The Canadian government is taking another crack at reforming our nation’s extremely outdated copyright laws. Two previous bills died when Parliament dissolved. But Bill C-32 is bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and before committee. How necessary are these changes? Bill C-32 would finally make it legal to record a program on your VCR to watch at a later time. Yes – a practice that is technically illegal in Canada. Right now, it’s also illegal to rip music from a CD to play on your MP3 player.
David Fewer is the director of The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. He is also an intellectual property and technology lawyer. A shorter version of Nora’s interview with David will air on episode 129 of Spark, but you can listen right now to their full conversation on the pros and cons of Bill C-32. Audio below or download the MP3. [runs 20:20]
Play audio:
please make it download-able
I did a "view source" on the page, and the file is at http://podcast.cbc.ca/spark/plus-spark_20101122_d… . No idea why it wasn't included in the Spark+ RSS feed. I was looking forward to listening to this, but it never came without this manual intervention.
By the way, Canadian law does not mention Betamax, and the most recent Canadian overhaul was only one year prior to the major overhaul in the USA. It is a myth that our law is weak and outdated.
http://BillC32.ca/faq
(Ohh, did I just circumvent an "access control" by providing a direct link?
Hi George. It's there now.
I sincerely hope that when you say "blog only content" that doesn't mean that you will be doing this from this point forward.
I really dislike dealing with streaming media at the best of times, but I usually listen to your podcasts and full interviews while I am doing something else that is bandwidth intensive, so if you continue to do streaming only, I will largely not listen and only listen when the occasional story really really intrigues me, and if that happens I am just as likely to search for more info on Google instead.
Hi WolvenSpectre. Sorry about that. It was actually an oversight on my part. Will explain in a general comment.
Thanks very much. I understand these things happen, I have just seen so many of my favourite podcasts in whole or part going embeded streaming only so I am glad to hear that this is not the case.
One more request for a downloadble version. Please?
It's there now. Sorry about that.
It seems to me that DVDs are on the way out, and that new business models such as Netflix, Hulu, etc, utilize TPMs to protect their streams. Not sure why the debate on TPMs always gets discussed in terms of DVDs and their protection measures, when really we should be looking forward.
DVDs are easier to explain, which is why they are used in examples. That said, many lawyers and lobbiest still misinterpret this technology. While Bill C-32 separates "access Controls" and "use controls", many lawyers believe DVD's use a "use control" while any technical person who has analyzed the technology will clarify that it is an "access control".
I question the claim that new services like Netflix, Hulu, etc use TPMs in ways that protect *copyright* related issues. http://billc32.ca/faq#needtpm
There are contractual issues in play, and there is a need for accountability and transparency in the relationships between parties. None of the legitimate uses of TPMs to protect business models used by content distributors require the addition of TPMs to the copyright act rather than the relevant acts protecting the relevant relationships.
http://billc32.ca/faq#tpmsfair
I agree we should be looking forward. The 1996 WIPO treaties were discussed and authored at a time that pre-dates most of the technology we use to create, communicate and access creative works today. It is a very poor place to be starting in trying to "update" our copyright law, especially considering C-32 adopts a proposal that was rejected by WIPO in 1996, and has proven to be very problematic since.
About the lack of a downloadable version. Sorry everyone. That was entirely my fault. I hadn't posted an audio blog entry in a long time, so I forgot to add the extra link that sends it to the podcast and provides a direct download link. Please forgive me. It is there now.
Actually, Doug, DVDs are just used as an example here. The TPMs/digital locks David was talking about apply equally (if not more so) to online distribution channels, such as Hulu and Netflix. It is precisely because we are looking to the future that this issue is so important.
Great interview, Nora! Thanks for the update, David, and keep up the good fight!
great interview and overview of bill c-32. thank you!
