James Moore’s “radical extremists” speech: the annotated version

I’m just trying to figure out why MP James Moore is destroying all the political capital he’s generated over the years to support digital locks. Then again, he’s starting to clam up when asked for comment by the media.

“Bill C-32 offers rights that the consumer will not be able to exercise”

NDP MP Charlie Angus challenges James Moore and Tony Clement, the Conservative MPs behind the flawed Bill C-32, to remove the digital locks provision. (Via Michael Geist.)

John Degen booted from copyright group

Clarification: Both John and Michael Geist have contacted me to let me know that John was booted from a specific chapter of the Fair Copyright group, which was not directly administered by Geist. As Geist states in the comment below: “John was apparently removed from the York Region Chapter group. I do not administer that group nor am I a member. I have no ability to remove John from that group and would not have done so. I have no issue with contrary opinions being expressed on my own blog or on the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group, which I do administer.”

Things are really heating up on the copyright front in the wake of Heritage Minister James Moore’s speech on copyright reform and “radical extremists.” Now literature officer and writer John Degen says he has been booted from the Facebook group Fair Copyright for Canada, administered by Michael Geist, for his support of the new copyright bill. I agree with John on some things — Kobo, for instance — and disagree with him on others, such as digital locks, but I sure as hell don’t think he should be silenced. John is a representative of artists, and a creator himself. And, you know, a reader. He’s hardly a corporate shill. While we don’t share the same viewpoints on some aspects of Bill C-32, I do believe he should be part of the dialogue. Because if you don’t let people like him speak, there isn’t really any dialogue.

Cory Doctorow responds to James Moore

Cory Doctorow lists his objections to Bill C-32 and James Moore’s claims that radical extremists are driving the opposition to digital locks. The most important point: copyright holders will be just as stripped of rights as consumers.

Here’s what that means for creators: if Apple, or Microsoft, or Google, or TiVo, or any other tech company happens to sell my works with a digital lock, only they can give you permission to take the digital lock off. The person who created the work and the company that published it have no say in the matter.

So if you buy $1,000 worth of digitally locked books for your Kindle or iPad, the author and the publisher can’t give you the right to move those to another device. That means that not only are you locked into the Kindle — so is the copyright holder. Authors and publishers who decide to stop selling via a digitally locked platform have to take the risk that their readers will abandon their investment in proprietary books in order to follow them to the next device.

Pretty simple fix to the bill — change the rules on digital locks to allow consumers control of the material they have lawfully purchased.

See also Michael Geist’s response to MP Moore, as well as the NDP’s Charlie Angus’s response.

Here’s a clip of Moore’s speech about copyright reform from Michael Geist’s YouTube channel (full speech is here):

Today’s Bill C-32 roundup

People were posting fast and furious about Bill C-32, the proposed new copyright legislation, while I was in Toronto last week. I’m still trying to catch up on it all, but here are the bullet posts:

• Michael Geist’s 32 Questions and Answers on C-32′s Digital Lock Provisions, Part Two: circumvention exceptions
• Michael Geist’s 32 Questions and Answers on C-32′s Digital Lock Provisions, Part Three: exemptions from the bill found in other countries but not Canada
• Michael Geist’s 32 Questions and Answers on C-32′s Digital Lock Provisions, Part Four: the consumer provisions, such as they are
• Michael Geist’s 32 Questions and Answers on C-32′s Digital Lock Provisions, Part Five: business considerations
• John Degen on why Kobo is the e-reader service that might just be the solution to everybody’s problem: business and consumers. And if it works for books, it can work for movies and music too. I’ve been saying for years that server-side DRM and cloud-based access is the way to make everyone happy, and Kobo, my e-reader of choice, appears to be pulling it off.

“With digital locks come digital responsibilities”

Over at the Calgary Herald, Rory McGreal, the associate VP of research at Athabasca University, argues that allowing digital locks to override users’ other rights is a bad idea.

Well, at least we should still be able to back up our work for protection, right? Sorry, this will not be possible if the vendor decides to add a digital lock. If you think you can freely read classical books and view the old movies that are in the public domain, think again. Vendors can lock them up and render them accessible only to paying customers. What if you want to play a DVD on your machine, but don’t use MS Windows? Too bad if the vendor decides to limit your use to Windows because using decryption software to play your legal copy on your computer will be illegal.

We like everything but the digital locks part

Concern is growing over the digital-locks provision of Bill C-32 — you know, the part that says you have the right to use the material you buy in any way you wish unless there’s any sort of DRM on it, in which case you have no rights at all.

Previously:

• New copyright bill: Unfair to consumers?

New copyright bill: Unfair to consumers?

The Tories have introduced the new copyright bill, and it’s what everyone expected: some token protections for consumers that are trumped by a digital locks provision that’s far too inflexible.

