eventually making reference to some poor guild of buggy whip manufacturers who saw their business decimated with the introduction of the motorized carriage (no whips required). I happen to know that Phineas J. Snide, owner of the Acme Buggy Whip company was so upset by the crumbling future for his business that he attempted to shoot himself. A whip-man, he was a terrible shot with a gun. The bullet missed his temple, smashed through his window and into the ground outside his rural Texas home, rupturing an oil deposit that made him one of the earliest multi-millionaires of the newfound auto industry. Let's leave the buggy whippers to rest. They did okay, and managed to even stay in the personal transportation encouragement business.

As we head into another blissful summer long weekend, I am wondering about another popular rhetorical figure of the copyfight -- that grandmother jailed for the illegal downloading performed on her computer by her grandkids. I hear about her all the time -- how the American DMCA encourages the jailing of teenagers and grandmothers, and how Canada's Bill C-61 will do the same (Canadian grandmothers, boo!). Apparently, this grandmother paid her ISP bill, which made her the person of record on the offending computer, so when the big bad RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) was looking for their next victim, she was it.

Who is this grandmother? What's her name? Is she in jail?

I did a whole bunch of research googling to find out, but so far I have come up with not much at all. In the process, I discovered that lots of grandmothers do all sorts of nasty things, and go to jail for doing them. Apparently, being generation one of three is NOT always a motivation for exceptional behaviour.

Please, if you know the grandmother in question, or of her, I'd be very interested in learning her full story. My comment stream is open to you.

I happen to agree that paying an ISP bill is not a nasty thing, and I also agree that certain corporate copyright holders have taken really incorrigible legal missteps in their attempts to protect the value of the intellectual property they own. In my google travels, I note several recent (recent? 2005? does that count as recent?) US legal decisions that have tempered the legal dangers everyone seems to be so afraid of from the DMCA (and by extension -- thank you Michael Geist -- from C-61).

Is there a DMCA grandmother Gitmo? And if so, is it so secret that even Google can't find it? Considering Google knows what flowers my girlfriend grows in her garden, I just assumed they knew everything.

legal reason

I was on a writing sabbatical in the northwoods for the last week, totally (blissfully) cut off from the online world, so I apologize if this posting appears dated by webby standards.

Grace Westcott, intellectual property lawyer and Vice Chair of the Canadian Copyright Institute has written an excellent, balanced, reasonable and detailed analysis of fan fiction and its copyright implications for the Literary Review of Canada. It is available in full online, at this link.

Here is my favorite quote, around which I intend to write a long story about Grace Westcott, lawyer by day, darkly moody superhero by night:

"What is needed is a kind of digital civility, an online code of respect in engaging with cultural works that recognizes and addresses authors’ rights and legitimate concerns."

Grace clipped her bullwhip back onto her belt and leaned out into the night, clutching the gargoyle's wing to keep her balance forty stories above the darkened city streets. Would her work ever end? Would she ever be granted rest from this endless battle for respect? It seemed unlikely.

reason, despite differences of opinion

Thanks to one of the evil emissaries of American imperialism for calling my attention to this op-ed by Mike Warkentin in Winnipeg's Uptown magazine. Those emissaries... so helpful.

I'll call your attention first to this quote from Mark:

"I, too, hope Bill C-61 dies a quick death and is replaced by something less likely to be abused by corporations..."

because, obviously, here is where Mark and I part ways. I'm just not sure killing legislation is the path to better laws. I'm hoping for vibrant discussion and a healthy amendment process -- you know, governing. But I don't fault Mark at all for his opinion, which is intelligently and wittily expressed; I simply disagree with it.

Where Mark and I walk the same track is outlined in the rest of his article -- specifically in his dismay about the loud and emotional protest surrounding this bill. Like so:

"While I agree that Bill C-61 is a dud, I'm amazed that average Canadians are currently calling for changes in government with French Revolution language simply because someone might stop them from jogging to the new Madonna album.

Really? That's what we're worried about in Canada? That's our greatest challenge as a nation?

