New Copyright Bill (C-32) Introduced into Parliament, But Will the American (Corporation)s be Satisfied?

The past few years have seen a number of attempts by the party in power (first the Liberals, now the Conservatives) to introduce a copyright bill in Canada that copies the American legislation.

In the debate there have generally been two sides. On the one hand, the Canadian public which supports a bill that won't make millions of Canadians into criminals just for acting like they own the things that they have bought. On the other hand, there are large American media corporations that want to squeeze as much profit as possible from their movies, recordings, etc.

Traditionally, the interests of the Canadian public (commoners) have been represented by Members of Parliament, who sit in the House of Commons, and legislation has been introduced in the House of Commons in recognition of this fact. But in the case of this bill, the government decided that rather than introduce it in the House of Commons, they would introduce it in the House of Large Foreign Corporations, specifically the offices of a large American media company. Just in case you missed that bit of symbolism of whose interests the bill (and the government) represents, Michael Geist refers us to a quote from the chief of staff for Maxime Bernier (from 2007 when Bernier was Industry Minister) saying that Harper's office told the ministers responsible for copyright that, "We don't care what you do, as long as the U.S. is satisfied."

I guess if you want American lobbyists to have strong representation in Ottawa, keep voting for Stephen Harper and his AmericaNorth party...

Speaking of Monopoly....

If I ever had the motivation to write a 100,000 word post about why intellectual monopoly (intellectual property, to some) does more harm than good, and should be scaled back dramatically, if not eliminated outright, it would look a lot like this, a book by Michele Boldrin and David Levine called 'Against Intellectual Monopoly'.

The short version is that patents and copyright cause more harm by hurting consumers via the restriction of the sharing of knowledge and contents that they create benefits by encouraging people to create more new copyrightable or patentable ideas/content, and that there are better ways to encourage innovation than granting perpetual (or near perpetual) monopolies to creators of such things.

Via Ezra Klein.

Good Times?

The Globe and Mail was positively filled with good news today. Well, none of it was really news, but it was all good.

First off, Ottawa Flush With Surplus Cash. On current trends it looks like Ottawa will take in $5 billion more than forecast in the budget. People can criticize, but when the government is managing it's books exactly the same way I manage my own - conservatively - I'm not going to. I find it funny that, on the one hand, people bemoan how predictable this turn of events was. And on the other hand, people complain how it's impossible for people to rely on these budget estimates when they're always wrong. Either you can figure out an estimate of our fiscal situation based on the budget forecast or you can't - you can't have it both ways.

Anyway, for the last few years employment growth has been strong, commodity prices have been high and corporate profits have been at record levels. Under the circumstances you would almost expect the results to come in ahead of a forecast which has to allow for the possibility of an economic slowdown. So people can complain away but if Ottawa keeps piling up surpluses and putting them against the debt, we're all getting wealthier and that's fine by me.

Unsurprisingly, Andrew disagrees, but that's OK since we've pretty much agreed to disagree on this topic.

-----

Second, some encouraging results from an industry sponsored propaganda poll looking to drum up support for tougher measures against copying.

"the survey asked students about their attitudes toward theft and found that most did not put illegal software downloading in the same category as offences such as shoplifting.

About 96 per cent agreed that stealing software from a store would be considered a serious offence. By comparison, 40 per cent felt the same way about illegal downloading, file swapping or making copies of commercial software."

It's good to see that, despite industry funded advertising to the contrary, people were able to see the ethical difference between depriving the store of an item they were planning to sell (and causing them a loss nearly equal to the students gain) and making a copy of software (not causing any loss to the company).

The students also seemed to be able (unlike the study authors) to distinguish between plagiarizing (taking credit for someone else's work) and simple copying (making a copy of someone else's work but taking no credit for its creation),

"On the issue of intellectual property rights, about 87 per cent said they would have a problem with someone plagiarizing their own work. When it comes to downloading commercial software, however, just 40 per cent showed similar concerns.

The disconnect, the report said, was particularly strong among computer-science students."

Maybe the media literacy courses they teach these days are actually paying off! For a more useful bit of discussion on intellectual property than the industry poll, see this excellent column by Michael Geist in the Star on why the blank media copyright levy has outlived its usefulness.

-----

Finally, it seems like Newfoundland & Labrador is moving forward with plans for the Lower Churchill project, a massive hydroelectric plant in Labrador. Personally, I am indifferent to whether it is done with or without help from Hydro Québec, but, what I do think is that, when we look back in 50 years, the people who started work on big hydroelectric projects now will be seen as having made smart decisions.

Already, Canadian provinces with well developed hydro resources have a competitive advantage over those that don't and this is only going to grow as a combination of dwindling supplies and increased environmental concerns drives the price (and volatility of the price) of fossil fuels higher.

I believe that if Ontario had taken the billions it has invested in the Nuclear sector and devoted it instead to developing a robust grid linking and developing the hydro capacity of Manitoba, Northern Ontario and Québec, the energy picture would be a lot brighter there. There are issues with hydro of course, such as the flooding of land and Native land claims, but my feeling is that these issues are the lesser of the evils you have to deal with to generate power and that, if dealt with properly, they don't really have to be evils at all.

Copyright Lockdown

Over at No More Shall I Roam, Jonathan has posted the follow-up to his excellent post on the new copyright legislation which may be coming in Canada and why it's a bad idea.

Like Jonathan, I have a link on the right side of the page, which provides contact info for your MP, in case you feel like reminding them that they were elected to represent your interests and not the Disney Corporation's.

