Bill C-61: Open Letter
Clifford M. Roche
154 Selig’s Road
Prospect Village, NS
B3T 2A7
Re: An Open Letter Regarding Bill C-61
Dear Bill Estabrooks;
I corresponded with you via email on August 18th, 2008 regarding my concerns with the highly controversial Bill C-61. As you requested I intend to highlight in this letter, which will be posted on my website for public review, my concerns with Bill C-61 and the problems it will introduce for the general public.
I am a professional game developer working in Halifax’s HB Studios, and while I cannot solicit the opinion of HB Studios, understand that I see the direct consequences of copyright infringement in my own work, and subsequently my own paycheck. I do not support copyright infringement especially being a member of the entertainment industry, one which is particularly hit by file sharers, so understand my concerns come without bias.
Why we don’t want to be like the United States
Probably the largest fear any Canadian has is that we will become like the United States’ DMCA. It is recognized that Jim Prentice has stated his lack of interest in having Canadian authorities searching people laptops and iPods for illegal copies of music, and even his lack of interest in having Bill C-61 targeted at individuals. Jim Prentice has stated many time that he would rather target people/companies trying to make a profit from copyright infringement, but the problem is that Bill C-61 does not reflect this. It is furthermore imprudent to suggest that this won’t happen with the increasing number of lawsuits brought up by the RIAA in the United States against individual persons; people who were unaware they were downloading illegally, people who were unaware others had done this using their computers or internet connection, and even people who are dead.
RIAA Sues the Dead - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/
Often in these cases, even when the innocent people are not found guilty, they are left dealing with hefty legal fees which can cost them their livelihood. The average person does not have the means available to defend themselves fairly from corporate bullies; simply dismissing the notion that this can happen is completely irresponsible and either indicates that Jim Prentice either is trying to mislead the public on Bill C-61, or is simply misinformed about the very thing he is trying to create a bill to ‘protect’.
Recently courts in Germany have refused to start handling cases involving infringement of less than 200 movies or 3000 music tracks due to personal cases completely clogging their legal system.
Sharing 2,999 Songs, 199 Movies Is Safe in Germany - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/15/1252217
It is prudent to understand that this does not mean I support copyright infringement on a personal level, but it is unfair to bully the public in this manner–especially when it is much more effective to specifically target the 20% of the people providing 80% of the copyright infringed material. As it stand current copyright law does this effectively by holding liable anyone who provides materials illegally in this manner without jeopardizing public interest.
What About Blank Media Levies?
Anytime I purchase a blank CD-R I pay a levy of 21 cents per disc so that that artists, and recording association are compensated for any potential loss in profits due to copying for personal use, so why is it Jim Prentice wants to introduce laws that will hold anyone copying a track or CD for personal use? Does it seems fair that I have to pay for this potential loss, but can still be fined $500 for each track I copy?
Any attempt to introduce a law which punishes a single person for making or downloading copies for personal use would defeat the very purpose of this levy, and to be fair, would have to also remove the levy.
Since the levies are already in place to accommodate this situation, why is Jim Prentice looking at introducing a law which allow the recording industry to claim ridiculous financial damages for copying a single track of music?
The Ethics of Enforcing DRM
Undoubtedly DRM has been a hot issue for many people like me who believe in not only convenient means of purchasing music, videos, and videos game, but also a reduction in our carbon footprint by downloading music instead of purchasing outright from a store. And yes I mean legally purchasing through services like steam (www.steampowered.org) and itunes (www.itunes.com).
It comes with great dismay that everytime I purchase music through iTunes, up until most recently, that I have been forced by Apple’s DRM to play back the music I have purchased and have a right to play through an iPod or iTunes player (available only on Mac and Windows). If a person wishes to use any MP3 player other than one manufactured by Apple, or any operating system not supported by their iTunes software the only choice that user has to to remove DRM protection from the track.
It is unethical for anyone to be forced to the limitations imposed by virtually every DRM system out there. It is from my experience that almost every attempt at using DRM curcumvention is solely to allow individual people to play music or videos that they full well have a right to play, by a means that suites them. It does’t seem likely that anyone would purchase a product and just give it away to the rest of the world, and thus trying to make it is illegal for any person to use DRM circumvention is unethical in its entirety. Such a law only has a place in protecting the profits of corporations, by removing competition from the general public.
