The digital-copyright.ca domain was set up for a specific campaign that started in the summer of 2001 as the Canada DMCA Opponents forum.
The last post was in 2015 when that election was called, and all the electoral district boundaries would be changing.
While I won't be publishing the archive any more, all the pages are on Archive.org's WayBack Machine.
Showing posts with label Bill C-32. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill C-32. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2021
Closing digital-copyright.ca
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Does public transit "prove" private vehicle ownership and driving is inappropriate?
If you haven't already read it, please read my earlier article where I discuss a layered model for road transportation, and I try to clarify that "technological protection measures" (TPMs) are actually a restriction on who is allowed to drive (IE: author software for), or choose drivers for, communications technology. I strongly believe there are conversations that wouldn't even happen if we were talking about cars rather than computers.
Once you have a similar understanding of the communications technology being discussed, and the most appropriate transportation technology analogy, you can begin to see just how inappropriate some of the statements made about communications technology sound.
When I was a witness in front of the C-32 committee I gave a version of my "I'm holding up four things" talk I had already given in multiple settings (See: Protecting property rights in a digital world). The intention is to clarify that when discussing TPMs there are potentially 4 things that have owners (the media, the copyrighted work stored on media, the access device, and the authors of the software on the device), and that focusing only on one of them (the non-software copyright owner) risks inducing infringement or effectively abolishing the property and other rights of the other 3 owners.
I am an example of someone who has all 4 ownership interests: I own media, I am a copyright holder for non-software works, I own devices, and I author software.
One of the most vocal opponents of my attempt to protect the rights of all 4 classes of owners owners is John Degen (See: Making a living as an author vs. off of authors.) When he was a witness in front of the Senate committee studying the renumbered C-11 he discussed technology as well, but in a way that sounds quite silly for those of us who understand the technology and the relationship to creators.
If I provide a transportation technology translation of this intervention, you will see why what Mr Degen said makes no sense.
There are many reasons to be dismissive of what Mr Degen claims.
While he makes his living elsewhere (staff at Professional Writers Association and later Writers Union, and at the Ontario Arts Council when he spoke to committee), he is focused near exclusively on textual literary works. His suggestion he could read the text on screen and do fair dealing research using pen and paper sounds as silly as someone suggesting all witnesses to all committees could have walked there. While I live within walking distance of the federal parliament, most Canadians (including Mr. Degen) do not -- and while some creative works are only text, others are not. His words were dismissive of the rights and interests of the vast majority of Canadian creators. The Copyright Act regulates activities for works which are nothing at all like text literary works, and it is for these other works that many of the worst controversies arise.
Rather than a reason to dismiss concerns about technological measures, his comments are actually a reason to dismiss claims about the alleged effectiveness of technological measures at reducing copyright infringement. For the works in which fair dealings research doesn't require unlocking, copyright infringement also doesn't require unlocking. Someone who actually wanted to infringe the copyright on a textual work only has to re-type it.
Mr. Degen doesn't have an interest in driving his technology, or having any say into who does the driving. I personally don't have a drivers license, but I still care about who is doing the driving when it comes to transportation technology. I think there is a big difference between a privately run transit system where a private corporation decides all the policy, and a publicly managed transit system. I believe all passenger transportation systems, public or private, should be government regulated. The fact Mr. Degen held up a device with unaccountable and non-transparent private policy suggests he might not even care about these important distinctions.
While it is his right to not care who controls technology, it is not valid for him to claim his lack of personal interest is a reason to dismiss other peoples interests or seek to diminish or abolish their rights.
What Mr. Degen describes is different than the OCTranspo example because passengers haven't been mislead to believe they own the bus. In the case of the Kobo people are being dishonestly lead to believe they are "purchasing" something, but where they are not given the keys or allowed to change the locks on what they have been told they "own". If this was an honest business relationship where the vendor wanted to retain control then they would have retained ownership, and Mr Degen's Kobo would have been rented. There would have been a transparent rental agreement laying out all the conditions. Whether it is the enforceability of the rental agreements for things you don't own, or the legal protection of digital locks you apply to things you do own, it is dishonest and possibly unconstitutional to claim this is a matter of federal copyright law rather than provincial contract and property law. Without clearly understanding the relationship is closer to a rental than purchase, privacy and other rights aren't being appropriately protected. Far from being the subject matter of copyright law, technological measures are being abused to bypass many other laws and regulations.