I'd suggest Canada has bigger problems that would benefit from a little activism and public outrage, but perhaps dead soldiers in Afghanistan aren't as important as that new JT track. Maybe concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions should take a seat behind the guy watching a ripped episode of Family Guy on a flight to Toronto. And maybe our Aboriginal issues just don't matter so long as we can use YouTube to watch scenes of Adam Beach on Law and Order: SVU.

Call me a cynic, but I think it's a sad sign of the times that some truly momentous legislation goes unchallenged while citizens threaten to revolt on Facebook over DVDs."

And yes, I'm just going to go ahead and take credit for the French Revolution meme that appears in the above quote. I took a lot of heat over my description of Dr. Geist as a red-sashed revolutionary leading his people to the barricades (He's calling our leader a pirate! Keelhaul him!). I'm glad to see, at least, that somebody got the reference.

underground films

The Film Studies Association of Canada has released a long statement critical of C-61 in general, and specifically the limitations placed on an educational exception within it. Not surprisingly, much of the criticism centres on the digital lock protections sworn enemies of the bill have been very quick to condemn.

I think we all want to sympathize with our nation's educators. I know I just spent a good part of my morning thanking the kindergarten teachers at my kids' school for all their hard work this past year. But, it is hard for me to have sympathy for this part of the FSAC statement:

... because copyright law in Canada does not allow for educational fair use, [film production and collection companies] sell blanket site licenses to Canadian universities, basically making money through a provision in the law. This creates an unnecessary financial expense for universities. It is also a time waster for A-V libraries, which have to compile reports on films screened in classes for the two companies. Finally, this vestige of the pre-video era has driven many educators ‘underground,’ as instructors show DVDs or clips from DVDs that they own for educational purposes but do not declare the screening. New copyright legislation should acknowledge and reflect current conditions, practices and educational needs, and provide educators and scholars with less fettered access to copyrighted material, recognizing the right to screen legitimately procured material within educational contexts without having to pay additional fees for each use.

It seems to me FSAC is asking for consideration of all the difficulties film studies programs must go through to show the very films that are the lifeblood of their courses, while disregarding the economic realities of the companies whose work they depend on, and in fact the financial realities of their very institutions.

Private copies of films have always been sold with private viewing restriction agreements attached, have they not? It has always been necessary, has it not, to obtain an additional license for any sort of extended public viewing? And is the rationale behind this practice particularly unsound? Copyright adheres to the text of the film, and these educators are certainly familiar with the difference between the text and the media it comes on. They're not teaching DVD studies, are they?

Film studies courses in Canada are part of a paid educational system that counts its budget in the billions. While I think we would all love it if our kids, and their parents, could attend university for free, the reality is ever increasing student debt loads. Everyone involved in delivering education to Canada's students is paid fairly for their work, product or service. Why is it suddenly wrong that the film companies providing film curriculum materials are also fairly paid? Each curriculum showing of a film is a paid showing. That is the reason for educational licenses for the use of copyright protected material-- and not just for films.

What exactly constitutes an unnecessary financial expense for universities? According to the FSAC statement, any expense that can either be wished away by importing US style fair use, or can simply be avoided by going underground and ignoring the license requirements. Oh, also expenses of inconvenience, like the necessity to keep good records. FSAC's admission and almost tacit approval of prof's breaking license agreements is a sad -- very sad -- statement about the commitment of its members to their subject matter. Films are incredibly expensive to produce, and the many artists involved are some of the great interpreters of our culture, the majority of whom are not from Hollywood.

It's too bad, because the statement makes some good points about difficulties in fair dealing for educators -- film quoting for instance - that could open up a truly fruitful dialogue about the digital lock protections, and potential amendments to C-61 for licensed educational use. But by taking the standard educational licensing is bad for education line, I think they do their position, and Canada's artists, a terrible disservice.

geeky reason

One of the unfortunate truisms of the ongoing debate over C-61, the federal government's legislative attempt to reform the Copyright Act to better reflect digital practice and the need for strong creator copyright protection, is that the, ahem, geekier elements of the population are lining up beneath the protest flag of unregulated consumerism being flown by Michael Geist and a number of other freedom fighters against new American imperialism. The intent of these groups, I think, can be summed up by one of the organizing URLs -- KillBillC61.ca

See that's just super extra special geeky because not only is it a call for immediate action to undermine and destroy tabled Canadian legislation (as opposed to debating and amending it), but it side-references the super-hot American actress Uma Thurman. I guess the hidden message there is that if C-61 passes, we will not be allowed to carry films featuring Uma in her yellow motorcycle suit on our iPhones.

