Federal political news this weekend is focused on the Liberal party convention, as expected. They are speaking of renewal, having been pushed to 3'rd party in the house during the last election.
Since I was voting age I've been a member of the Progressive Conservative party of Canada and Green Party of Canada, donated money to individual NDP MPs and campaigns, and voted Liberal. There are things I agree and disagree with each of the parties with seats in the house, and there are individual MPs I respect and some I don't that are not dependant on party lines.
I believe that the Liberal party, as it was in the past, will no longer work. If their intention is to regain what they once had, they have no future.
They focused on trying to build their Big Red Tent, inviting everyone inside. There was nothing other than their tribal colours that could be said about this group. They had people that crossed nearly all political philosophies. This meant you had to focus on the individual MPs to see if you could stand that individual, knowing that this likely back-bench MP wouldn't have sway if the leadership of the party headed in another direction. You really had no idea what you were voting for, or if your vote would end up contradicting your own political beliefs.
The party became very arrogant, and there are still people from that mindset steering the party. Likely the most arrogant MP I ever met in person (see list if curious) was Sheila Copps. I met her in person in the context of the Minister's Forum on Copyright, April 4th, 2003, when she was Heritage Minister. She had very superficial ideas on the impact of copyright on creators, creativity and innovation. She would walk away and/or argue with anyone who had any depth to their thinking. I observed her speaking on other policy in other forums, and she seemed to carry this unjustified arrogance with her there as well.
I feel that Sheila Copps is a representative of what went wrong with the Liberal Party of Canada. This weekend the party will be electing a president, and Sheila Copps is one of the top contenders. I believe it will be telling of whether they will be a backward facing party without a future, or a forward facing one recognising the need to change, by who they elect as president.
Ms. Copps is not the only Liberal that I felt ignored the "evidence based policy" thinking that appears to be the theme of this convention. When Copps was pushed out by the Martin Liberals (riding boundary readjustments they said.....), Sam Bulte (Parkdale - High Park) took her place, and when she lost her seat (partly due to controversy with her opposing evidence based policy), Dan McTeague (Pickering - Scarborough East) took over. While they all had ideological positions that lacked evidence on the areas of policy I was most closely watching, it was not an ideological position that was party based or that was consistent with other MPs or representatives of the party. Given some of the least evidence based thinking MPs were Liberals, it made it hard for anyone following these issues to vote Liberal.
Is the focus on "evidence based policy" thinking a recognition that this was lacking in the Liberals in the past, or is this an attempt at a partisan attack another political party? Does the Liberal party recognise its faulty past and are looking to make large changes to become more relevant in the future, or are they looking to regain their past? I'll be watching....
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Protecting IT property rights not a short-term calling
I've been asked over the last decade how my activism will change once Canadian legislation that includes Paracopyright passes. Will my activism be finished, and will I admit "defeat" if a bill abrogates the government's responsibility to protect IT property rights?
At one level this could be a question about whether I will honour the law, which isn't really a fair question. Conservative MP Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre) suggests my honouring the law is optional, saying "If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a law suit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved." I suspect the fact one of my early submissions to the government in 2001 involved documenting my circumvention of a TPM for an otherwise lawful purpose suggests that I will continue to do the same.
The more important answer is to state that our activism can not discontinue, and any passage of legislation is only one stage in an ongoing process. The United States provides examples where possible legislative wins can turn around in the courts, which suggests we will need to remain active to seek to turn any legislative losses into wins in the courts or later legislative wins.
A twitter/Google+ exchange with Jason J Kee, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at the Entertainment Software Alliance of Canada, provides an example of this issue. Mr Kee's association includes game console manufacturers as members, with some game console manufacturers and mobile computer manufacturers being the least respective of IT property rights. Given some of his members want to legalise and legally protect activities which infringe upon the rights of technology owners, our biases in how to look at these policies will be quite different.
He challenged a suggestion I made in a Google+ posting that the USA's technological measures provisions have a tie to infringing purposes. I pointed to my reading of the DMCA which includes the following after defining access control technical measures in Title 17, § 1201, includes the following:
This is a pretty plain language suggestion that the legislators intended limits and exceptions to copyright to not be trumped by technological measures.
Mr. Kee suggested that I'm "ignoring 10+ years of jurisprudence under the DMCA which does not support your assertion #C11", "Most recent MDY v Blizzard, where 9th Cir confirmed no nexus b/t circumvention & infringement 1.usa.gov/dN3wbX #C11"
What he pointed to was "MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT" appeal decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In this case the court ruled that "for a licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the condition and the licensor's exclusive rights of copyright." They then ignored the section of the DMCA I quoted above, and suggested that there should be no nexus between an access control and any rights or limitations in copyright. They went out of their way to ignore or reinterpret other court decisions and statements made by legislators to come to a specific decision.
We could discuss how courts are political entities, and how this Democrat dominated court is interpreting protectionist policies originating in the Clinton/Gore National Information Infrastructure Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights.
The take-away for Canadians should be that after Bill C-11 is passed, the law will continue to change. We should not resign ourselves into believing Canada will follow the USA in increasing the enabling of IT property rights infringement. It is just as likely that things will go the other way.
The MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT case is in my mind a clear example of a TPM being abused to enforce contractual obligations, where one party to the contract is given excessive control over the other. In Canada there have been a number of law professors who have called attention to this issue, going as far as to suggest that this "poorly veiled attempt by the Government to strengthen the contractual rights available to copyright owners, in the guise of copyright reform" may be unconstitutional. Contract law is provincial jurisdiction, and any Paracopyright provisions that extend beyond activities that are the subject matter of copyright may be struck down by Canadian courts.
In my mind, any abuse of a technology that disables law abiding computer owners to control their computers for lawful purposes is an infringement of IT property rights. It is possible that provincial governments and courts will be called upon to clarify this aspect of tangible property rights, and weigh in favour of technology owners. They may not only strike down any legal protection of these abuses of technology in federal Copyright law, but may create legislation to legally prohibit it. This may allow owners to be able to go after infringers, providing the level of protection to technology owners that Bill C-11 alleges to provide for copyright owners.
Ensuring that these infringers won't get away with their dishonest activities when it comes to our governments, our courts, and our computers will require that we remain active in fighting to protect our rights. Setbacks at one time do not mean we should give up, and laws and interpretation of those laws change all the time.