I have just listened to the full interview and fully agree with 96% of the points. There are two items of interest. One is that we already have a media levy. Ever wonder why CDRs cost more than DVD Rs? Because there is a $0.10 levy per CD. This is supposed to be distributed to Canadian composers and artists to compensate them for for "illegal" copying of their works. When it was introduced CDRs cost about $0.50 -0.60. When DVD-Rs first hit the market it was proposed to have a proportionate levy. Now, a CDR holds 0.7GB while a DVDR (ordinary, not dual layer or Blu-Ray(c)) holds 4.7GB thus the levy should be 4.7/0.7×0.1 or about $0.70 per DVDR which then cost about $2.00. It was even proposed to extend this to HDDs. It is interesting to note that DVDRs now cost about $0.20 (in 50 packs) while CDRs cost about $030. You can figure out the difference. At this rate a 1TB HDD would have a $1400 levy. Future Shop advertised 1TB HDDs for about $100 this weekend.
I used to run a small business making data backups on CDRs for small businesses (and individuals). I, and they, subsidized the music business to the tune of some $400-$500 before technology caught up with me. I never, ever burned (copied) a CDR except for data purposes.
The reason for dividing the world into 3 geographical follows from the Hollywood film business which had/has a release schedule based on geography. This was/is enforced by DRM. But, as noted, this does not stop the pirates and with the spread of the internet will be bypassed by technology.
I haven't read C-32 in detail, but in the USA it is a crime to even try to "reverse engineer" any digital lock. You don't have to succeed, only try. I have now idea how they enforce this.
The photography provision is just stupid. Most photography is commercial – catalogs, flyers etc and you may be sure that the commissioners of these photographs will make certain that the copyright is assigned to them. On the other hand, family (or company) picnics and parties could take on a whole new dimension.
C-32 needs more publicity. I hope Spark revisits the topic. Great work.
You have demonstrated one of the great failings of the private copying regime, which includes the levy on blank audio recording media. It was never a way to compensate artists for "illegal" copying of their works, but a compulsory license which says that you no longer have to ask permission for a specific activity in exchange for the levy. In other words, for those activities they are no longer infringements: they are bought and paid for.
The regime only applies to private copying: making a copy onto a blank CD, etc. It is no longer private copying if you distribute that media, and the private copying regime never allowed (or paid for) unauthorized music filesharing online. Distributing music via P2P networks is as illegal in Canada as it is in the USA, contrary to many of the misinterpretations of the relevant court cases. The BMG-vs-Doe case said that BMG needed to spend a few minutes to collect actual evidence, not that unauthorized sharing was legal
You are not alone in not understanding how the private copying regime works. I suspect if we polled the 11 members (plus chair) of the Bill C-32 committee you would find that a majority of them do not understand how it works either. They are likely unaware of what activities were carved out of copyright in exchange for the levy. And this is the 12 members of parliament whose task it is to study, make amendments, and then recommend to the rest of parliament whether Bill C-32 should pass or not.
The more we discuss, the better. I know it is a lot of details that people generally don't want to have to know about, but the better informed you are the better you are able to immunise yourself against the false rhetoric that is being spread around.
Bill C-32 is not, as the government claims, about protecting the rights of artists or going after large infringers. It is an excessively complex bill that will cause more infringement in average Canadians who are otherwise law abiding citizens.
While it is only my opinion about whether we as consumers can solve this problem, I offer the following:
When consumer choice is not enough: Dishonest Relationship Misinformation (DRM) http://BillC32.ca/5130
If you aren't already familiar with the technology behind DRM, please see:
The Two Locks of DRM http://BillC32.ca/4456
I blogged today about the consumer choices I make. The shortform is that for music I choose to be DRM-free, but for movies and television on DVD my choice is to quite publicly circumvent DRM as I don't believe not buying DVD's is a helpful option.
Where do you draw the line with Canadian Copyright? http://BillC32.ca/5253
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks.
I don't know Russell. It seems to me that if you buy a DRM'd DVD you've bought it with everything that implies. If I don't like the product, I don't buy it … simple and easy.
May I ask for clarification of this comment?
Do you believe that "buyer beware" is the only law we need?
Of the following laws which regulate commercial transactions, which do you feel we can simply abolish?