Since I've been casually collecting examples of reasoned thinking and opinion around C-61, I thought I should probably show some from folks with a little geek in them, to prove not everyone who has seen the guts of a computer is terrified. This is from a blog run by someone named Xenon, who describes himself in his online profile as an advance scout for the invasion fleet from the planet Neptune that is scheduled to arrive in 2009. I'm just not sure you get geekier than that.

Some thoughts on Bill C-61

Xenon expresses the same kind of confusion I do about the over-the-top misinterpretations of the bill and its implications, and he frankly does a better job of it. Here's a favorite quote in which he chides Catherine Ford of the Calgary Herald for her fear-based and somewhat uninformed opinion piece against the Bill (Copyright Law Would Turn Millions Into Criminals):

a newspaper column by Catherine Ford of the Calgary Herald noted the following:

"There are at least 400 movies and an uncountable number of television shows on about 200 VHS tapes stored in my den. Should the amendment to Canada's copyright law pass without change, I will apparently be branded a thief."

Um.... Catherine, under the current law, you're *already* a thief. Bill C-61 just clarifies some of the murkiness. But unless someone is making copies of their archived programs and selling them, they have little to worry about. The police will be after pirates who go into the illegal-copying business wholesale.

Xenon, representative of our future Neptunian overlords, ends his piece by saying:

It's not the law yet, and there may be changes or amendments before it passes. Until then... get a grip, people.

I welcome his reasonable and logical people.

the advance of reason

Many folks sent me this link today -- thanks to all, especially Sandy, who was first. Sandy, you win a beer.

This article by Simon Doyle in the Hill Times shows how those most invested in copyright reform are being cautious and judicious, and taking their time to study Bill C-61 before re-engaging with government to express their likes and dislikes, and to suggest potential amendments.

It's a lot less exciting than endless speculation on our apparent rapid descent into fascism, but it's so damn Canadian it fills me with pride. I particularly like how consumer advocates are included under the umbrella label, "lobby groups." How can this term be a stand-in for "evil emissaries" if it applies to everyone?

And I hope regular readers of this blog have noticed the appearance of a new feature. I've joined iCopyright, a new copyright tagging service promoted in Canada by the good people at Access Copyright. It's still being tested, and is in early stages, but it does look to be a seamless and simple system for all involved in the use and commerce of online intellectual property -- certainly the written kind. Gone is the excuse, "but there was no indication that I couldn't just use it for my own purposes." I mean, that excuse was never valid, but with iCopyright's clickable licensing interface, respect for online intellectual property has never been easier.



Copyright 2008, John Degen. To reproduce or distribute, visit: johndegen.icopyright.com

yet more reason

Dare I say, a blossoming of reason on this final day of spring?

Smart arts guy Vit Wagner talks to some book publishers about Bill C-61, and no-one mentions truncheons or jackboots.

Say, that's two reasonable articles about C-61 in the Star. Doesn't Michael Geist write for the Star? Man, he's being posterized by his own team! (NBA reference).

a welcome voice of reason

You can see by the comment stream for the posting below this one (145 comments and counting) that since the introduction of the copyright reform Bill C-61, opinions have not drawn much closer together on this topic. Discussion is good and necessary, though I often despair that so much of it is so radicalized and skewed.

Thanks then to Giuseppina D'Agostino, an assistant professor at Osgoode Hall Law School for her reasoned and balanced response to C-61, published today in the Toronto Star. Read the full op-ed at the link above, and here are some highlights I'm fond of:

Canadians should welcome C-61 as an opportunity to engage in a fuller and more informed debate, something that of late has been absent.