A Few Good Posts

Just a quick note to mention a few worthwhile posts I've seen in the past few days:

Jonathan, over at No More Shall I Roam, has a great post on Copyright.

Timmy over at Voice in the Wilderness has an on the money take on Bush's comments on Missile Defence when he visited Canada a little while back.

Andrew over at Bound By Gravity recounts his experience at the Conservative party regional policy conference the other day.

The Parable of the (Digital) Loaves

Over at his ‘jealousy-inducing-because-it-looks-nicer-than-mine’ blog, “On the Fence”, Kelly Nestruck has a post up on the ‘stale’ topic of music downloading. Seeing it inspired me to write my own take on the intellectual property issue and I figured if it is indeed a stale topic, then bread should make a good metaphor:

----

Once upon a time in the peaceful, harmonious country of Ipland, Mr. A was walking down the street with a loaf of bread in his hand. But before he could even take a single bite, Mr. C snuck up behind him, grabbed the loaf and ran off down the street.

Such a thing had never been seen before in Ipland, so once Mr. A got over his shock, he went to the police. The efficient police of Ipland soon found Mr. C and he was brought before the chief judge in the land, Queen B, who handed down her ruling on whether this new activity should be allowed or not:

“I have been charged to look after the welfare of the people of this land,” pronounced Queen B, “and I see no net benefit to them in allowing one person to take something from another. What is gained by one is lost by another, and who will make or buy bread if it can just be taken from them. If we are forced to divert our energies to protecting our possessions instead of enjoying them than we will all be poorer. Henceforth we will call this activity ‘theft’ and it will not be permitted in Ipland.”

Mr. C recognized the wisdom of Queen B’s ruling, but he was not easily dissuaded from getting Mr. A’s bread and he soon came up with a new plan. The next time Mr. A walked down the street, Mr. C approached him, from the front this time.
“Please sir,” he said to Mr. A, “may I just borrow your loaf for a moment?”
Mr. A was suspicious, but he knew that stealing had been outlawed so he warily handed over the loaf. Mr. C took the loaf in his left hand, waved his right hand and said the magic word, “Kazaam!” There was a soft clicking sound and then, there in his right hand, was another loaf of bread, exactly like the one Mr. A had been carrying in every detail! Mr. C smiled, handed the original loaf back to Mr. A and continued walking down the street with his new loaf.
He couldn’t put his finger on it, but Mr. A felt that there must be something wrong with what Mr. C had done, so he once more called in the police and once more Queen B delivered a verdict:

“So you had a loaf of bread before you met up with Mr. C?” she asked Mr. A, “and then you still had the same loaf of bread after you met up with Mr. C? It seems like you were not harmed at all. And this new magic Mr. C has developed means that even if we only have one loaf of bread in our land, we will be able to feed the whole country. We will call this great blessing copying and it shall be permitted everywhere in the land.”

Now most men would have been satisfied with this, but Mr. C was a restless fellow and it wasn’t long before he came up with yet another plan. This new plan was so bold that he was called upon to propose it to the Queen at the general assembly where all the people from the land would come together.
“Listen,” he said to Queen B and the assembled people. “Thanks to my new copying procedure, we all have as much bread as we want, but is it not true that our bread is a little tougher, a little less flavourful than it could be? I have developed a new bread, one that tastes much better than the old bread.”

There was a great rush of murmuring and whispering from the crowd. “Well then”, said the Queen, “what is the problem? Present us with this new bread and we shall make copies for everyone and we will all be better off.”

“But what about me”, replied Mr. C, “if everyone just makes copies of my new bread, how I will be compensated for all my hard work in developing it? Why should I even bother giving it to you and not just keep it for myself?”

“Shame!” cried Mr. A from near the back of the assembled crowd, “nobody forced you to develop this new bread, why should we have to pay you just to make copies of it – it’s not like we’re harming you or taking anything away from you by just making copies.

“Fine,” replied Mr. C, “I’ll just go then and leave you to your stale, dry bread.”

“Wait”, said the Queen, “truly you have presented me with your most difficult case yet, Mr. C. On the one hand, my people’s interest is to have the best bread available at the cheapest price. On the other hand, if there isn’t an incentive for people to develop new bread, we’ll always be stuck with the old stuff. Therefore, I propose that....

----

OK, what should the Queen propose?

a) The fame and glory of having his bread eaten by all should be enough for Mr. C. His new bread can be copied freely throughout the land, and if he chooses not to offer it, then we will live with our old bread.

b) For the next 5 years, anyone wishing to make a copy of Mr. C’s bread will have to send him a donation of 1 penny. After this time, he should have received adequate compensation for his bread and it can then be freely copied.

c) Nobody can make a copy of Mr. C’s bread unless they pay him whatever he asks for it. This rule will apply forever, with the right to charge for Mr. C’s bread passed down to his children and to their children and so on.

d) Something else? (Opinions welcome)

----

So what’s my point? Mainly that, when people (industry lobby groups primarily) try to convince you that downloading is piracy or that copying is theft, they are, quite simply, wrong. Furthermore, they are deliberately confusing different terms and ideas in an attempt to manipulate you into feeling guilty about something you have no reason to feel guilty about.

Theft is one thing, copying is another. The key distinction is that theft involves taking things while you make copies. The true justification for intellectual property rules is solely as an incentive for the development of new ideas/products and intellectual property rights should only be extended as far as is necessary to provide a genuine incentive – not further.