Digital Copyright Canada

Re: http://www.straightgoods.com/item423.asp 
"Napster's right - Consumers pay enough already"

Note: While this page was posted on March 05, 2001, it was re-published
today by Media-awareness.ca via their email bulletin and at
http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/news/news/newspage.htm , which is why I
replying now.  I can't find an email address for Robert to include him on
this letter.  Any chance we could take this message and turn it into a new
article?

---

  This article by Robert Labossiere does not explain the current situation
in Canada, and how it is different than the USA.  The system he was
proposing, where we are all taxed for music sharing that 'theoretically'
gets paid to musicians, has been in place in Canada since a 1997 amendment
to copyright called the Private Copying regime.  I believe it wasn't until
1999 when tariffs were set.

The section of the Copyright act is PART VIII
  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/36746.html#rid-36859

  In this case, they started with so-called "audio recording medium" such
as audio-cassettes and blank CD's to apply a tax.  Possibly (given the
timing of the change) in return, private copying of music was made legal
in Canada.  You can borrow a CD from a friend or the library, copy it onto
a blank CD in a non-commercial, private environment for personal use, and
this is entirely legal in Canada.

  The question of whether the levy should apply to Internet Service 
Providers has already been tested in court as part of the "tariff 22" 
decision.  Fortunately the courts decided that ISP's are not liable for 
the levy. (For more on tariff 22 I recommend the following Google search
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Copyright+tariff+22+Canada ).

  The private copying regime is strongly opposed by almost everyone but a
small special interest group called a collective society (which is
representatives of the Recording Industry itself) that is collecting the
tax.

  Independent artists do not like the system because not only do they have
to pay the tax on blank CD's they buy, but also because of their relative
popularity they will never see any money from the system.

  Artist choice is entirely removed from determining their own business
models.  They become more beholden to signing their rights away to
mega-media recording companies and collective societies in order to
receive a trickle of royalties.  Trying innovative business models,
including those that allow them to get paid other than by music
distribution royalties, are squashed.

  Artists also ask how to statistically determine 'popularity' when
CD-sales can no longer be legitimately used as a statistical measure.  
According to the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access (CCFDA) the
Canadian Private Copying Collective CPCC is not accountable to anyone
except its collectives, and that since the regime was established in
December 1999, the CPCC has collected over $28 million in levies, none of
which has been distributed to artists.

  We are having the same problem in the Computer Software industry where
the statistics of one business model are based on the assumption that
competing business models such as Free/Libre and Open Source Software
FLOSS) do not exist.  As an example, see
http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=309 which details
misinformation from the Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft (CAAST).

  Consumers don't like the private copying levy because it raises the cost
of blank media, and potentially all devices which could store and play
music.  It also entirely removes consumer choice by creating a tax which
they are forced to pay that is disconnected from their own choices in
music.  In order to support their favorite band they are forced to do it
in ways other than purchasing music.  If they do purchase music they are
not only paying for that music but paying a levy that will go towards
musicians that they do not like.

 Consumers also need to pay this levy even if the media will never be used 
for music.  Most of the CD's that I purchase have Free/Libre and Open 
Source Software burned onto them, and yet each CD has a tax on it that is 
sent to the recording industry.

  Non-music industries don't like the levy, because it treats one
(relatively minor) user of communications media different than all others.  
While problems and costs are bad enough now, could you imagine if book
authors or sheet music composers claimed the right to tax blank paper, or
the motion picture industry put a tax on 'blank walls' that could have
movies projected onto them?  Or how about a tax on plumbing given many of
us sing copyrighted songs in the shower?

  As a supporter of alternatives to proprietary software, I would find it
disgusting if that industry managed to get added to this regime such that
all the blank CD's I buy end up subsidizing my competitors (and in some
cases, my arch enemies).

  The Recording Industry in Canada has been granted a "Right of
Remuneration" which is pretty much a "right to profit".  Unlike for-profit
copying of works, of stealing physical music CD's, private copying is a
situation where no money is changing hands.

  Copyright should be used as a way to ensure that artists can control any
commercial communication of their works, not claim control over
non-commercial communication. I simply do not believe that any industry
has a right to be paid for non-commercial activities.  This is something
that does not exist elsewhere in our economy as most businesses need to
make money based on merit, not based on government handouts.  As a
supporter of Free Market economics, I find the economic implications of
this regime and the questionable thinking behind it to be disastrous.

  The strongest opposition will likely come from the consumer electronics
and computing industry itself.  They have formed the Canadian Coalition
for Fair Digital Access (CCFDA - http://www.ccfda.ca/ ).  From their site:

    The Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access (CCFDA) was established
    to advocate the concerns of Canadian businesses, consumers and
    individuals affected by the copyright levy regime Canada. CCFDA 
    members include major Canadian retailers, consumer product 
    manufacturers and technology companies.

    The companies represented in the coalition believe that the private
    copy levy regime is fundamentally flawed, too broad in scope and 
    should be repealed. Canada needs an approach that is fair to all 
    parties, ensures transparency and accountability, protects copyright 
    holders, does not slow the introduction of new technologies, and 
    encourages flexibility to be responsive to consumer practices and to 
    new technologies.

  As a producer of FLOSS software, a music fan, supporter of free markets
and consumer choice, I largely agree with the Canadian Coalition for Fair
Digital Access.

  We do have our disagreements, and I hope this issue to be resolved as I
would like to become part of their coalition.  The CCFDA currently
promotes the concept of "Technological Protection Measures" which are
theoretically aimed at stopping citizens from illegally copying copyright
works.  I wrote an open letter to CCFDA
<http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=320> stating:

   "TPM's require that Information and Communications Technology tools
    ignore or disobey the instructions of the owner of these tools, and
    instead obey the desires of the copyright holder and/or the tool
    manufacturer. TPM's allow copyright holders and/or tool manufacturers
    to limit not only unlawful, but lawful uses of works under copyright."

  My answer to the whole question of TPM can be summarized with two
statements I make on my personal home-page at http://www.flora.ca/russell/

Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses,
VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen and
not a third party.

Corollary: The "content industries", such as the motion picture and
recording industries, are not legitimate stakeholders in the discussion of
what features should or should not exist in my personal computer or VCR,
any more than they are a legitimate stakeholder in the production of my
corrective eye-glasses. If a member of a content industry don't like the
technology that exists in a given market sector, be it consumer
electronics in the home or personal computers, they can simply not offer
their products/services into that market.

  For more information on digital copyright issues, please go to the
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ website and read the discussions there.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses, 
 VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen 
 and not a third party.   -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca

Digital Copyright Canada

Canada's Private Copying tax.

All Canadian Citizens are "Rights Holders"!