A range of stakeholders should come to the table in good faith and spell out clear guidelines, as signalled already by a key 2004 Supreme Court decision on photocopying practices. Avoid litigation. Encourage best practice.

...We need to think beyond our iPods and sound bites. Our current copyright framework is not working. We need to fix it.

And for those who worry that any words of welcome for C-61 indicate little more than acquiescence to corporate (American) puppet masters, I have consulted with Ms. D'Agostino a number of times, and never noticed any strings attached.

market me this

Negative reaction to the introduction of Bill C-61 has been a fascinating exercise in hyperbole, panic and outright paranoia. Check out this posting on Michael Geist's blog for links, mostly to those folks agreeing with him, but not always.

I've been reading comment streams endlessly, and it amazes me how completely anti-Americanism has become the central focus of this issue. Despite a decade-long process involving endless public discussion between Canadians who genuinely disagree on the policy directions here -- in straight numbers you have the now close to 50,000 consumers on Geist's Facebook group versus over 100,000 professional creators and many others whose livelihoods depend on strong intellectual property protections. And let me qualify my "versus."

Anyone willing to dig into the heart of this discussion will soon see that these are not two bristling camps separated by a wide moat filled with alligators. The actual discussions and disagreements are complex, detailed and unpredictable, with folks moving back and forth between the two territories as though they were separated only by a friendly and cooperative border -- like, for instance, the border between Canada and the US. I am one of Geist's 50,000 and I regularly disagree with him, as I do right now.

Yet the leaders of the protest side of the discussion continue to sell their argument with the rhetoric of comic-book style revolution and resistance, which of course feeds the comments streams and heightens the paranoia. I suppose one can't resist evil without first casting someone in the role of evil-doer. Yeah, you see where I'm going with this. Aren't we all just a little bit tired of the encouragement to make our policy decisions based on fear? For all the Bush- and Harper-bashing going on in this debate right now, the anti-C-61ers actually remind me most strongly of kool-aid drinking neocons bent on saving the world from nuance.

I'll end this posting with a question -- a genuine, non-partisan musing on where we are and where we might go:

Bill C-61 has a lot to say about digital locks and their circumvention. There is a whole segment of society -- the open access folks -- who think digital locks are the way of the past, who wish we could all just get along without having to lock our stuff up all the time. More often than not, I find myself hanging out with the free access folks -- if you haven't downloaded my freely accessible novel yet, please do so here -- because I can see that a trend toward mutual respect between creator and consumer is making digital locks unnecessary.

My response to laws protecting locks is to think "Okay, fair enough -- but I probably just won't buy locked stuff. Either that, or I will demand that the value I get from the product is greater than the inconvenience of the lock." I make free consumer decisions about these kinds of things and, more and more, so do a lot of folks. Here's the question -- if the market is encouraging the voluntary removal of unnecessary locks, then what difference does it make if we have a law protecting necessary locks?

Please try to answer the question without using the term "police state."

book futures

I spent Friday at BookExpo in Toronto, attending Another Country, the book summit put on by Humber College and the Book and Periodical Council. As expected, the day was filled with fascinating talk about the future of the book trade. Richard Florida, he of The Rise of the Creative Class and more recently Who’s Your City, opened the event with a keynote address covering the range of his socio-economic thought and loosely following an autobiographical narrative line that brought him from Newark, New Jersey to Toronto; from a young hippy with a guitar to the slick public intellectual he is today.

Florida’s thoughts on how the future economy will be populated by those companies that most successfully encourage the creative and innovative thinking of the knowledge worker had me wondering if the future economy has a place for big media, which seems in fact to be running down a completely different path – pushing the most intelligent and creative knowledge workers away from it with ridiculous contract demands and terrible treatment. If one buys Florida’s vision of where the economy is going (and I do), can huge, concentrated media afford to alienate the best and the brightest, and replace them with a class of compliant drones?

I was at the summit in my official capacity as Chair of the BPC, so I had some hosting duties to perform. I introduced two fascinating seminar sessions:

Marketing to Youth, with Mike D’Abramo of Youthography, the Toronto kid-focused ad and stat agency. Mike is the Cary Grant character from North by Northwest if he was played instead by a young John Belushi. In preparation for his session, he and I had an in-depth talk about what’s wrong with the Italian national soccer team, and why it is that the Netherlands might just win Euro 2008.

