Asking Citizens What They Want Out Of Copyright Law Is Really Just A 'Tactic To Confuse'?

from the oh-really? dept

One of the more stunning realities that has become clear in watching the entertainment industry, as it responds to people who are actually impacted by ever more draconian copyright laws, is the fact that the industry doesn't view other positions as worth hearing at all. To the industry, copyright law has one purpose and one purpose only: to protect the big players in the content making business. Everyone else is secondary. Unfortunately, those big industry players have powerful lobbyists. That's why it was so nice to see Canada at least hold an open process to hear from the public. Of course, we were skeptical if those voices would really be heard, and stories about the industry itself stacking the deck at public gatherings did not bode well.

Separately, with so much pressure coming from other countries, we wondered if Canada would be able to resist implementing ever more draconian copyright laws, which would be a serious drain on the Canadian economy. So far they have resisted, but the pressure from outside continues to be fierce. We recently noted that US lobbyists and lawyers were insisting that Canada needed to be dragged into the 21st century, and now European trade negotiators are pushing hard on Canada to change its copyright laws despite no actual evidence of any problem with existing laws.

But what's most troubling of all is that these trade reps don't seem to care at all what Canadian citizens had to say. Despite receiving thousands of well-argued, well-thought-out statements concerning Canadian copyright law, EU trade negotiators are dismissing the whole process as "a tactic to confuse." To confuse who? About what? Holding an open discussion with citizens, rather than just backroom deals to protect a small group of companies? I'd argue that's the very opposite of a tactic to confuse, but rather it's a tactic to enlighten.

Filed Under: canada, citizens, consulations, copyright, eu, public

Toronto Copyright Townhall: Canadian Record Industry Mobilizes In Panic, Everyone Loses Out

from the please-make-the-future-stop dept

Last Thursday, I attended the Canadian Copyright Consultation Toronto Town Hall (video). Despite the stated intention of soliciting a "breadth of perspectives," the record industry dominated the event. Michael Geist described it as the "Toronto Music Industry Town Hall" and a local publication called it the "town hall that didn't invite the town". Tickets were limited and speakers chosen by lottery, yet half the speakers were from the entertainment industry -- collection societies, record labels, industry lawyers. Twice as many industry representatives spoke as artists or creators. There was the odd librarian, student or programmer (and I had a chance to speak), but otherwise the participants seemed so skewed towards the same perspective that one person greeted the audience, "hello, music industry," and some non-industry (though admittedly not very eloquent) speakers were heckled towards the end. When asked afterwards about the strong music industry presence, the Minister who ran the town hall joked, "I guess they had the night off." There are lots of questions about the sincerity and efficacy of the consultations (though, also some indication that the government might take the time to try and get things right), but what was most disappointing, albeit least surprising, was what the entertainment industry actually had to say.

Most industry speakers presented emotional pleas, with little in the way of serious suggestions. They focused on a "right to get paid" and "fair compensation" (without talk of providing a reason to buy), while Canada was portrayed as a "lawless society," rampant with property "theft" and hostile to "legitimate" business (despite evidence to the contrary). A writer stunningly declared that "[more flexible] fair dealing would be a disaster for creators," while SOCAN claimed that adding "unwarranted" fair dealing provisions would be asking creators "work for nothing" (even though flexible fair dealing would be a lot like fair use in the US -- hardly a disaster). The President of Warner Music Canada talked about disappearing jobs, and many industry employees painted a dire picture of colleagues and artists struggling to make ends meet (with little mention of any success stories). Yet, when the occasional concrete recommendation was made, it was to implement a notice-and-takedown system (ripe for abuse), extend the "you must be a criminal" tax blank media levy to digital audio players (an idea that's been struck down twice), or enshrine an inducement doctrine into law -- extreme measures which have provided little solace to failing businesses elsewhere.

It wasn't argument. It was the language of moral panics.

