d7

by Charles W. Moore
For The Times and Transcript

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

1 Comment(s)

Canadians opposed to the Harper government’s proposed changes to the Copyright Act are mobilizing on the Internet to fight the controversial bill which is expected to be on the agenda for the upcoming fall parliamentary session.

The protest is being informally spearheaded by Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who has been quoted in the past by the Canadian Press commenting:

“File sharing is certainly here to stay and the lawsuits and attempts at new legislation are attempts to put the toothpaste back in the tube.”

In addition to his own website blog Prof. Geist runs a Facebook group called Fair Copyright for Canada that has attracted 90,000 members since it was launched last December, with local chapters established in larger centres to better organize protest efforts. Another group, Copyright For Canadians, has also posted an information website and invites visitors to join.

The bone of contention is Bill C-61, legislation proposed in June by federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice that will make it easier to prosecute individuals who download copyrighted material off the Internet, touted as a “made-in-Canada” solution to online piracy.

However critics like Michael Geist contend that the legislation is a clone of the Draconian American Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), only worse.

Prof. Geist told the Canadian Press last weekend that more Canadians are getting involved with the protest because they recognize how the proposed reforms could affect their daily lives. “We’re talking about more than just copyright here. We’re talking about the digital environment,” Geist commented.

“This legislation represents a real threat to the vibrancy of that online environment.”

On his blog Geist says that “the U.S. DMCA experience leaves little doubt that the introduction of anti-circumvention legislation will create some unintended consequences.

No matter how long the list of circumvention rights and other precautionary measures, it is impossible to identify all future concerns associated with anti-circumvention legislation. The U.S.

DMCA addresses this by establishing a flawed tri-annual review process. The system has not worked well . . .”, but he notes that “as bad as the U.S. system is, the proposed Canadian system under Bill C-61 is worse since there is no mandated review of the exceptions at all.

Instead, Canada gets a flexible process that will allow the government to consider new exceptions if and when it sees fit.”

If Bill C-61 passes, peer-to-peer file sharing and downloading any copyrighted material without permission as well as making material available for others to download would become illegal, as would circumventing digital locks (Digital Rights Management or DRM) put on music or software by manufacturers.

Recording television shows and movies for compilation or personal libraries or collections would be illegal, as would ripping DVDs to iPod Video if a digital lock has been imposed to block change of format.

Posting copyright-protected work onto a website such as Facebook or YouTube or making music libraries available for peer-to-peer access will also be prohibited, with fines of up to $20,000 per-infringement.

The only concession (sort of) to the masses of file-sharing users the government refuses to acknowledge is a provision in Bill C-61 that people who simply download illegally are limited to a maximum $500 fine for a first offense.

Listening to music and entertainment industry rhetoric, you might infer that copyright law was handed down on stone tablets by the Almighty, but copyright is merely an arbitrary and mutable legislative construct. Digital technology has made traditional copyright law largely unenforceable, and like it or not, sharing (or, depending on your politics, “stealing”) music has become a way of life for millions.

Heavy-handed “cures” like Bill C-61 enacted at the behest of industry almost certainly will be worse than the alleged disease in terms of stifling culture-building and technological innovation.

Michael Geist expresses optimism that grassroots activism can make a difference. “When you get tens of thousands of Canadians speaking out like this, there’s big political risk for any political party who chooses to ignore it,” he told CP. Or as one website forum poster put it: “If the Tories pass this bill, they’re dead.” I hope they’re paying attention.

n Charles W. Moore is a Nova Scotian freelance writer and editor.

His articles have appeared in more than 40 publications around the world.