The good:

• It’s now OK to copy material to other devices for backup
• It’s now OK to create mashups using copyrighted material
• It’s now OK to record material for later viewing, as long as you’re not making a permanent library

The bad:

• It’s illegal to break digital locks, even for any of the reasons stated above

So it’s legalizing what everyone’s doing already, but then allowing corporations to add restrictions to their devices that impede common usage. As Michael Geist points out, the new law doesn’t have to be this inflexible when it comes to the digital lock provision:

Canada could comply with the WIPO Internet treaties (which serve as the impetus for these provisions), provide legal protection for digital locks, and still preserve the copyright balance.  Doing so would simply require a provision confirming that circumvention of a digital lock is not prohibited when undertaken for lawful purposes.  Similar language can be found in other countries’ digital lock legislation and – as the top issue raised during last summer’s copyright consultation – should have made it into this bill.

The Conservatives have apparently indicated they’re open to amendments. So get out there and make some noise about the digital locks issue.

Related:

• CBC: Copyright bill would outlaw breaking digital locks

New copyright rules: Format shifting OK, digital locks OK

The Globe says the Conservatives’ new copyright legislation will allow format shifting — people copying files they’ve already purchased so they can use them on other devices — but will also endorse the use of digital locks.

The Harper government is moving ahead with a controversial law that would spell out in much sharper detail what Canadians can and cannot do with digital copies of songs, movies and TV episodes.

Under the proposed regime, however, any digital locks that companies slap on this material – and others such as electronic books – will in most cases trump consumer rights to copy them.

New copyright legislation this week?

Judging from this Star article, it looks like digital locks are going to be the battleground issue.

OTTAWA—This week Ottawa will try once again to update Canada’s copyright law that Industry Minister Tony Clement says has holes big enough to “drive a Mack truck through.”

The Copyright Act of Canada has not had a significant rewrite since 1988, at a time when the Internet was still in its infancy and an iPad was just a twinkle in some inventor’s eye.

The trick — one the Conservatives and Liberals before them couldn’t master — is to find a balance between right of consumers’ and the rights of the artists or creators to not have their work ripped off.

John Degen on the moral panics of the copyright wars

Poet and literature officer — ZOMG! I love that title! — John Degen has posted a couple of times recently on the copyright panic that usually results in any discussion of DRM. I usually lean more toward Michael Geist than John when it comes to these matters, but it’s good to check out all the viewpoints. Although I think this issue will mostly fade away as companies embrace cloud computing for distribution and you’ll access your product from any of your devices rather than download it. See Kobo for an example of this.

James Moore: The iPadlock minister?

Michael Geist on the Canadian heritage minister (who you can follow on Twitter if you like).

Since his appointment as Canadian Heritage minister in 2008, James Moore has carefully crafted an image as “Canada’s iPod Minister.” Young, bilingual, and tech-savvy, Moore has expressed regular support for the benefits of the Internet and is always ready with a quick “tweet” for his many followers.  Yet as my op-ed in the Hill Times notes (HT version (sub required), homepage version), according to the scuttlebutt throughout the copyright community, Moore may be less iPod and more iPadlock. As the government readies its much-anticipated copyright package, Moore is said to be pressing for a virtual repeat of Bill C-61, the most anti-consumer copyright proposal in Canadian history.

Moore’s about-face on copyright will come as a surprise to those who have heard his enthusiasm for new technology and the Internet.  In June 2009, Moore told Industry Minister Tony Clement’s Digital Economy conference that “the old way of doing things is over.  These things are all now one. And it’s great. And it’s never been better. And we need to be enthusiastic and embrace this things.”

Geist also offers his views on a balanced copyright bill.

New copyright bill is on the way

Heritage Minister James Moore says the Conservatives will introduce a new copyright bill this spring, but they’re not releasing any details yet.

One industry source said the government appeared to have been leaning toward a more liberal regime, only to back down after opposition from the music and movie industry representatives and some artist collectives.

EU wants changes to Canada’s intellectual property laws

Did I say change? I mean it wants them rewritten. Michael Geist has the details.

CBC tries to clean up copyright confusion

The CBC is reviewing the icopyright issue and will try to clarify things shortly. In the meantime, bloggers can link and excerpt like normal.

Previously:

• So… what’s the point of the CBC’s new licensing plan?

The artistic activist

Cory Doctorow appeared on TVO recently to discuss his new book, Makers, and the ongoing debate over copyright. Thoughtful and provocative stuff, as usual.

Who’s weakening the anti-spam bill?

Michael Geist says the watering down of Canada’s anti-spam bill may be a result of intense pressure from “the copyright lobby.”

The copyright lobby’s interest in the bill has been simmering since its introduction, with lobbyists attending the committee hearings and working with Liberal and Bloc MPs to secure changes.  The two core concerns arise from fears that the bill could prevent surreptitious use of DRM and block enforcement initiatives that might involve accessing users’ personal computers without their permission.

So what exactly is Canada’s digitization strategy?

Michael Geist wonders why Canada is falling behind other countries when it comes to preserving its culture and heritage with an effective digitization strategy.