At one level this could be a question about whether I will honour the law, which isn't really a fair question. Conservative MP Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre) suggests my honouring the law is optional, saying "If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a law suit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved." I suspect the fact one of my early submissions to the government in 2001 involved documenting my circumvention of a TPM for an otherwise lawful purpose suggests that I will continue to do the same.
The more important answer is to state that our activism can not discontinue, and any passage of legislation is only one stage in an ongoing process. The United States provides examples where possible legislative wins can turn around in the courts, which suggests we will need to remain active to seek to turn any legislative losses into wins in the courts or later legislative wins.
A twitter/Google+ exchange with Jason J Kee, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at the Entertainment Software Alliance of Canada, provides an example of this issue. Mr Kee's association includes game console manufacturers as members, with some game console manufacturers and mobile computer manufacturers being the least respective of IT property rights. Given some of his members want to legalise and legally protect activities which infringe upon the rights of technology owners, our biases in how to look at these policies will be quite different.
He challenged a suggestion I made in a Google+ posting that the USA's technological measures provisions have a tie to infringing purposes. I pointed to my reading of the DMCA which includes the following after defining access control technical measures in Title 17, § 1201, includes the following:
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. — (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.
This is a pretty plain language suggestion that the legislators intended limits and exceptions to copyright to not be trumped by technological measures.
Mr. Kee suggested that I'm "ignoring 10+ years of jurisprudence under the DMCA which does not support your assertion #C11", "Most recent MDY v Blizzard, where 9th Cir confirmed no nexus b/t circumvention & infringement 1.usa.gov/dN3wbX #C11"
What he pointed to was "MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT" appeal decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In this case the court ruled that "for a licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the condition and the licensor's exclusive rights of copyright." They then ignored the section of the DMCA I quoted above, and suggested that there should be no nexus between an access control and any rights or limitations in copyright. They went out of their way to ignore or reinterpret other court decisions and statements made by legislators to come to a specific decision.
We could discuss how courts are political entities, and how this Democrat dominated court is interpreting protectionist policies originating in the Clinton/Gore National Information Infrastructure Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights.
The take-away for Canadians should be that after Bill C-11 is passed, the law will continue to change. We should not resign ourselves into believing Canada will follow the USA in increasing the enabling of IT property rights infringement. It is just as likely that things will go the other way.
The MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT case is in my mind a clear example of a TPM being abused to enforce contractual obligations, where one party to the contract is given excessive control over the other. In Canada there have been a number of law professors who have called attention to this issue, going as far as to suggest that this "poorly veiled attempt by the Government to strengthen the contractual rights available to copyright owners, in the guise of copyright reform" may be unconstitutional. Contract law is provincial jurisdiction, and any Paracopyright provisions that extend beyond activities that are the subject matter of copyright may be struck down by Canadian courts.
In my mind, any abuse of a technology that disables law abiding computer owners to control their computers for lawful purposes is an infringement of IT property rights. It is possible that provincial governments and courts will be called upon to clarify this aspect of tangible property rights, and weigh in favour of technology owners. They may not only strike down any legal protection of these abuses of technology in federal Copyright law, but may create legislation to legally prohibit it. This may allow owners to be able to go after infringers, providing the level of protection to technology owners that Bill C-11 alleges to provide for copyright owners.
Ensuring that these infringers won't get away with their dishonest activities when it comes to our governments, our courts, and our computers will require that we remain active in fighting to protect our rights. Setbacks at one time do not mean we should give up, and laws and interpretation of those laws change all the time.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Are paywalls a Copyright issue?
We should answer the question of whether a paywall is a copyright issue, before we dive into the question of the importance of this question for the debate around the Paracopyright provisions in Bill C-11.
I am familiar with paywalls from the perspective of both a user and a provider of such services. I will offer two specific examples of paywalls to illustrate the issues.
I have been a paid subscriber to The Hill Times since 2005. This is an example of a service that offers some access to anonymous browsers on the Internet, but offers advanced services (full access to search through considerable archives, access to all new articles, etc) only to paid subscribers. You use a simple username and password to log in to prove you are a subscribe.
My current job is as a software author and system administrator for Canadiana.org. We offer anonymous access to some content, while other content is only available to paid subscribers. All the content is in the public domain, so copyright isn't relevant to our service. What is being paid for is access to this content as a method to fund the work we do in digitizing and organizing this information. We have individual and institutional subscribers, with individual users able to subscribe quickly making use of a simple PayPal payment system. While institutional subscribers are given access based on their internet address, individual subscribers use a simple username and password to indicate they are a subscriber.
These two services equally use of a paywall to differentiate between anonymous access and subscribers. While The Hill Time is offering access to copyrighted works, Canadian.org is not. From a legal standpoint these paywalls should be treated the same, with each being offered the same level of legal protection against people who might want to gain unauthorized access to our services.
There has been suggestions from some people that paywalls are inadequately legally protected in Canada. This is often being claimed by proponents of the Paracopyright ("digital locks") provisions in Bill C-11. I don't know for certain whether paywalls are offered adequate legal protection under existing Canadian federal or provincial laws, including whether existing criminal code is sufficient.
I will state that the Copyright act is exactly the wrong law to provide this legal protection. It would make very bad law if legal protection for a paywall was dependent on the specifics of what is offered behind the paywall rather than protecting all paywalls equally and fairly. While I agree with the suggestion that paywalls should be offered legal protection, it must be in the correct law.
While it is true that some copyright holders make use of paywalls in support of their businesses, it is also true that even more copyright holders use electricity in support of their businesses. Suggesting that legal protection for paywalls must be in C-11 makes about as much sense as suggesting that a national energy strategy must also be included in Bill C-11.
The question of whether paywalls are a copyright question came up in a twitter conversation where a proponent of Bill C-11 style Paracopyright was trying to be critical of Postmedia for considering paywalls. He was trying to suggest this conflicted with other articles on the Globe and Mail which were critical of the Paracopyright provisions of Bill C-11.
I hope it is obvious that there is no conflict with supporting, subscribing to or even providing paywall services and being strongly opposed to the Paracopyright provisions of Bill C-11. My primary motivation for my involvement in the copyright revision process is as an opponent to abuses of these provisions to infringe owners rights which Paracopyright provisions may enable.