The communications technology we are discussing is the same technology used to create and disseminate works. Revoking the ability of owners to independently control or have a say in who controls their technology doesn't only impact audiences, but greatly impacts creators. If some unaccountable and non-transparent third party has the ability to disallow in software (what controls the devices) specific creative works to be distributed, or even created in the first place, this can have a critical impact on culture.
This is why I believe that protecting technology property rights is a prerequisite for protecting creators' rights, and also why I consider those who are opponents to technology property rights to be opponents of creators' rights.
We wouldn't even be having this conversation if we were talking about cars rather than computers. If Mr. Degen were talking about transportation technology he would have been appropriately laughed out of the committee.
I am a long time creators' rights advocate, focused on technology property rights. I believe fellow creators need to take a closer look at how communications technology works so that they can tell who are allies and who are opponents to protecting their rights.
Once you have a similar understanding of the communications technology being discussed, and the most appropriate transportation technology analogy, you can begin to see just how inappropriate some of the statements made about communications technology sound.
When I was a witness in front of the C-32 committee I gave a version of my "I'm holding up four things" talk I had already given in multiple settings (See: Protecting property rights in a digital world). The intention is to clarify that when discussing TPMs there are potentially 4 things that have owners (the media, the copyrighted work stored on media, the access device, and the authors of the software on the device), and that focusing only on one of them (the non-software copyright owner) risks inducing infringement or effectively abolishing the property and other rights of the other 3 owners.
I am an example of someone who has all 4 ownership interests: I own media, I am a copyright holder for non-software works, I own devices, and I author software.
One of the most vocal opponents of my attempt to protect the rights of all 4 classes of owners owners is John Degen (See: Making a living as an author vs. off of authors.) When he was a witness in front of the Senate committee studying the renumbered C-11 he discussed technology as well, but in a way that sounds quite silly for those of us who understand the technology and the relationship to creators.
Mr. Degen: This morning Mr. Henderson referenced a couple of times real world situations and a lot of the panic that goes into extreme situations that might happen. This is a Kobo eReader — not a commercial for Kobo — and I have a bunch of books on it. Let us say I was studying these books in a university environment. I have Moby Dick, that great Canadian classic up here. Let us say I was studying Moby Dick. On this piece of technology, Moby Dick is locked. It is within the Kobo propriety locked system. It cannot be transferred to a Kindle, for instance. They do that for definition within the marketplace. There are fears out there that were I to be studying in a classroom environment, the lock would impede my fair-dealing rights to research and private study. I get around that completely legally, and without breaking any locks, by using paper and a pen. I read what is on the electronic device and I make my notes for research and private studying. I am, in effect, copying what is in the text and I do that perfectly legally. That is more likely what will be happening in classrooms. The extreme fears about digital locks locking students away from information are completely unfounded.
If I provide a transportation technology translation of this intervention, you will see why what Mr Degen said makes no sense.
Fictional person: This morning people expressed panic about what might happen if individuals are no longer allowed to have the keys to the locks on their cars, choose drivers, or drive vehicles themselves. I came to this committee this morning by OCTranspo. This is a locked system where the vehicles are owned by the city, and the city employs all drivers. There are other privately run systems such as Greyhound Canada, a subsidiary of British transport company FirstGroup, that owns the vehicles and hires all the drivers. There are fears that if individuals couldn't drive vehicles or choose who drives their vehicles, that it would restrict their travel. The fact I got here by OCTranspo is proof this is not the case. In fact, if these private and public sector transportation systems didn't exist I could have walked to the committee hearings. The extreme fears about non-owner locks on vehicles or prohibitions against choosing drivers or driving ones own vehicle are completely unfounded.
There are many reasons to be dismissive of what Mr Degen claims.
While he makes his living elsewhere (staff at Professional Writers Association and later Writers Union, and at the Ontario Arts Council when he spoke to committee), he is focused near exclusively on textual literary works. His suggestion he could read the text on screen and do fair dealing research using pen and paper sounds as silly as someone suggesting all witnesses to all committees could have walked there. While I live within walking distance of the federal parliament, most Canadians (including Mr. Degen) do not -- and while some creative works are only text, others are not. His words were dismissive of the rights and interests of the vast majority of Canadian creators. The Copyright Act regulates activities for works which are nothing at all like text literary works, and it is for these other works that many of the worst controversies arise.