The Canadian record industry was demanding to be lied to, to be told that more restrictive copyright laws will save their business. Though fewer and fewer people can convincingly tell the lie, they seemed perfectly capable of convincing each other that restrictive copyright legislation might somehow stop the market from changing (even with a decade of hindsight on the DMCA). It's tragic, because hard working people who love music and love working for artists are losing their jobs, but the industry continues to block the sort of innovations that could provide it with a way forward. A lawyer described the music industry as a "copyright industry," even though most artists and companies who are figuring out how to make money in the digital economy are successful despite copyright -- not because of it.

Artist voices were few (nevermind consumer voices), which is disappointing because many Canadian creator groups are adopting more forward thinking approaches, proposing solutions that don't involve criminalizing common consumer behavior. Now... most creators echoed the industry in supporting the levy and its expansion to digital audio players and even ISPs, and some asked for new royalties and more collective licensing, but that's much better than demanding stricter laws and enforcement mechanisms. The problem remains though, that although collective licensing may be a move in the right direction, short-term revenue from additional royalties and levies also increases barriers to innovation, making it harder for new sustainable long-term business models to emerge. Artists and creators need to find a way to earn money that's based on a solid economic ground, instead of depending on levies that can quickly become absurd. That's where the record industry should be able to help them out.

Artists and creators need to be able to experiment with new business models, but the copyright crutch gets in the way. They turn to levies and licensing because they can't imagine how else to make money, but successes have been outside of the copyright system. Canada needs innovative companies to help artists and creators find digital business models, not to chase fictive legislative solutions. If the Canadian record industry isn't willing to help creators with what's next, they need to clear out of the way.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, public, toronto, town hall

Can The Public Be Heard On Copyright Issues?

from the one-hopes... dept

When it comes to copyright law, it's no secret that politicians tend to listen almost entirely to lobbyists, and pay no attention at all to the feelings of the public. There are a few different reasons for this (and, certainly it depends on each politician). In some cases, it's basic corruption. You listen to the folks who fund your campaign, and the entertainment industry can be a major contributor to elections. However, I think a bigger issue is that many politicians really do believe that the industry representatives best represent the needs of cultural society. This might be because they get starstruck in meeting rockstars and movie stars that the entertainment industry occasionally parades around, or it might be because they just don't know where else to turn to on these issues -- and simply assume that "who would know better the impact of copyright than those who seem to rely on the system."

For years, a growing number of folks have worked hard to try to amplify the public's voice on these issues. They've been trying to make it clear that greater copyright isn't an unequivocal "good thing" and that it has many real and significant downsides as well. The internet has been an amazing tool in making this happen, but it's still not enough. In the US, for example, I can count on the fingers of one hand how many politicians actually recognize the downsides to over protection from copyright... and still have enough fingers to wag at the rest of our elected officials. The situation in Canada appears to be just slightly better, however. Michael Geist deserves a lot of the credit for that. He was the one who rallied the public the last few years when Canadian politicians tried to rush through draconian copyright changes to the system, pushed directly by US copyright interests.

While some Canadian politicians appear to have recognized some of the issues, that doesn't mean most still aren't under the false belief that more copyright is good, and what the industry reps claim is "good" is actually good for the public. So, as the Canadian gov't has begun a consultation over new copyright laws, Geist is trying to make sure that the public's voice is actually heard this time. He's launched a website called Speak Out On Copyright that tries to track the online discussion (from all over the internet) on copyright issues and help the public become much more involved in the consultation process. He's also kicked it off with his own response to the consultation, which is well worth a read.

It's still an uphill battle. The recording industry has said that they thought the bill that died last year, which so many had protested as being way too draconian, was actually too tame and did not go far enough. They've asked for the moon -- including anti-circumvention clauses, three strikes and copyright term extension. And most politicians will still hear their voice the loudest, and think that it's representative. But maybe, just maybe, the actual public -- the real people impacted by these things -- can get their voice heard in a way that has a real impact and prevents new laws that don't serve the public, don't encourage more creativity and serve only to prop-up and protect one industry's old and obsolete business model.