Trying to conflate different issues like this is a common political tactic of those trying to promote these provisions. They take a non-controvercial technology like paywalls, claim that this is all that is meant by "technological measures" or "digital locks" in C-11, and then try to shove under the rug all the opposition to these highly controversial measures.
What most stakeholders are asking for is that any Paracopyright contained within Canadian copyright law should be tied strongly to otherwise copyright infringing acts. This is what the two 1996 WIPO treaties were calling for, given they are tied to "technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of " copyright related rights "that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law".
The further protection for "technological measures" added to copyright law strays from copyright infringing activities, the easier it is for providers of these technologies (the holders of the keys to these "digital locks") can abuse these provisions to circumvent laws including (but not limited to) contract, e-commerce, property, competition, trade as well as copyright.
One really has to wonder the motivation of those who want legal protection for "technological measures" added to copyright law to have little or no connection to otherwise copyright infringing activities. In some cases it is a lack of understanding of the underlying technology.
In some cases there may be ulterior motives. Some companies may want their circumvention of existing laws protected by beyond-WIPO Paracopyright provisions. There are some popular hardware brands in the game console, cell phone and other mobile computing space which have been outright hostile to the property rights of technology owners. Some of the representatives of these hardware manufacturers, including some representatives of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, have made some of the most extreme claims.
I am familiar with paywalls from the perspective of both a user and a provider of such services. I will offer two specific examples of paywalls to illustrate the issues.
I have been a paid subscriber to The Hill Times since 2005. This is an example of a service that offers some access to anonymous browsers on the Internet, but offers advanced services (full access to search through considerable archives, access to all new articles, etc) only to paid subscribers. You use a simple username and password to log in to prove you are a subscribe.
My current job is as a software author and system administrator for Canadiana.org. We offer anonymous access to some content, while other content is only available to paid subscribers. All the content is in the public domain, so copyright isn't relevant to our service. What is being paid for is access to this content as a method to fund the work we do in digitizing and organizing this information. We have individual and institutional subscribers, with individual users able to subscribe quickly making use of a simple PayPal payment system. While institutional subscribers are given access based on their internet address, individual subscribers use a simple username and password to indicate they are a subscriber.
These two services equally use of a paywall to differentiate between anonymous access and subscribers. While The Hill Time is offering access to copyrighted works, Canadian.org is not. From a legal standpoint these paywalls should be treated the same, with each being offered the same level of legal protection against people who might want to gain unauthorized access to our services.
There has been suggestions from some people that paywalls are inadequately legally protected in Canada. This is often being claimed by proponents of the Paracopyright ("digital locks") provisions in Bill C-11. I don't know for certain whether paywalls are offered adequate legal protection under existing Canadian federal or provincial laws, including whether existing criminal code is sufficient.
I will state that the Copyright act is exactly the wrong law to provide this legal protection. It would make very bad law if legal protection for a paywall was dependent on the specifics of what is offered behind the paywall rather than protecting all paywalls equally and fairly. While I agree with the suggestion that paywalls should be offered legal protection, it must be in the correct law.
While it is true that some copyright holders make use of paywalls in support of their businesses, it is also true that even more copyright holders use electricity in support of their businesses. Suggesting that legal protection for paywalls must be in C-11 makes about as much sense as suggesting that a national energy strategy must also be included in Bill C-11.
The question of whether paywalls are a copyright question came up in a twitter conversation where a proponent of Bill C-11 style Paracopyright was trying to be critical of Postmedia for considering paywalls. He was trying to suggest this conflicted with other articles on the Globe and Mail which were critical of the Paracopyright provisions of Bill C-11.
I hope it is obvious that there is no conflict with supporting, subscribing to or even providing paywall services and being strongly opposed to the Paracopyright provisions of Bill C-11. My primary motivation for my involvement in the copyright revision process is as an opponent to abuses of these provisions to infringe owners rights which Paracopyright provisions may enable.
Trying to conflate different issues like this is a common political tactic of those trying to promote these provisions. They take a non-controvercial technology like paywalls, claim that this is all that is meant by "technological measures" or "digital locks" in C-11, and then try to shove under the rug all the opposition to these highly controversial measures.
What most stakeholders are asking for is that any Paracopyright contained within Canadian copyright law should be tied strongly to otherwise copyright infringing acts. This is what the two 1996 WIPO treaties were calling for, given they are tied to "technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of " copyright related rights "that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law".
The further protection for "technological measures" added to copyright law strays from copyright infringing activities, the easier it is for providers of these technologies (the holders of the keys to these "digital locks") can abuse these provisions to circumvent laws including (but not limited to) contract, e-commerce, property, competition, trade as well as copyright.
One really has to wonder the motivation of those who want legal protection for "technological measures" added to copyright law to have little or no connection to otherwise copyright infringing activities. In some cases it is a lack of understanding of the underlying technology.
In some cases there may be ulterior motives. Some companies may want their circumvention of existing laws protected by beyond-WIPO Paracopyright provisions. There are some popular hardware brands in the game console, cell phone and other mobile computing space which have been outright hostile to the property rights of technology owners. Some of the representatives of these hardware manufacturers, including some representatives of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, have made some of the most extreme claims.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Spectrum from software/computing freedom to imprisonment
I had a heated conversation at GOSLING last evening about just how friendly to FLOSS or "good" that Google is compared to Apple. I have personally disliked Apple and their products since the 1980's when I was first introduced to the Lisa and Mac, with the closest I ever came to Apple was having an Apple II clone in the mid 1980's. This Apple II clone came with schematics in the manual, so a very different type of computer than the locked-down devices that people purchase from Apple today.
This conversation is one where different people will have different opinions. I've seen a lot of Mac's at Linux events over the years, from the same people who scream at Microsoft for their business practises. I think it would be interesting to others for me to publish my own concept of the spectrum, even knowing there will be (sometimes quite strong) disagreement.
A few select individuals and organisations, ordered from Freedom to imprisonment :
Richard Stallman
If any individual represents what I consider to be the ideal for protecting the rights of technology owners, it is Richard Stallman. He believes that all software should come with the 4 freedoms. According to Wikipedia, his only computer at the moment is a Lemote Yeeloong netbook which he chose because it can run with 100% free software even at the BIOS level, stating "freedom is my priority. I've campaigned for freedom since 1983, and I am not going to surrender that freedom for the sake of a more convenient computer."