Rather than a reason to dismiss concerns about technological measures, his comments are actually a reason to dismiss claims about the alleged effectiveness of technological measures at reducing copyright infringement. For the works in which fair dealings research doesn't require unlocking, copyright infringement also doesn't require unlocking. Someone who actually wanted to infringe the copyright on a textual work only has to re-type it.
Mr. Degen doesn't have an interest in driving his technology, or having any say into who does the driving. I personally don't have a drivers license, but I still care about who is doing the driving when it comes to transportation technology. I think there is a big difference between a privately run transit system where a private corporation decides all the policy, and a publicly managed transit system. I believe all passenger transportation systems, public or private, should be government regulated. The fact Mr. Degen held up a device with unaccountable and non-transparent private policy suggests he might not even care about these important distinctions.
While it is his right to not care who controls technology, it is not valid for him to claim his lack of personal interest is a reason to dismiss other peoples interests or seek to diminish or abolish their rights.
What Mr. Degen describes is different than the OCTranspo example because passengers haven't been mislead to believe they own the bus. In the case of the Kobo people are being dishonestly lead to believe they are "purchasing" something, but where they are not given the keys or allowed to change the locks on what they have been told they "own". If this was an honest business relationship where the vendor wanted to retain control then they would have retained ownership, and Mr Degen's Kobo would have been rented. There would have been a transparent rental agreement laying out all the conditions. Whether it is the enforceability of the rental agreements for things you don't own, or the legal protection of digital locks you apply to things you do own, it is dishonest and possibly unconstitutional to claim this is a matter of federal copyright law rather than provincial contract and property law. Without clearly understanding the relationship is closer to a rental than purchase, privacy and other rights aren't being appropriately protected. Far from being the subject matter of copyright law, technological measures are being abused to bypass many other laws and regulations.
The communications technology we are discussing is the same technology used to create and disseminate works. Revoking the ability of owners to independently control or have a say in who controls their technology doesn't only impact audiences, but greatly impacts creators. If some unaccountable and non-transparent third party has the ability to disallow in software (what controls the devices) specific creative works to be distributed, or even created in the first place, this can have a critical impact on culture.
This is why I believe that protecting technology property rights is a prerequisite for protecting creators' rights, and also why I consider those who are opponents to technology property rights to be opponents of creators' rights.
We wouldn't even be having this conversation if we were talking about cars rather than computers. If Mr. Degen were talking about transportation technology he would have been appropriately laughed out of the committee.
I am a long time creators' rights advocate, focused on technology property rights. I believe fellow creators need to take a closer look at how communications technology works so that they can tell who are allies and who are opponents to protecting their rights.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it was cars rather than computers!
Section 92 of Canada's copyright act indicates:
On December 13'th the following was included in a motion by Bardish Chagger Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism:
This indicates that in the new year that the INDU committee will be reviewing the Copyright Act.
I was actively involved in the process last round. I joined the process in the summer of 2001 when I heard that Canada was contemplating adding "technological protection measures" to our Copyright Act. Software authors already understood the harm from the anti-circumvention aspects of the USA's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
In an earlier article I discuss a layered model for road transportation, and that "technological protection measures" (TPMs) are actually a restriction on who is allowed to drive (IE: author software for), or choose drivers for, communications technology.
While I don't have a drivers license or drive a car, I have been driving computers since 1981. The rights of computer owners to drive their own computers, or choose their own drivers if they don't have the skills themselves, should be understood as fundamental a right as driving automobiles already is to the rest of society.
I had to get involved in this policy discussion, even though it never made sense to me that we were even having the discussion. I acknowledge that technology, whether transportation or communications technology, can be abused in breaking the law. While this has always been true of vehicles, there has never been a serious policy discussion about disallowing vehicle owners the right to drive their own vehicles, or disallow them to choose their own drivers if they didn't have those skills. The only reason we were having this conversation is because policy makers, similar to the general public, lack adequate literacy on communications technology which we all take for granted for transportation technology.
While the section 92 review was announced in the summer of 2001, it wasn't until October 2003 that submissions were due. My first formal submission to that process is available through my website. In the summer of 2001 I started a discussion forum called "canada-dmca-opponents" which grew into the Digital Copyright Canada website.