Is it enough to make a difference? The fact that it actually exists is already a difference. It may not stop those powerful, connected and well-funded lobbyists from pushing through bad legislation, but hopefully the voice of the public will actually at least play a role in what happens.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, michael geist, public

Social Network Status Updates Come Back To Bite You

from the is-nothing-private? dept

Lots of people wrestle with the question of what in their lives is public or private, particularly as they put more of them online. But it may pay to err on the side of caution, as plenty of instances continue to pop up to remind us that really, very little, if anything is private once it's online. Take the case of a Philadelphia Eagles stadium worker, apparently fired after he called the team "retarded" in a status update, for letting a player sign with another team. Or the New York City cop, whose update that he was watching the movie Training Day -- which features Denzel Washington as a cop who doesn't play by the rules -- in order "to brush up on proper police procedure" helped a suspect beat a gun-possession charge. Part of the issue is that as people get more and more friends online, even stuff they think is private essentially becomes public. That will undoubtedly have an effect on people's online behavior, and could hamper the growth of social networking and online life-sharing.

Filed Under: public, social network, status

Yahoo Needs To Go Private To Right Itself

from the staying-public-is-dangerous dept

Pretty much everyone now recognizes that Yahoo needs to reinvent itself these days. Its image and brand have been severely tarnished due to both poor management choices, an inability to compete successfully with search advertising and (of course) the fight concerning the possibility of a Microsoft merger. But, of course, all of this has only made the spotlight shine even more brightly on management -- which makes it much, much harder for the company to reinvent itself. So, I'm in agreement with those who think the real answer is for some private equity firms to take Yahoo private. Outside of the glare (and short-term focus) of the public markets, Yahoo might have the chance to reinvent itself for real, rather than being pulled in a different direction every few months. It can then return to the public markets later, or potentially sell itself again to another company under more favorable terms.

Filed Under: private, private equity, public, reinvent
Companies: yahoo

IRSeeK Suspends Search Engine Pending Changes To Address IRC Community Concerns

from the public-or-private? dept

Slashdot points to the heated debate over IRSeeK, a "search engine" for public IRC channels. Although IRC channels are technically public, a lot of IRC users are uncomfortable with the notion of their off-the-cuff comments being recorded for posterity. I think the flare-up reflects the complicated dynamics of "public" versus" private" information. Although we often use these words as though they're two discrete categories, "public" and "private" are actually points along a spectrum. In the physical world we've developed an elaborate system of subtle social conventions regarding when it's appropriate to listen in on, record, and share the communications of others. Conversations overheard at a restaurant or on the bus obviously aren't as private as conversations in your living room, but people would still feel their privacy was being invaded if someone surreptitiously recorded them and then published them on the Internet. There are a lot of different degrees of "public" and "private" in our daily lives.

The same principle applies in cyberspace: the fact that a communications forum is "public" doesn't necessarily mean that people are comfortable with it being recorded, archived, published, and indexed by search engines. Unfortunately the online world is so new that the relevant social conventions have yet to fully emerge. Facebook, for example, caught a lot of flack when they introduced news feeds that let you keep tabs on your friends' actions. That resistance appears to have largely evaporated as people discovered how useful the feature could be. By the same token, IRSeeK could turn out to be a very useful service, and so initial resistance shouldn't necessarily be a reason to abandon the idea. A search engine could be particularly useful for tech support forums, because it would allow users who had a particular problem to search the logs for references to their particular problem before asking about it.

But it's important that IRSeeK help to develop clear social norms so that people know when their conversations are being recorded and how the archives will be used. And to their credit, they appear to be doing just that. It has announced that the search engine will be suspended until they've found ways to address the community's concerns, and it also mentions several measure it's considering to address the community's concerns. The most important, from my perspective, is to develop an analogue to the web's robots.txt file, so that IRC operators have a straightforward way to opt out of archives and search engines. IRSeeK also mentions giving their bots standard names so that other IRC users will know their statements are being recorded. And it may avoid indexing nicknames to make it harder to track a given user's activities across multiple IRC channels. IRSeeK's swift response to community outrage and its apparent willingness to modify its services to address community concerns suggests that it may successfully navigate these tricky issues and come up with a service that's genuinely useful without being overly intrusive.

Filed Under: irc, private, public
Companies: irseek