I’ve heard Mike’s youth marketing talk before. He stresses the point that the youth of today have little to no patience for anything that restricts their technological freedom. If your product can’t do what they want, either they force it to do what they want, or they just won’t buy it. I respect Mike’s research, but that point seems a bit simplistic to me when I remove it from a marketing context. It may apply to considerations of product development, but I’m not sure our society is best served by giving in to every fickle whim of an over-active youth marketplace.

My other session was Writer and Reader Collaboration, with Ben Vershbow, a terrific presenter from The Institute for the Future of the Book, a small think tank in Brooklyn, New York dedicated to speculation and experimentation with books as we grow into the digital age.

Ben is in his late twenties, and so presumably has little patience for technical restrictions, yet he showed a remarkable loyalty to the book as object and the concept of made-text even as he dazzled us with descriptions of some of the Institute’s fascinating projects, such as the creation of Gamer Theory, a collaboratively produced, textually restrictive, single-author book that was shaped by a constant comment stream on the Internet as each chapter was written. This session had me wondering about the possibilities for fiction writing in such an environment, though I (and Ben) doubt there’s much market for collaboratively produced traditional fiction (science fiction? – anything goes). On the other hand, the applications used to create Gamer Theory might find a happy home in large online book clubs, for interactive dissection and analysis of a book, line by line.

Of course, the day was also filled with talk of the new Copyright Bill. Lawyer Grace Westcott advised a cautious welcome for the legislation despite the doom and gloom predictions from the copyleft corner. Vershbow, who (one might expect) leans a little to the left on that topic, had this to say (paraphrased): While I understand and respect the need for authors and publishers to be able to control and protect their economic product, the new bill makes copyright seem like an economic model based on constant surveillance, which is kind of sad.

My own interpretation goes in a different direction. I think intellectual property is an economic model based on a constant request for respect, a golden rule interaction, and maybe this gets to the heart of my discomfort with the youth “market” as well. If Florida is right, and the engine of our economy is going to run on creativity for the next while, should we be treating that creativity the way we’ve treated oil and gas for the last century and a bit – with reckless disregard and a voracious market demand for cheapness? What’s wrong with a little conservationalist thinking around creativity?

the name's Bill... Copyright Bill

Sitting on the Order Paper for Parliament this morning is this intriguing little item:

An Act to amend the Copyright Act (downloadable PDF -- free!)

The writing and publishing industry, and indeed all of Canada's cultural workers are probably tuned to CPAC this morning to witness this legislation's long awaited arrival in the House.

Writers in this country have been looking to government to address digital copyright issues for many years. While we've been waiting for reform of the Copyright Act, Canada's professional cultural workers have seen a steady erosion of our rights and livelihoods.

Chances are I won't agree with everything in the bill, but I congratulate this government for doing the work to bring it to Parliament. This discussion needs to
happen in the country's highest chambers, and Canada's legislators need to do the necessary work to understand copyright in all its subtlety and complexity. I look forward to a vigorous debate.

I'm very hopeful the House, in its wisdom, can find a balance that suits creators, publishers, and the broader public interest.

Of course, before anyone has even seen the new bill, it has already been negatively branded by those determined to oppose any focus on shoring up the rights of traditional copyright stakeholders. Anti-corporatism, anti-Conservatism and anti-Americanism seem to be the flags flown most often over there -- check out this comic book for the kind of balanced and nuanced argumentation we can expect to see more of once the bill comes down. Strangely, traditional professional creators interested in seeing due Parliamentary process applied to the question of copyright reform appear as neither the Fantastic Freedom of Expression Fighters, nor the Evil Emissaries of American Interests. Then again, I guess there aren't that many comics out there in which Superman and Spiderman sit down at a committee table to have a nuanced policy discussion. I would so buy one, though.

UPDATE: Here's the official government press release. And check out the "fact sheets" as well. And, of course, if you didn't get it up top there, here's Bill C-61.

How geeky are we all right now?