I spent considerable time from 2001 through the passage of Bill C-11 in 2012 active in that area of policy. This included only accepting part-time jobs so that I could participate. When I started my current job in 2011 I only accepted an 80% contract so that I could attend every Bill C-32 and Bill C-11 committee meeting.
While my focus was on the rights of technology owners, false claims were often made about my views on copyright. It was frequently suggested that if I was opposed to TPMs, the only possible reason could be because I didn't believe authors should get paid. As a software author myself this was a ludicrous suggestion, and yet even some of the most sympathetic journalists would falsely claim I was an "anti-copyright crusader".
This would never have happened if we were talking about cars rather than computers. Someone claiming that the only reason someone wants to drive their own car is because they wish to break the law or are a criminal would be appropriately laughed out of the room. Unfortunately when it comes to technological measures, few recognize just how ridiculous it is.
It took me years to realize just how low technology literacy is within policy circles. Most of the conversations about TPMs come from the belief that it is something applied to copyrighted works, and that these measures allow decisions to be made (can copies be made, under what conditions, etc). This is similar to believing that a paperback book is sentient, and can come alive and autonomously run away if the reader of the book tries to do something the book doesn't like. I have come to refer to this as the "Harry Potter" understanding of TPMs. While purely based on fiction, this is the most common misunderstanding of TPMs.
If we were talking about cars rather than computers, people with such a low literacy of the relevant subject matter would not be considered experts or be allowed to dominate the debate.
I wish the review of the Copyright act would be about Copyright law.
I've learned quite a bit by speaking with fellow creators and creator groups, and have knowledge of the wide variety of market changes each group is facing. In nearly all cases there are legitimate changes in which intermediaries are involved in the relationships between creators and their audiences. While there are many intermediaries crying fowl at these advancements, the vast majority of the changes I've observed are positive for creators and should be encouraged. In many cases when there are infringements, these are infringements induced by the harmful business practices of specific intermediaries: they are infringements that could be handled with an "inducement" regime for contributory infringements, rather than the incorrect focus of the "enablement" policy that was added as part of C-11.
I am forced again to focus on TPMs this round of Copyright Act review. While it may be true that some copyright holders use TPMs, it has no more place in Copyright law than a National Energy Program has simply because some copyright holders use electricity.
I look forward to a future when the Copyright Act only has Copyright related provisions in it, and we can finally have a proper conversation about modernizing copyright law that isn't tainted by being dominated by non-copyright related discussion.
Review of Act
92 Five years after the day on which this section comes into force and at the end of each subsequent period of five years, a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing this Act.
1997, c. 24, s. 50; 2012, c. 20, s. 58.
On December 13'th the following was included in a motion by Bardish Chagger Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism:
(c) the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology be the committee designated for the purposes of section 92 of the Copyright Act; and
This indicates that in the new year that the INDU committee will be reviewing the Copyright Act.
I was actively involved in the process last round. I joined the process in the summer of 2001 when I heard that Canada was contemplating adding "technological protection measures" to our Copyright Act. Software authors already understood the harm from the anti-circumvention aspects of the USA's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
In an earlier article I discuss a layered model for road transportation, and that "technological protection measures" (TPMs) are actually a restriction on who is allowed to drive (IE: author software for), or choose drivers for, communications technology.
While I don't have a drivers license or drive a car, I have been driving computers since 1981. The rights of computer owners to drive their own computers, or choose their own drivers if they don't have the skills themselves, should be understood as fundamental a right as driving automobiles already is to the rest of society.
I had to get involved in this policy discussion, even though it never made sense to me that we were even having the discussion. I acknowledge that technology, whether transportation or communications technology, can be abused in breaking the law. While this has always been true of vehicles, there has never been a serious policy discussion about disallowing vehicle owners the right to drive their own vehicles, or disallow them to choose their own drivers if they didn't have those skills. The only reason we were having this conversation is because policy makers, similar to the general public, lack adequate literacy on communications technology which we all take for granted for transportation technology.
While the section 92 review was announced in the summer of 2001, it wasn't until October 2003 that submissions were due. My first formal submission to that process is available through my website. In the summer of 2001 I started a discussion forum called "canada-dmca-opponents" which grew into the Digital Copyright Canada website.