There are other people at and associated with the FSF, the Software Freedom Conservancy or other such organisations which are more willing to surrender freedom for the sake of a more convenient computer. In general these folks have stayed pretty close to their ideals, and for this I congratulate them!
Russell McOrmond
While I understand the importance of freedom, and the fight to protect the rights of technology owners and all the human rights that are impacted by digital technology, I have made a number of sacrifices and compromises. I have purchased a Boxee Box, which I consider a lesser evil than the service I am getting from Rogers Cable -- and the impact of the lobbying of Rogers against our technology interests. I have a Google Nexus 1 and an ASUS transformer, both that run Android which is based on FLOSS (including Copyleft), but where there are proprietary components. I don't have a FLOSS BIOS in any of my computers (that I am aware of), and even have some pretty ugly application choices such as Adobe Flash and Skype on various computers.
Many of these choices relate to access to multimedia content than about the computer themselves. I am not willing (and not being single, able :-) to just cut myself from mainstream culture and not access any content not made legally available to me in vendor-neutral and unlocked formats. I am willing to do this for music and books, where I will only purchase or otherwise access unlocked content. This choice is quite different for movies/television where there really are no options that aren't politically compromised in some way.
I have become a subscriber to Netflix as a lesser of the evils way to move away from BDU's such as Rogers Cable. Netflix is only available on "authorised" devices, so I have been investigating some of the "lest offensive" of the authorised options such as the Boxee Box and various options running a Google OS (Chrome, Android).
I have uncomfortable choices imposed on me by others. I can compromise on software freedom, I can compromise on copyright (access more unlocked content, where it wasn't the copyright holder who made that available to me), or I can disengage from mainstream culture. At least for the moment while I'm actively involved in copyright revision policy, I'm temporarily accepting the first option.
Google
Google has its flaws, and makes some choices I am not comfortable with. There are various justifications/excuses offered for each of these decisions, and while I may not like them I am still a "customer" partly because I seem them as a lesser of the mainstream evils.
Most Android devices have non-owner locks on them, with the same being true of Chromebooks. Google doesn't disallow third-party applications not authorized from them from being installed, and there is a thriving third-party community maintaining things like CyanogenMod. There are problems where Google delays the public release of non-copyleft components of the Android stack: something they aren't obligated to do, but which have raised the eyebrows of nearly every FLOSS supporter watching Google.
On the political front, Google lobbies hard for more sensible technology law (copyright, patent, etc). They have expressed opposition to technical measures policy in the various countries who have passed it, or are considering passing such as Canada. They may allow hardware manufacturers to place non-owner locks on devices running their operating system, and even sell anti-interoperability locked content from their marketplace, but they are not expressing support for legally protecting these locks under Copyright law.
Google is a major contributor to many publicly licensed (including copyleft) projects, and even helps fund students direct participation in projects as part of their Google Summer of Code program. This is a global program which I wish were harnessed by our provincial education ministries (additional funding, better coordination with co-op programs, etc).
Microsoft
When we move down the imprisonment scale to Microsoft, we have passed that magic line where I'm willing to be a customer. While I have various coasters (CDs/DVDs/Floppies) that came with computers I bought that have a Microsoft logo on them, I am not a customer or user of any of their software. Well, at least not any software that they haven't released as FLOSS and are incorporated in FLOSS projects I happen to use where their contributions don't affect the overall project.
I have been observing Microsoft since the late 1980's, when Windows 2.x was what they offered. They were already on the rise, being seen by many as being a "more open" alternative to Apple's MacOS as far as choices offered to hardware and software developers, as well as end users.
I have to admit that I didn't take Microsoft very seriously until Windows for Workgroups and NT back in 1992. I was an Amiga user about to abandon that platform as I found it to be a little to freedom-restrictive. I already felt Apple was the most restrictive platform that I figured had long-term viability, and I was looking into NetBSD (running on my Amiga 3000) and this new oddball thing called Linux that ran on cheaper hardware that existed in a more competitive hardware marketplace.
While I was wrong to largely dismiss Microsoft as not being serious, I believe I remained correct in seeing them as a far more open alternative when compared to Apple. While Microsoft gained massive market share (I believe largely due to that comparative openness), they have abused that market share in more ways than I think appropriate to discuss here. Because of their monopoly-scale market share size in the legacy desktop marketplace, the costs of their policy blunders are enormous. They, however, were never really blindly trusted and to think of them as being a harmful corporation is a pretty mainstream viewpoint.
As an individual, I have disagreed with the political philosophy of Bill Gates. His ideological blinders around thinking of knowledge as equivalent to tangible physical products has caused harm far beyond the information technology sector to global health. I see the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as being a tax-deductible lobbying arm for this ideology, working to block the use of live saving generic drugs or non-tangible-property based methods to fund the expansion of human knowledge.
Apple
The centralised control that Apple wishes to exert goes far beyond wanting to own and/or control the hardware and software marketplace. What they do on the lobbying front is what has kept them as being the worst IT/software company in my mind.
More than any other individual corporate member of the Business Software Alliance or the International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), they have been lobbying against the otherwise legally protected rights of technology owners. This is not to say that the non-software members of the IIPI that have been duped by the BSA members have no responsibility. This is also not a suggestion that other BSA members like Adobe and Microsoft are somehow pawns of Apple, but that as bad as they are I still consider them to be lesser evils.
As an individual, the evil-genius of Steve Jobs somehow made imprisonment sexy and cool. While there were always people on the fringes of their customer base that complained about the legality of things like jailbreaking/etc, Apple under Jobs had a loyal fan-base that fought any suggestion that they were actively engaged in this attack on a variety of otherwise legally protected rights and freedoms. I know many people within and outside the FLOSS movement who will gripe about Microsoft, the BSA, and other such organisations, while typing away on their Mac or iOS devices. They will even argue with you when you point out various anti-rights political activities carried out by Apple, or the fact that Steve Jobs (while at Next) was the first violator of the GNU General Public License.
It wasn't only dismantling the rights of computer owners where the evil-genius of Mr Jobs was applied. What Apple was able to do to the recording industry was amazing, with the transfer of control of the music industry from major recording labels to Apple ongoing. While some individuals in the recording industry recognise this threat to their very existance, not everyone in that sector does. A foe of a political foe is not an ally, but I do have to feel sorry for recording industry executives and lobbiests who continue to fight for policies (such as TPMs in Copyright law) which in reality threaten their very existance.