The European consultation document grapples with difficult issues such as guaranteeing access to public domain works and identifying ways to improve access to works that are still subject to copyright protection but are out-of-print, or for which the copyright owner cannot be located.

By comparison, Canada seems stuck at the digitization starting gate.  Library and Archives Canada was given responsibility for the issue but was unable to muster the necessary support for a comprehensive plan.  The Department of Canadian Heritage, which would seem like a natural fit for a strategy designed to foster access to Canadian works, has funded a handful of small digitization efforts but has shown little interest in crafting a vision similar to Europeana.

Previously:

• NFB calls for an “effective digitization strategy”
• Canada slow to load a digitization strategy

Michael Geist’s Copyright Consultation Submission

Law professor and copyright expert Michael Geist has submitted his thoughts on copyright reform to the Copyright Consultation. He covers pretty much everything you can think of, but these are the key points for the average consumer:

First, copyright law should strive for balance between creator rights and users’ rights.  If the law tilts too far in one direction, the other side is virtually guaranteed to put the issue of reform back on the table and the changes do not last.

Second, the law must be technologically neutral.  Copyright has proven remarkably resilient over the decades in large measure because it states broad principles about the scope and limits of protection.  If copyright veers too far toward specific technologies by mandating new protection for specific business models or technological innovations, those rules risk being overtaken as the technologies and marketplace evolve.

Third, the law should strive for simplification and clarity.  Copyright may once have been a niche issue understood by a small number of experts, yet today it affects the daily lives of millions of Canadians.  If Canadians are to respect the law, they must first understand it.  When Bill C-61 proposed a 12-part test to determine whether recording a television program was legal, it rendered the law far too complex for the average person.

Fourth, the law should embrace flexibility, which has allowed many copyright provisions to adapt to continually changing economic and technology environments. Flexibility takes a general purpose law and ensures that it works for stakeholders across the spectrum, whether documentary film makers, musicians, teachers, researchers, businesses, or consumers.

Canadian copyright reform roundup

Here’s a few submissions to the Canadian Copyright Consultation, via Michael Geist.

• Project Gutenberg Canada on copyright duration

The commercial value of copyrights is exhausted far more quickly than most people realize. The vast majority of books go out of print shortly after their original appearance, and are never reprinted. Very long copyright periods are dangerous to Canada’s cultural heritage, because many original works are in essence gone forever by the time they enter the Public Domain. They are forgotten, because they have been unavailable so long.

• Cory Doctorow on DRM

Record labels have long been concerned over the amount of control exerted by big-box retailers such as WalMart. But imagine if, in addition to having control over what inventory they carry, the big box stores also carried their books in such a way that they could only be shelved on WalMart shelves, they could only be read in WalMart lamps, running WalMart light bulbs. Imagine the lock-in to your customers and the lack of control over your destiny that you have signed up with if this is the path you pursue. Well, this is in fact what you get when you sell DRM’d eBooks or DRM’d music — in order to play back that DRM format, in order carry, manipulate or convert that DRM format, you have to license the DRM. The company that controls licensing for the DRM controls your business. [2-1]

We are seeing a reprise of the iTunes situation now with ebooks, through Amazon’s leading Kindle device (Amazon won’t disclose what the DRM in its device is and is not capable of, not even to publishers, nor will they allow publishers to alter their terms of service so that their copyrights can be sold to the public on terms that allows moving ebooks to rival devices) and with audiobooks, through Amazon’s Audible division (which requires DRM and contractual terms prohibiting format-shifting to rival devices, even when rightsholders object), who are the sole supplier of audiobooks to the iTunes Store and are the leading distributor of audiobooks.

• Jason Crocker on technological neutrality

The CCER and its members believe it is essential that Canadian copyright laws advance consumer and creator interests by not employing an all-encompassing prohibition on the development and manufacturing of circumvention devices and technologies, commercial trade of circumvention devices and technologies, and the possession and/or utilization of any device or technology that can circumvent a TPM or DRM for a non-infringing purpose or otherwise lawful activity, such as fair dealing, interoperability, and time and format shifting. The concept of technological neutrality is paramount when considering changes to Canada’s copyright regime that will withstand the test of time. The government must not integrate protection for specific technologies or business models into any amendments to the Copyright Act (e.g., all-encompassing prohibition of circumvention devices and technologies). Any new legislation should be technologically neutral to maintain flexibility into the future.

• John Degen on keeping copyright strong

Finally, I believe the Act can and should be clarified around consumer expectations for use of intellectual property. It is vitally important the Act draw a necessary distinction between the concepts of text and execution, or between intellectual property and purchased property. Much of the current criticism aimed at the Copyright Act, and even at the very idea of copyright conflates these two discrete concepts. The purchase of a specific execution of a text — a book, an e-book, a sound recording, a digital file, etc. — is not (and never has been) the same as the purchase of the foundational intellectual property (or text) for that specific execution.