I spent considerable time from 2001 through the passage of Bill C-11 in 2012 active in that area of policy. This included only accepting part-time jobs so that I could participate. When I started my current job in 2011 I only accepted an 80% contract so that I could attend every Bill C-32 and Bill C-11 committee meeting.
While my focus was on the rights of technology owners, false claims were often made about my views on copyright. It was frequently suggested that if I was opposed to TPMs, the only possible reason could be because I didn't believe authors should get paid. As a software author myself this was a ludicrous suggestion, and yet even some of the most sympathetic journalists would falsely claim I was an "anti-copyright crusader".
This would never have happened if we were talking about cars rather than computers. Someone claiming that the only reason someone wants to drive their own car is because they wish to break the law or are a criminal would be appropriately laughed out of the room. Unfortunately when it comes to technological measures, few recognize just how ridiculous it is.
It took me years to realize just how low technology literacy is within policy circles. Most of the conversations about TPMs come from the belief that it is something applied to copyrighted works, and that these measures allow decisions to be made (can copies be made, under what conditions, etc). This is similar to believing that a paperback book is sentient, and can come alive and autonomously run away if the reader of the book tries to do something the book doesn't like. I have come to refer to this as the "Harry Potter" understanding of TPMs. While purely based on fiction, this is the most common misunderstanding of TPMs.
If we were talking about cars rather than computers, people with such a low literacy of the relevant subject matter would not be considered experts or be allowed to dominate the debate.
I wish the review of the Copyright act would be about Copyright law.
I've learned quite a bit by speaking with fellow creators and creator groups, and have knowledge of the wide variety of market changes each group is facing. In nearly all cases there are legitimate changes in which intermediaries are involved in the relationships between creators and their audiences. While there are many intermediaries crying fowl at these advancements, the vast majority of the changes I've observed are positive for creators and should be encouraged. In many cases when there are infringements, these are infringements induced by the harmful business practices of specific intermediaries: they are infringements that could be handled with an "inducement" regime for contributory infringements, rather than the incorrect focus of the "enablement" policy that was added as part of C-11.
I am forced again to focus on TPMs this round of Copyright Act review. While it may be true that some copyright holders use TPMs, it has no more place in Copyright law than a National Energy Program has simply because some copyright holders use electricity.
I look forward to a future when the Copyright Act only has Copyright related provisions in it, and we can finally have a proper conversation about modernizing copyright law that isn't tainted by being dominated by non-copyright related discussion.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Multiple connections to the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) LOD project
One of the things I like about working at Canadiana.org is the links between what I'm paid for (systems and software design,administration,maintenance) and other aspects of my life. A project we have with the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) is an example.
The platform was developed by another contractor for CHIN, and is built upon two NoSQL database servers with Solr for text search and Blazegraph as a graph database. The 'aclod' (Artefacts Canada Linked Open Data) application is written in Java, and runs within a Jetty.
Part of why we wanted to partner with CHIN is that we are growing our access platform and need to explore graph database technology for Linked Open Data (LOD) projects. The graph database would be in addition to our existing use of Solr, CouchDB and MySQL. Our metadata architect, software lead and myself as systems lead will be taking a close look at this application.
The site is currently hosted within our Ottawa datacenter, but will soon be moving to a more powerful host located at the University of Toronto. As part of our Trustworthy Digital Repository certification we have succession agreements with 3 partners where we have servers as part of our preservation network: Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa, University of Toronto, and University of Alberta in Edmonton. We have a half-cabinet in a Montreal commercial datacenter, but I look forward to when this can be moved to a fourth partner joining the preservation network (Greetings to anyone reading this from McGill, Université de Montréal, or UBC which are the other 3 often listed as the top 5 Canadian universities).
In the winter of 1997/98 I did a contract for CHIN to upgrade their online subscription registration system to include subscription renewals. This was built with PHP and FI, prior to when those component were merged to become the PHP scripting language people are more familiar with today. I was impressed that this agency of a federal department had adopted this emerging web-based language developed by Danish-Canadian programmer Rasmus Lerdorf. At the time so much of what I saw in the federal government was locked into languages and technology that were proprietary and controlled by foreign corporations.
Browsing the ACLOD site you will see images of artwork whose creators have died prior to 1966, meaning the works are in the public domain in Canada and not subject to copyright regulations for Canadians. On the site there are notes suggesting some of these images are regulated by copyright, with the gallery or museum alleging copyright.