Imagine if the next car you bought has a special nozzle on the fuel tank, so you could only purchase a specific gas station. Now imagine it being illegal to adapt your vehicle to to work with any gas station, despite the fact that it is all the same thing.
The following is an excerpt from a letter from Liberal MP Marlene Jennings, published by www.faircopyrightforcanada.ca:
Though C-61 appears to offer more flexibility on fair dealing [than Bill C-60], in banning circumvention technology the means to legitimately copy or change formats is torn from the hands of legitimate users. Thus, the section of the bill banning legitimate anti-circumvention technology needs to be eliminated and replaced with something that experts in the field would feel is more appropriate in allowing a greater deal of flexibility in fair dealing.
One point mentioned in my original letter to the office of Jim Prentice was that it is unethical to tell any person, who has purchased a product, that they do not have the right to use the product that suites them.
Jim Prentice has defended himself by stating, in an email he or someone in his office returned to me, that they are not trying to seek a ban on these modifications. Has he not read his own bill? The whole section called “anti-circumvention” seems to sum this up pretty clearly (paragraph 41, sections 1 and 2).
One of the hottest issues on this topic currently are cellphones. A good portion of the public is already annoyed the cell phone companies charge far more money for phones and services than they are worth, and considering the fact that most of those phones use one of two basic technologies and can be used without any issues between multiple service providers, at what point did it become fair to the average citizen to tell them they are not allowed to unlock the phone (that they own) and use them on any network of their choice. This is another example of Bill C-61 only serving to protect the bottom line of large corporations, not the general public.
Perhaps ammending anti circumvention so that it honestly protects business from individuals trying to infringe upon copyrights they own, last I checked though unlocking a cellphone wasn’t infringing upon copyrigt laws. I am not manufacturing additional phones, there is still only one phone and that phone was purchased.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban anti-circumvention where the circumvention’s sole purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement? This would protect hardware manufacturers like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony from so called “mod-chips” which facilitate illegal copying and distribution of video games without holding anyone responsible for simply getting more use out of their purchase. It seems entirely fair to hold individuals using anti-circumvention specifically to make or obtain illegal copies of media liable, but not to punish people for making media they have a right to play more accessible.
What is to stop such anti-circumvention laws to stop car companies from telling me that I am no longer allowed to service my own vehicle? All they have to do is put a computer controlled lock on the hood and I can be fined $20,000 dollars for disabling it and doing my own oil change.
Developing an Actual Solution
There are a few points that should be greatly considered when amending Bill C-61 to suitably protect performers/producers and the interests of the general public:
2) The public cannot be held liable for anti-circumvention laws when they are not infringing upon copyright laws. This also means unlocking cell phones to be used with different service providers. The consumer is not illegally making copies of the phone, they are simple enabling additional service on it which the original manufacturer was unwilling to provide. In this case by allowing the consumer to choose between service providers.
3) Not holding the general public liable because they choose to modify products which they have ultimately purchased for their own personal use. If we want to encourage innovation, and creative thinking in society, and even promote sciences amoungst younger people, we cannot take away one’s ability to ‘tinker’ with something they own. Again this is not infringing upon copyrights, nothing is being sold or reproduced, and this is not causing financial damages to the manufacturer when the product has already been purchased.
4) Not holding the general public liable because they choose to record a TV show and watch it again at a later time. Perhaps the industry needs to revisit how broadcast licenses are managed if they are worried about this generating a loss in profits.
5) Stop bullying the public by making them worry about validating the sources of all media they download. You cannot rely on people to self police and take the time to investigate that every source of downloadable content is infact licensed. This would be nearly impossible. Leave the industry responsible for finding the people providing illigitimate materials and prosecute those who are knowingly providing unlicensed material to the public. It wastes less money and time in our already strained legal system and provides the corporations with a means of claiming fair damages.
6) If the purpose of the bill is to specific large illigitimate operations, or people/companies knowingly profiting from unlicensed distribution then ammend the bill to reflects those intents… otherwise it is just being sneaky. Just because Jim Prentice says it won’t be used out of that context, doesn’t mean it won’t. Someone has to be really naive or deceiving to insist otherwise.
Sincerely,
Clifford M. Roche