It is likely that the anti-rights political and economic activism will continue post Steve Jobs. I do wonder if Richard Stallman's hope will come true, which is that "his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective."
This conversation is one where different people will have different opinions. I've seen a lot of Mac's at Linux events over the years, from the same people who scream at Microsoft for their business practises. I think it would be interesting to others for me to publish my own concept of the spectrum, even knowing there will be (sometimes quite strong) disagreement.
A few select individuals and organisations, ordered from Freedom to imprisonment :
Richard Stallman
If any individual represents what I consider to be the ideal for protecting the rights of technology owners, it is Richard Stallman. He believes that all software should come with the 4 freedoms. According to Wikipedia, his only computer at the moment is a Lemote Yeeloong netbook which he chose because it can run with 100% free software even at the BIOS level, stating "freedom is my priority. I've campaigned for freedom since 1983, and I am not going to surrender that freedom for the sake of a more convenient computer."
There are other people at and associated with the FSF, the Software Freedom Conservancy or other such organisations which are more willing to surrender freedom for the sake of a more convenient computer. In general these folks have stayed pretty close to their ideals, and for this I congratulate them!
Russell McOrmond
While I understand the importance of freedom, and the fight to protect the rights of technology owners and all the human rights that are impacted by digital technology, I have made a number of sacrifices and compromises. I have purchased a Boxee Box, which I consider a lesser evil than the service I am getting from Rogers Cable -- and the impact of the lobbying of Rogers against our technology interests. I have a Google Nexus 1 and an ASUS transformer, both that run Android which is based on FLOSS (including Copyleft), but where there are proprietary components. I don't have a FLOSS BIOS in any of my computers (that I am aware of), and even have some pretty ugly application choices such as Adobe Flash and Skype on various computers.
Many of these choices relate to access to multimedia content than about the computer themselves. I am not willing (and not being single, able :-) to just cut myself from mainstream culture and not access any content not made legally available to me in vendor-neutral and unlocked formats. I am willing to do this for music and books, where I will only purchase or otherwise access unlocked content. This choice is quite different for movies/television where there really are no options that aren't politically compromised in some way.
I have become a subscriber to Netflix as a lesser of the evils way to move away from BDU's such as Rogers Cable. Netflix is only available on "authorised" devices, so I have been investigating some of the "lest offensive" of the authorised options such as the Boxee Box and various options running a Google OS (Chrome, Android).
I have uncomfortable choices imposed on me by others. I can compromise on software freedom, I can compromise on copyright (access more unlocked content, where it wasn't the copyright holder who made that available to me), or I can disengage from mainstream culture. At least for the moment while I'm actively involved in copyright revision policy, I'm temporarily accepting the first option.
Google has its flaws, and makes some choices I am not comfortable with. There are various justifications/excuses offered for each of these decisions, and while I may not like them I am still a "customer" partly because I seem them as a lesser of the mainstream evils.
Most Android devices have non-owner locks on them, with the same being true of Chromebooks. Google doesn't disallow third-party applications not authorized from them from being installed, and there is a thriving third-party community maintaining things like CyanogenMod. There are problems where Google delays the public release of non-copyleft components of the Android stack: something they aren't obligated to do, but which have raised the eyebrows of nearly every FLOSS supporter watching Google.
On the political front, Google lobbies hard for more sensible technology law (copyright, patent, etc). They have expressed opposition to technical measures policy in the various countries who have passed it, or are considering passing such as Canada. They may allow hardware manufacturers to place non-owner locks on devices running their operating system, and even sell anti-interoperability locked content from their marketplace, but they are not expressing support for legally protecting these locks under Copyright law.
Google is a major contributor to many publicly licensed (including copyleft) projects, and even helps fund students direct participation in projects as part of their Google Summer of Code program. This is a global program which I wish were harnessed by our provincial education ministries (additional funding, better coordination with co-op programs, etc).
Microsoft
When we move down the imprisonment scale to Microsoft, we have passed that magic line where I'm willing to be a customer. While I have various coasters (CDs/DVDs/Floppies) that came with computers I bought that have a Microsoft logo on them, I am not a customer or user of any of their software. Well, at least not any software that they haven't released as FLOSS and are incorporated in FLOSS projects I happen to use where their contributions don't affect the overall project.
I have been observing Microsoft since the late 1980's, when Windows 2.x was what they offered. They were already on the rise, being seen by many as being a "more open" alternative to Apple's MacOS as far as choices offered to hardware and software developers, as well as end users.
I have to admit that I didn't take Microsoft very seriously until Windows for Workgroups and NT back in 1992. I was an Amiga user about to abandon that platform as I found it to be a little to freedom-restrictive. I already felt Apple was the most restrictive platform that I figured had long-term viability, and I was looking into NetBSD (running on my Amiga 3000) and this new oddball thing called Linux that ran on cheaper hardware that existed in a more competitive hardware marketplace.
While I was wrong to largely dismiss Microsoft as not being serious, I believe I remained correct in seeing them as a far more open alternative when compared to Apple. While Microsoft gained massive market share (I believe largely due to that comparative openness), they have abused that market share in more ways than I think appropriate to discuss here. Because of their monopoly-scale market share size in the legacy desktop marketplace, the costs of their policy blunders are enormous. They, however, were never really blindly trusted and to think of them as being a harmful corporation is a pretty mainstream viewpoint.
As an individual, I have disagreed with the political philosophy of Bill Gates. His ideological blinders around thinking of knowledge as equivalent to tangible physical products has caused harm far beyond the information technology sector to global health. I see the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as being a tax-deductible lobbying arm for this ideology, working to block the use of live saving generic drugs or non-tangible-property based methods to fund the expansion of human knowledge.
Apple
The centralised control that Apple wishes to exert goes far beyond wanting to own and/or control the hardware and software marketplace. What they do on the lobbying front is what has kept them as being the worst IT/software company in my mind.
More than any other individual corporate member of the Business Software Alliance or the International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), they have been lobbying against the otherwise legally protected rights of technology owners. This is not to say that the non-software members of the IIPI that have been duped by the BSA members have no responsibility. This is also not a suggestion that other BSA members like Adobe and Microsoft are somehow pawns of Apple, but that as bad as they are I still consider them to be lesser evils.