Canada is a country that requires "skill and judgement" as a test for originality to be granted copyright, and most lawyers agree that merely digitizing (regardless of the type of recording equipment used or if a human or tripod was holding the recording device) existing artistic works does not create new copyright.
This policy of some museums and galleries is controversial for artists as they find it frustrating (and sometimes insulting) that these institutions often don't pay creators to publicly exhibit their works during the term of copyright, and yet charge "copyright" related fees for artists to build upon mere digitization of works in the public domain.
Canadiana is a creation of the Canadian library community: We're a Canadian charity with a board made up of representatives of the LAM community, not a vendor. I believe it is important for all memory institutions and other parts of the Library, Archive and Museum (LAM) community to work together to help minimise confusion and animosity around copyright. I don't say this as a critique of the great work that went into this or similar projects, but as an area of policy where I believe there is considerable opportunity for improvement within our community.
A Linked Open Data Internet Hosting Project
Canadiana's primary involvement in the project is to host the Artefacts Canada Linked Open Data website.The platform was developed by another contractor for CHIN, and is built upon two NoSQL database servers with Solr for text search and Blazegraph as a graph database. The 'aclod' (Artefacts Canada Linked Open Data) application is written in Java, and runs within a Jetty.
Part of why we wanted to partner with CHIN is that we are growing our access platform and need to explore graph database technology for Linked Open Data (LOD) projects. The graph database would be in addition to our existing use of Solr, CouchDB and MySQL. Our metadata architect, software lead and myself as systems lead will be taking a close look at this application.
The site is currently hosted within our Ottawa datacenter, but will soon be moving to a more powerful host located at the University of Toronto. As part of our Trustworthy Digital Repository certification we have succession agreements with 3 partners where we have servers as part of our preservation network: Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa, University of Toronto, and University of Alberta in Edmonton. We have a half-cabinet in a Montreal commercial datacenter, but I look forward to when this can be moved to a fourth partner joining the preservation network (Greetings to anyone reading this from McGill, Université de Montréal, or UBC which are the other 3 often listed as the top 5 Canadian universities).
An Open Government initiative
I am a long time (Free/Libre and) open source, open data and open government advocate. While I was reading the Draft New Plan on Open Government 2016-2018 I noticed something familiar within Commitment 8: Enhance Access to Culture & Heritage Collections.In 2015-16, the Canadian Heritage Information Network Program (CHIN) partnered with eight art museums across Canada to develop an approach to link the collections of each museum with each other, and to related external resources, based on industry best practices (e.g., Linked Open Data). This work demonstrates the feasibility of using Open Data approaches to link collections across museums and other memory organizations.This project that Canadiana has been asked to host is a small part of something much larger that will hopefully grow with further stages of this project and the growth of government released linkable open data.
A past customer
I was a self-employed consultant between 1995 and the summer of 2011, when Canadiana convinced me to become a salaried employee. This was after completing a 6-month contract with them starting in January 2011.In the winter of 1997/98 I did a contract for CHIN to upgrade their online subscription registration system to include subscription renewals. This was built with PHP and FI, prior to when those component were merged to become the PHP scripting language people are more familiar with today. I was impressed that this agency of a federal department had adopted this emerging web-based language developed by Danish-Canadian programmer Rasmus Lerdorf. At the time so much of what I saw in the federal government was locked into languages and technology that were proprietary and controlled by foreign corporations.
Part of the copyright debate
For my first few years at Canadiana I requested to be part-time so that I could attend, live-tweet and write daily commentary on the hearings for the copyright bill (first for C-32, which was re-tabled as C-11). I was a witness on March 8, 2011.Browsing the ACLOD site you will see images of artwork whose creators have died prior to 1966, meaning the works are in the public domain in Canada and not subject to copyright regulations for Canadians. On the site there are notes suggesting some of these images are regulated by copyright, with the gallery or museum alleging copyright.
Canada is a country that requires "skill and judgement" as a test for originality to be granted copyright, and most lawyers agree that merely digitizing (regardless of the type of recording equipment used or if a human or tripod was holding the recording device) existing artistic works does not create new copyright.
This policy of some museums and galleries is controversial for artists as they find it frustrating (and sometimes insulting) that these institutions often don't pay creators to publicly exhibit their works during the term of copyright, and yet charge "copyright" related fees for artists to build upon mere digitization of works in the public domain.
