Response to Kurt Langmann

A long time friend, Langley Township Councillor Jordan Bateman, recently made note of my blog postings over at langleyPolitics.com. Jordan's postings drew comments from Kurt Langmann, editor of the Aldergove Star. One of Kurt's recent editorial pieces drew some harsh criticism over on michaelgeist.ca . I decided to respond to Kurt's comments here where I hope to continue the debate.

Kurt's comments are listed here in itallics. My responses are in standard text.

Kurt:

Still don't get Cave's argument.

Current (1997) copyright law prohibits anyone from loading songs onto either computers or mp3 players. Stupid, out of date and guaranteed 99% of us don't know we're breaking the law. But that's the truth. It needs to be updated for the sake of millions of Canadians who don't wish to break the law.

I totally agree. I think the provisions that empower consumers to copy material onto any device they own are very positive. However, these rights are quickly withdrawn if the copyright holder decides to put technological measures (aka TM, TPM, DRM, digital locks) in place. This enables device makers and content creators who hold the majority of market share to dictate consumer behaviour by restricting their content to be played only on devices of their choosing. (eg. iTunes songs not playing on a third-party mp3 player). See Section 29.21c

C61 amendments would rectify this situation. Anything you buy can be loaded onto anything you own, provided you don't file-share and you keep the original licenced copy you paid for. As for digital locks, well, that's to stop file sharing, not to stop you from enjoying your own licenced copy. And it can't be done retroactively to copies you already own. Cave's argument that it would stop the public from enjoying and discovering new acts who load their stuff onto websites for free is incongruous. No one is stopping anyone from distributing their own copyright material for free. That's like saying that laws that permit you to lock your front doors to deter thieves would prevent people from taking away old stuff that you put on the end of your driveway with a "for free" sign from taking the crap away.

I believe Kurt is referring to a poorly crafted comment I made in a previous posting. I'm actually in agreement with him here. What I meant to communicate was that the TPM portions of the bill create a large gray area and will likely cause consumers to be unsure of what their rights are. File sharing can be a powerful marketing tool and we need to figure out a way to make it clear to the consumers what they're allowed to do. Asking them to become familliar with copyright law and read agreements just isn't going to happen. But if we say "You can give everything with a blue dot on it to whomever you like, orange dots can be put on any device you own and yellow dots cannot be duplicated.", that might find more success. If copyright holders do not want their material distributed, I believe consumers should respect the laws that established those rights.

I also agree that piracy is a problem and that copyright holders deserve to be compensated for their work. The bill may have been drafted with the intention of providing tools to combat piracy but this empowerment is too broad. As we've seen in the US, it would likely be used by large corporations in an attempt to control distribution channels. Tactics like these have enabled the major record labels to control the industry for the past 50 years.

The Major Label's litigation tactics in the US have been extremely disruptive. But they haven't ammounted to much innovation or improvement in product, competition or consumer experience. In fact, it's been a losing battle for them. Over the past 18 months, all 4 major labels have succumbed to consumer demand and have been forced by the market to offer their music DRM free. As a result, Rich Bengloff, President of the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) recently reported the collective market share allotted to independent labels has grown to more than 30%. Together, Independents now account for more market share than EMI, the smallest of the 4 majors. Since Canada only produces Independent Labels, that seems like a good thing. Let's create legislation that builds on this momentum instead of squashing it.

Quoting Mr. Prentice when he said "The copyright act should foster innovation in an effort to attract investment and high paying jobs to Canada", it seems contradictory to put mechanisms in place that empower foreign corporations who hold the majority of our market to continue to do so. I don't know of any major record labels that originate in Canada, nor can I see how any of the provisions would encourage them to invest in Canadian innovation. Assuming good intentions, the bill is a step in the right direction, but it certainly needs more work. We're Canadians, we can do better.

What say you Kurt?