Consumer protection.
competition
consumer packaging and labelling
trade (barriers to trade, etc)
eCommerce
contract
privacy (federal and provincial)
property/rental/etc
copyright (and patent, trademark, etc)
…etc. There are more existing laws that regulate commercial relationships, but we can start with these for a chopping block discussion. I happen to support most aspects of each of these areas of law and believe we should be strengthening them to better protect a free market economy. Other people may disagree.
Separate: What does "everything that implies" mean? Most people believe that DRM is the subject matter of "copyright", and that it stops people from infringing copyright. As a technical person I know this is marketing material from technology platform companies, not something that exists directly in technology. If "everything that implies" means that I agree not to bypass technology that stops me from violating copyright, then that wouldn't relate to me bypassing real-world technological measures for all the vast majority of reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
If there are contractual obligations I am "assumed" to be agreeing to, then at least make those agreements available to all the parties involved. If the terms aren't something that a normal person would "assume", then require that the contract be read and signed. At the moment none of this happens in the case of DVD's or DVD players. Most of the copyright holders are entirely unaware of the relevant contractual obligations, so how could audiences be?
@CarmaJolly
Why not offer the audio in a non-proprietary format such OGG ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg
The MP3 file format is proprietary and restricts the user's freedom.
I'm with Matt hey CBC we (Canadians) pay for this, please use open formats!
I just caught a bit of the show on the radio today, and have not had a chance to listen to the podcasts. I'm an artist and certainly copyleft and free software oriented.
As far I understand the law bill c32 would make it illegal (or its already illegal?) to play DVDs I've bought on my linux machines, because they must circumvent the digital lock in order to play it. (Does not any unauthorized read of the data require that the lock be broken? regardless of use of the data?) This never seems to be discussed. Beyond the issues of media and time shifting, I can't (or maybe will not be able to) even play content I've bought without breaking the law.
I just bought a new media centre and did not bother with a blueray reader, just because it seemed like too much of a pain to break the lock and play the video (on linux). I wonder if the law matches reason: that renting and playing a HD movie on linux (breaking the lock) is better than downloading it via bittorrent.
On TV we get content for free (over the air) because of the ads. With more and more product placement integrated into content, will the traditional ads eventually disappear?
Its an interesting thought that a pirated version of some content may spread a placed brand further than the 'normal' channels.
I encourage all us stake holders to email our MLAs about this issue, as I have done so everytime the issue comes up.
I heard somewhere that the CBC was thinking of distributing content over bittorrent. The idea was that some CBC mandate states that content should be distributed using the most cost effective methods possible. Considering the very low cost of serving torrent files, why is this not done? Maybe even for podcasts? Surely it would save the CBC some bandwidth? Seems like a great alternative to streaming. Obviously there are licensing issues with streaming vs allowing downloads, which is why you can't download whole films from the NFB, which is a massive shame.
I really enjoyed the program; especially the section on the history of copyright, and the original monopoly discussions.
I do question the need for this rewrite. To me fixing the copyright legislation makes about as much sense as fixing the laws requiring every car have a person walking in front to warn oncoming horse traffic (and yes such a law still exists in my home town). At the moment the rules are making themselves up as they go along, and while capturing the status quo makes some sense, I fear technology is moving too fast for our legislative system to keep up (all you have to do is look at the old law to see that).
Currently my only interaction with copyright rules comes from my dislike of American music. This drives me to take full advantage of the many media options currently available (satellite radio, web radio, podcasts, content on demand servers/services, youtube, etc.) to find the kinds of music I like. So when I try to pay for some of the content I have found I get "you-can't-buy-that-in-Canada" messages from some content providers.
To me this means that these content providers are making some sort of decision about whether to allow content into Canada, and I presume our laws protecting the products they make available in Canada are impacting those decisions.
So, if it is our copyright laws that are preventing me from being able to pay people for their work, then I am all for changing the laws.
However, the discussion always seems to orbit around the activities people should and should not be allowed to do. Given the history of people doing whatever they please, then, to me, the rewrite seems pointless.
All of the MPEG standards are open, but that doesn't mean they're free. Just go to a nearby engineering library if they're not online.
Canada does not have software patents, so MPEG-X players for your computer are legit, unlike the US.