Canadiana is a creation of the Canadian library community: We're a Canadian charity with a board made up of representatives of the LAM community, not a vendor. I believe it is important for all memory institutions and other parts of the Library, Archive and Museum (LAM) community to work together to help minimise confusion and animosity around copyright. I don't say this as a critique of the great work that went into this or similar projects, but as an area of policy where I believe there is considerable opportunity for improvement within our community.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Will you explain why DRM is bad?
I
was asked
on twitter to explain why DRM is bad. Given I have spent
more than a decade talking about this topic, you would think there is a
simple twitter-length answer: but there isn't.
Whether you believe the acronym expands to Digital Rights Management, Digital Restrictions Management, or Dishonest Relationship Misinformation, it doesn't define a specific technology or technique. The acronym is used to refer to non-controversial technologies such as databases describing content and eCommerce websites, to highly controversial things such as digital locks which lock out the owners of what is locked.
We can't entirely avoid using confusing terms, as people will immediately say "Aren't you talking about DRM" when you want to speak about specific harmful activities. It is very useful to be clear whenever the time is available.
When some people are concerned about DRM they are concerned about the inability to loan electronic books, or to exercise their fair dealing rights. While that is peripherally interesting to me, and I agree with some and disagree with other of these ideas, my main concern is impacts which are entirely outside of copyright. I am happy to discuss (including in comments below, or on the Digital-copyright.ca site) copyright related topics, but for the purpose of this article I am going to talk about things which are unrelated to copyright.
The two techniques I have been fighting against are anti-interoperability locks on content, and non-owner locks on devices.
I believe it should be obvious why having a lock, digital or otherwise, which locks the owner out of what they own is wrong. In our society most people have at least a minimum of respect for the concept of property rights, and believe that if locks exist it should be the owner that controls them. Locks should certainly never be allowed to be abused to lock the owner out of what they own, and our laws should protect the owner against such scenarios. I would be happy to discuss this more if people want, but I am honest in saying that I can't understand why people demonstrate such a lack of respect for or understanding why governments property rights in these discussions.
It shouldn't matter if what is locked is our homes, our cars, or our computers: we should never allow for digital exceptionalism where we ignore basic property rights if the property happens to be digital technology.
The anti-interoperability lock on content ties the ability to access the content to specific brands of devices. This is harmful in a variety of ways, including being what I consider to be a textbook example of tied selling as described in section 77 of our competition act. Governments have competition and anti-trust laws for a reason, and again we should not throw away this body of law simply because the tied selling includes something digital.
I don't believe that copyright holders should have the right to decide what brands of technology I use, or what features should exist in the technology that is created and sold. That said, those who support this policy should recognize that in the vast majority of real-world scenarios it is not the copyright holder that controls the keys to these digital locks. It is the vendor of the DRM system, a technology company, that controls the keys. Any digital lock, analog or digital, protects the interests of the key-holder and not necessarily the owner. I have observed many copyright holders switch their position from being in strong support of technological measures being added to copyright law to being strong opponents once they realized that they as copyright holders would not have the keys or any real-world control over these digital locks.
More important to me, these anti-interoperability locks tie people to non-owner locked devices, something I believe should be prohibited in law. My primary issue in this debate is the protection of the tangible property rights of technology owners. Even if it were copyright holders that held the keys to the digital locks on their content, and even if there was a shred of evidence that these locks reduced copyright infringement (most evidence suggests increases), I would still disagree that this justified the legalization of non-owner locks on our devices or anti-competitive behaviour that encouraged the use of non-owner locked devices.
While I believe that these two controversial locks should be prohibited in law, Bill C-11 (and C-32 and C-61 before them) provide legal protection for them. While these bills are called "An Act to amend the Copyright Act", the digital locks provisions are not related to the subject matter of copyright law. In fact, these digital locks have been and will continue to be abused to circumvent the contours of existing laws including contract, e-commerce, property, competition, trade and even copyright.
We have a long way to go in this conversation. In my mind anyone who respects contract, e-commerce, property, competition, trade, and/or copyright should be opposed to "technological measures" being added to the copyright act. Legal protection for "technological measures" must be added to the correct law in order for them not to be abused to circumvent the law.
If a technical measure is protecting contracting terms, including a copyright license agreement, then the legal protection should be in provincial contract law.