As an individual, the evil-genius of Steve Jobs somehow made imprisonment sexy and cool. While there were always people on the fringes of their customer base that complained about the legality of things like jailbreaking/etc, Apple under Jobs had a loyal fan-base that fought any suggestion that they were actively engaged in this attack on a variety of otherwise legally protected rights and freedoms. I know many people within and outside the FLOSS movement who will gripe about Microsoft, the BSA, and other such organisations, while typing away on their Mac or iOS devices. They will even argue with you when you point out various anti-rights political activities carried out by Apple, or the fact that Steve Jobs (while at Next) was the first violator of the GNU General Public License.
It wasn't only dismantling the rights of computer owners where the evil-genius of Mr Jobs was applied. What Apple was able to do to the recording industry was amazing, with the transfer of control of the music industry from major recording labels to Apple ongoing. While some individuals in the recording industry recognise this threat to their very existance, not everyone in that sector does. A foe of a political foe is not an ally, but I do have to feel sorry for recording industry executives and lobbiests who continue to fight for policies (such as TPMs in Copyright law) which in reality threaten their very existance.
It is likely that the anti-rights political and economic activism will continue post Steve Jobs. I do wonder if Richard Stallman's hope will come true, which is that "his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective."
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.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Character assassinations in Ontario election
Last evening I was invited on an episode of Dyscultured, which had a special theme. Anthony Marco, one of the founding co-hosts of the show, put his name into the race to run in Niagara West-Glanbrook for the NDP in the Ontario election.
The Liberal party, or at least some misguided spokespersons, have decided that taking comments out of context to character assassinate political opponents is an appropriate campaign strategy. You can see the type of embarrassing crap coming out of the Liberal Party of Ontario on Newswire.ca: Liberals Call on NDP to Dump Candidate, The Full Anthony Marco Text - Which Part Does The NDP Believe Is Misrepresented?, and More from NDP's Anthony Marco - Ontarians are "lazy".
The comical aspect of this is that the "Which Part Does The NDP Believe Is Misrepresented" press release contains an exert that makes clear that Anthony did not say what the Liberal party is alleging he said. Unfortunately, there will be many people who won't read even that tiny exert to realize the Liberals are playing dirty pool. This is a sad part of politics: that few spend the time to learn the facts, and shallow immature political rhetoric all too often wins a debate.
Anthony is a complex multi-dimensional person who has been expressing his ideas online for many years. I had been listening to a few of his podcasts for a few years already when he totally blew me away at PAB back in June.
The first thing that came to mind with this smear campaign is how we need to mature politics from what the Liberals are doing in a world where more people are living their lives in public. Words and ideas that may have been quickly forgotten a few hours after people went home from the social event, are archived forever online. Some people like to talk about this as a problem for youth, but for people like Anthony or myself we have been living in a long-term publicly archived space for much of our lives. You can still read some of the silly questions I asked about copyright back in 1992, when I was first joining the Free Software movement. Someone could easily take that question, pretend it was asked recently, and ruin my credibility as someone who has spent much of the last decade dedicated to learning about copyright in order to help with forward-looking policy proposals.
The last thing we want is allow politics to be something that can only be done by stick-figure people with no real history, and who have never spent time thinking about complex issues. Even though Anthony is running for the NDP, I would vote for him if he was in my riding based on him being a real person who has given some real thought to real issues. Many of his podcasts include him thinking out loud about real issues of the day, something that I think should be seen as a requirement of a good politician : not something to avoid.
Reading a few more articles about the issue, it turns out that the smear campaign was largely launched by Liberal candidate Bernie Farber who is running in Thornhill. Mr Farber was previously the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), which made this smear campaign seem all too familiar.
I have run into the CJC a few times in the past, and always in the context of attempts at censorship. Their general policy seemed to be to use (or abuse) the legal courts and the court of public opinion to try to stop people from talking about anything they didn't like to be said, including people questioning whether censorship is a good public policy. I had some personal experience with this type of campaign in 2001 when a few individuals (with the support of the CJC) were trying to censor the words of David Icke. They alleged his words were anti-Semitic -- and as a result of the Streisand effect I read and found that he was really just a kook that should have been left alone in obscurity. I knew, from asking my Jewish friends what they thought of the policies of the CJC, that these pro-censorship policies were not representative of the views of the wider Canadian Jewish community, but really only of the executive of that specific association. It is very unfortunate that one of this executive has taken his campaign as part of this election.
Like Anthony, I am a strong believer in free speech. A support of free speech doesn't mean supporting speech you like, but fighting to defend the right of people to say things you personally feel are disgusting. When I tried to promote free speech a decade ago I ended up being accused of being anti-Semitic, and separately had people threatening to sue me for defamation for simply documenting what these opponents to free speech were doing. These folks didn't care at all what damage they did by falsely accusing people of being anti-Semitic, or accusing people of being apologists for genocidal activities.
While I strongly disagree with Bernie Farber's long-standing political views, I still support his right to express them. There are, however, appropriate limits to free speech in a free society when it comes to defamation and specific political tactics. Will Mr. Farber's harmful and selfish political campaign damage Anthony's reputation or cause problems at his job? He is a high-school teacher, and I know how the school boards can sometimes not adequately support staff that get caught up in unfounded controversies.
My hope is that more people will read past the bogus headlines to see what is going on. It is not the credibility of Anthony Marco, or his suitability to be a politician, that should be being questioned. We should be questioning whether we want to have people like Bernie Farber elected to represent us in the government, given how little respect he offers to fellow citizens. We also have to question whether the Liberal party of Ontario is still fit to govern, given how willing they have been to stand by and promote this smear campaign. I live in Ottawa South and have asked for some feedback from Liberal candidate Dalton McGuinty about whether he condones this smear campaign. Unless he comes out clearly against what Mr. Farber and supporters have been doing, there is no way I can consider him a credible candidate for my vote.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Why it is important to engage on creators' rights discussions
Just over a week ago, the Globe and Mail published an article by Kate Taylor that had the sensationalist headline "It’s writers v. professors in the latest war of words". I don't know if it was an editor that created the headline, but it is very misleading as the debate she wrote was more about the different views between different writers than about anyone else. The body of the article did suggest that, "The knowledge community is divided against itself".
She wrote about successful Canadian-born science-fiction writer Cory Doctorow, and how he believes that the radical changes proposed to how communications technology is owned an controlled can not rationally be justified by copyright. As a fellow person with a technical background, he understand how this technology works better than most writers.