If a technical measure is protecting electronic commerce, then the legal protection should be in provincial e-commerce law.
And so on...
Hope this helps, and sorry that there isn't a twitter-sized response to this question. There is a lack of clarity in what the acronym means, which add to the confusion that most of the impacts of adding "technological measures" to copyright law have nothing to do with copyright.
Whether you believe the acronym expands to Digital Rights Management, Digital Restrictions Management, or Dishonest Relationship Misinformation, it doesn't define a specific technology or technique. The acronym is used to refer to non-controversial technologies such as databases describing content and eCommerce websites, to highly controversial things such as digital locks which lock out the owners of what is locked.
We can't entirely avoid using confusing terms, as people will immediately say "Aren't you talking about DRM" when you want to speak about specific harmful activities. It is very useful to be clear whenever the time is available.
When some people are concerned about DRM they are concerned about the inability to loan electronic books, or to exercise their fair dealing rights. While that is peripherally interesting to me, and I agree with some and disagree with other of these ideas, my main concern is impacts which are entirely outside of copyright. I am happy to discuss (including in comments below, or on the Digital-copyright.ca site) copyright related topics, but for the purpose of this article I am going to talk about things which are unrelated to copyright.
The two techniques I have been fighting against are anti-interoperability locks on content, and non-owner locks on devices.
I believe it should be obvious why having a lock, digital or otherwise, which locks the owner out of what they own is wrong. In our society most people have at least a minimum of respect for the concept of property rights, and believe that if locks exist it should be the owner that controls them. Locks should certainly never be allowed to be abused to lock the owner out of what they own, and our laws should protect the owner against such scenarios. I would be happy to discuss this more if people want, but I am honest in saying that I can't understand why people demonstrate such a lack of respect for or understanding why governments property rights in these discussions.
It shouldn't matter if what is locked is our homes, our cars, or our computers: we should never allow for digital exceptionalism where we ignore basic property rights if the property happens to be digital technology.
The anti-interoperability lock on content ties the ability to access the content to specific brands of devices. This is harmful in a variety of ways, including being what I consider to be a textbook example of tied selling as described in section 77 of our competition act. Governments have competition and anti-trust laws for a reason, and again we should not throw away this body of law simply because the tied selling includes something digital.
I don't believe that copyright holders should have the right to decide what brands of technology I use, or what features should exist in the technology that is created and sold. That said, those who support this policy should recognize that in the vast majority of real-world scenarios it is not the copyright holder that controls the keys to these digital locks. It is the vendor of the DRM system, a technology company, that controls the keys. Any digital lock, analog or digital, protects the interests of the key-holder and not necessarily the owner. I have observed many copyright holders switch their position from being in strong support of technological measures being added to copyright law to being strong opponents once they realized that they as copyright holders would not have the keys or any real-world control over these digital locks.
More important to me, these anti-interoperability locks tie people to non-owner locked devices, something I believe should be prohibited in law. My primary issue in this debate is the protection of the tangible property rights of technology owners. Even if it were copyright holders that held the keys to the digital locks on their content, and even if there was a shred of evidence that these locks reduced copyright infringement (most evidence suggests increases), I would still disagree that this justified the legalization of non-owner locks on our devices or anti-competitive behaviour that encouraged the use of non-owner locked devices.
While I believe that these two controversial locks should be prohibited in law, Bill C-11 (and C-32 and C-61 before them) provide legal protection for them. While these bills are called "An Act to amend the Copyright Act", the digital locks provisions are not related to the subject matter of copyright law. In fact, these digital locks have been and will continue to be abused to circumvent the contours of existing laws including contract, e-commerce, property, competition, trade and even copyright.
We have a long way to go in this conversation. In my mind anyone who respects contract, e-commerce, property, competition, trade, and/or copyright should be opposed to "technological measures" being added to the copyright act. Legal protection for "technological measures" must be added to the correct law in order for them not to be abused to circumvent the law.
If a technical measure is protecting contracting terms, including a copyright license agreement, then the legal protection should be in provincial contract law.
If a technical measure is protecting electronic commerce, then the legal protection should be in provincial e-commerce law.
And so on...
Hope this helps, and sorry that there isn't a twitter-sized response to this question. There is a lack of clarity in what the acronym means, which add to the confusion that most of the impacts of adding "technological measures" to copyright law have nothing to do with copyright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)