When I explain the specific technology under debate I speak about how there are 4 classes of owners (not one), and two digital locks (not one). The 4 classes of owners are content copyright holders, owners of tangible media, software authors and owners of tangible computer hardware.
The most controversial of the two locks is the lock applied to hardware and/or software where the owner of the hardware is specifically denied the keys to what they own. Anyone who has a basic understanding of why we have property rights enshrined not only in domestic law, but the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can see how denying owners the keys to the locks on what they own can have serious implications. Rather than protecting the rights of owners, the proposed laws specifically prohibit owners from changing the keys to the locks on what they own: making the protection of ones own property rights illegal.
From a narrow authors rights perspective, it should be obvious how their ability to use their own communications tools to create and distribute their own works is threatened by these non-owner locks. Even if we had no consideration for all the other rights threatened by these non-owner locks, we should be rejecting them as an attack on authors' rights.
The second lock is a lock on content which makes the content only interoperable with specific brands of non-owner locked hardware and software. This lock will either drive people to non-owner locked hardware, or drive people to accessing infringing material which is unlocked. Both of these alternatives are harmful to the interests of authors, so the legal protection of these anti-interoperability locks should be rejected as a threat to authors' rights.
Ms. Taylor was correct in identifying that there are writers who believe that these two types of locks are a threat to creators' right and other writes, and other writers who believe they will somehow help their interests. It is critical that those of us who understand that "copy control" is only a marketing term, not a real technology, to participate in discussions. Eventually more people will recognise that these types of locks represent a far greater threat to the interests of writers than any amount of copyright infringement.
While it is true that "users'-rights advocates" oppose anti-interoperability locks on content and non-owner locks on our computing hardware, there are also many writers and other creators that share this opposition. There are a few technology companies that might benefit from the anticompetitive impacts of these locks, but the vast majority of proponents are people inadvertently advocating for changes to the law which will harm their own interests.
One of the other issues mentioned by Ms. Taylor related to Access Copyright, which offers one of many options to the educational community to license educational content. This section was corrected by Paul Davidson, president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, in a later article in the Globe and Mail with the headline "Pirates of academe? We laugh".
This is a case of anticompetitive behaviour by Access Copyright. It would be as if Canadian Tire claimed "theft" if customers bought a product from Walmart instead. This type of behaviour from Access Copyright is unfortunately not new, and I have been exposed to many advocates for Access Copyright over the years who really think their customers (or in some cases colleagues) in the educational sector are immoral in some way. The more heated the rhetoric from Access Copyright devotees, the less interested their customers will become in paying them for the privilege of being insulted.
It isn't correct to suggest this is a matter of "universities playing hardball with textbook publishers and freelance writers." Access Copyright is a middle-man between writers and universities, and it is quite possible that the alternative licensing methods being explored by universities will be more lucrative for writers. Even for authors who are focused on royalties as a method of payment, Access Copyright's policies have become controversial (See the Creators' Access Copyright blog).
This is not to say that the educational sector is without its faults when it comes to educational copyright. While outside the scope of the current abusive debate, the Council of Ministers of Education did propose a carve-out of provincially chartered educational institutions from copyright. This is a very bad policy for a number of reasons I have outlined in the past. This policy mis-educates our children about how copyright works and would inevitably induce them to infringe outside the classroom. I consider education institutional exceptions to copyright to be a government program, paid for on the backs of copyright holders, masquerading as copyright. I consider it dishonest for provincial Ministers of Education to be proposing pick-pocketing authors, rather than ensuring adequate provincial funding for education.
Many of the problems with institution-specific exceptions to copyright also apply to the blanket licensing promoted by Access Copyright. Copyright is very complex, and if we are worried about students and teachers/professors inadvertently infringing copyright then we need to both clarify and simplify copyright (in future bills), as well a provide unbiased education on copyright to students. On both of these proposals Access Copyright has not been helpful, advocating for making copyright more complex in submissions on copyright reform, as well as providing inaccurate information on copyright (Example: Captain Copyright).
The provincial educational funding issues, educational institutional exceptions to copyright, and related controversies weren't mentioned in the article by Ms. Taylor, but did get discussed in the follow-up comments to the articles and on Twitter.
At least one person suggested on twitter a "Mortal Combat Style" fight between John Degen and myself. I don't enjoy the interactions with John which are an example of the heated discussion that Ms. Taylor was discussing. He starts his commentary on Ms. Taylor's article by suggesting that "ideologues have muddled the whole issue with scary half-truths about copyright and the future of culture". Rather than then talking about his own participation in the copyright debate that could easily be characterised that way, he tore into professional author Cory Doctorow. It shouldn't be surprising that conversations get heated when this is the starting point.
I believe Cory to be one of the most outspoken protector of the rights and interests of authors. He doesn't confuse expanding copyright with protecting authors' rights, given he understands that there can be both too much and too little copyright from the perspective of authors. It is unfortunate to see some people attack Cory, claiming they are doing so in the name of authors' rights. When this happens it is not Cory's qualifications as a creators' rights advocate that come into question, but whether the person attacking is either knowingly or inadvertently harming the interests of authors.
The other person that John referenced in his comment, but didn't name, is University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist. The claim was that Mr. Geist has been "attacking Access Copyright at every turn", when in fact it has been devotees of Access Copyright who have been attacking Michael Geist at every turn. I've been at more than one conference where Geist was insultingly referred to as "he who shall not be named", embarrassingly making analogies between Mr. Geist as the villain in the Harry Potter stories.
Both Michael Geist and Cory Doctorow are moderates in the debate. They neither believe in maximising or minimising copyright, but striking the right balance between the interests of existing copyright holders, new creators, audiences of these works, and society as a whole. These moderates are attacked by both of the extremes: by people who disagree with their strong support of copyright as a tool to protect the rights and interests of authors, as well as those who falsely believe that "if some copyright is good, more must be better".
But... this is politics. One of the ways to make ones own more extreme position seem reasonable is to claim that moderates are radicals. The constant attack by some individuals of people like Cory Doctorow and Michael Geist is an unfortunate but understandable political ploy. Not only do we need to correct the record when these people post incorrect information about the impact of various policies, but we need to challenge them on their fictional misrepresentation of fellow rights activists.
She wrote about successful Canadian-born science-fiction writer Cory Doctorow, and how he believes that the radical changes proposed to how communications technology is owned an controlled can not rationally be justified by copyright. As a fellow person with a technical background, he understand how this technology works better than most writers.
When I explain the specific technology under debate I speak about how there are 4 classes of owners (not one), and two digital locks (not one). The 4 classes of owners are content copyright holders, owners of tangible media, software authors and owners of tangible computer hardware.
The most controversial of the two locks is the lock applied to hardware and/or software where the owner of the hardware is specifically denied the keys to what they own. Anyone who has a basic understanding of why we have property rights enshrined not only in domestic law, but the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can see how denying owners the keys to the locks on what they own can have serious implications. Rather than protecting the rights of owners, the proposed laws specifically prohibit owners from changing the keys to the locks on what they own: making the protection of ones own property rights illegal.
From a narrow authors rights perspective, it should be obvious how their ability to use their own communications tools to create and distribute their own works is threatened by these non-owner locks. Even if we had no consideration for all the other rights threatened by these non-owner locks, we should be rejecting them as an attack on authors' rights.
The second lock is a lock on content which makes the content only interoperable with specific brands of non-owner locked hardware and software. This lock will either drive people to non-owner locked hardware, or drive people to accessing infringing material which is unlocked. Both of these alternatives are harmful to the interests of authors, so the legal protection of these anti-interoperability locks should be rejected as a threat to authors' rights.
Ms. Taylor was correct in identifying that there are writers who believe that these two types of locks are a threat to creators' right and other writes, and other writers who believe they will somehow help their interests. It is critical that those of us who understand that "copy control" is only a marketing term, not a real technology, to participate in discussions. Eventually more people will recognise that these types of locks represent a far greater threat to the interests of writers than any amount of copyright infringement.
While it is true that "users'-rights advocates" oppose anti-interoperability locks on content and non-owner locks on our computing hardware, there are also many writers and other creators that share this opposition. There are a few technology companies that might benefit from the anticompetitive impacts of these locks, but the vast majority of proponents are people inadvertently advocating for changes to the law which will harm their own interests.
One of the other issues mentioned by Ms. Taylor related to Access Copyright, which offers one of many options to the educational community to license educational content. This section was corrected by Paul Davidson, president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, in a later article in the Globe and Mail with the headline "Pirates of academe? We laugh".
This is a case of anticompetitive behaviour by Access Copyright. It would be as if Canadian Tire claimed "theft" if customers bought a product from Walmart instead. This type of behaviour from Access Copyright is unfortunately not new, and I have been exposed to many advocates for Access Copyright over the years who really think their customers (or in some cases colleagues) in the educational sector are immoral in some way. The more heated the rhetoric from Access Copyright devotees, the less interested their customers will become in paying them for the privilege of being insulted.
It isn't correct to suggest this is a matter of "universities playing hardball with textbook publishers and freelance writers." Access Copyright is a middle-man between writers and universities, and it is quite possible that the alternative licensing methods being explored by universities will be more lucrative for writers. Even for authors who are focused on royalties as a method of payment, Access Copyright's policies have become controversial (See the Creators' Access Copyright blog).
This is not to say that the educational sector is without its faults when it comes to educational copyright. While outside the scope of the current abusive debate, the Council of Ministers of Education did propose a carve-out of provincially chartered educational institutions from copyright. This is a very bad policy for a number of reasons I have outlined in the past. This policy mis-educates our children about how copyright works and would inevitably induce them to infringe outside the classroom. I consider education institutional exceptions to copyright to be a government program, paid for on the backs of copyright holders, masquerading as copyright. I consider it dishonest for provincial Ministers of Education to be proposing pick-pocketing authors, rather than ensuring adequate provincial funding for education.
Many of the problems with institution-specific exceptions to copyright also apply to the blanket licensing promoted by Access Copyright. Copyright is very complex, and if we are worried about students and teachers/professors inadvertently infringing copyright then we need to both clarify and simplify copyright (in future bills), as well a provide unbiased education on copyright to students. On both of these proposals Access Copyright has not been helpful, advocating for making copyright more complex in submissions on copyright reform, as well as providing inaccurate information on copyright (Example: Captain Copyright).
The provincial educational funding issues, educational institutional exceptions to copyright, and related controversies weren't mentioned in the article by Ms. Taylor, but did get discussed in the follow-up comments to the articles and on Twitter.
At least one person suggested on twitter a "Mortal Combat Style" fight between John Degen and myself. I don't enjoy the interactions with John which are an example of the heated discussion that Ms. Taylor was discussing. He starts his commentary on Ms. Taylor's article by suggesting that "ideologues have muddled the whole issue with scary half-truths about copyright and the future of culture". Rather than then talking about his own participation in the copyright debate that could easily be characterised that way, he tore into professional author Cory Doctorow. It shouldn't be surprising that conversations get heated when this is the starting point.
I believe Cory to be one of the most outspoken protector of the rights and interests of authors. He doesn't confuse expanding copyright with protecting authors' rights, given he understands that there can be both too much and too little copyright from the perspective of authors. It is unfortunate to see some people attack Cory, claiming they are doing so in the name of authors' rights. When this happens it is not Cory's qualifications as a creators' rights advocate that come into question, but whether the person attacking is either knowingly or inadvertently harming the interests of authors.
The other person that John referenced in his comment, but didn't name, is University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist. The claim was that Mr. Geist has been "attacking Access Copyright at every turn", when in fact it has been devotees of Access Copyright who have been attacking Michael Geist at every turn. I've been at more than one conference where Geist was insultingly referred to as "he who shall not be named", embarrassingly making analogies between Mr. Geist as the villain in the Harry Potter stories.
Both Michael Geist and Cory Doctorow are moderates in the debate. They neither believe in maximising or minimising copyright, but striking the right balance between the interests of existing copyright holders, new creators, audiences of these works, and society as a whole. These moderates are attacked by both of the extremes: by people who disagree with their strong support of copyright as a tool to protect the rights and interests of authors, as well as those who falsely believe that "if some copyright is good, more must be better".
But... this is politics. One of the ways to make ones own more extreme position seem reasonable is to claim that moderates are radicals. The constant attack by some individuals of people like Cory Doctorow and Michael Geist is an unfortunate but understandable political ploy. Not only do we need to correct the record when these people post incorrect information about the impact of various policies, but we need to challenge them on their fictional misrepresentation of fellow rights activists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)