Not that the arguments aren’t self-defeating or are a departure from reality, but those are among a number of arguments being made for a blanket ban on circumvention. The op-ed was posted on the Straight and does a pretty good job at listing off the myths surrounding piracy and TPMs. We felt it was necessary that there would be a response to these arguments.

“Internet piracy of video-game software in Canada has undergone explosive growth,” Parr writes, “and we detected a stunning 300 percent increase in the number of games illegally downloaded via Canadian ISPs between 2007 and 2008 (and this reflects but a fraction of the total illegal downloads in Canada detected by the industry as a whole).”

Either this point is completely untrue and made up, or the industry’s method of gathering information is severely flawed. ISPs have admitted to the CRTC that the bandwidth growth, particularly in the span of 2008 and 2009, fell by 45%. If piracy, even gaming piracy, grew by a “stunning 300 percent”, you would think that bandwidth growth would increase, not decrease. So who would you believe? The ESA who “detects” piracy, or the ISPs who can actually see the network bandwidth themselves?

“Today,” Parr continues, “it costs between $10 and $30 million to develop a top-tier video game, and few games actually sell enough to achieve profitability. In light of the substantial investment required and the high degree of risk associated with the production of entertainment software, piracy fundamentally undermines the industry’s ability to recover its investment, resulting in fewer games as well as lost revenue and employment opportunities.”

Yet, in the same breath, Parr wrote just two paragraphs earlier, “The video-game industry is the fastest-growing sector of the entertainment industry in Canada, and one of the most vibrant, fastest-growing industries in the world. [...] Canada recently overtook the United Kingdom to become the third most successful producer of video games in the world.”

Amazingly, he still takes that argument to say, “new copyright legislation must provide legal protection for TPMs, prohibit trafficking in “mod chips” and other circumvention devices and services”

In other words, the industry is growing at an amazing rate (without anti-circumvention legislation) but piracy exists, so anti-circumvention law is required. If Canada is growing to be a world leader, overtaking other countries including those that have anti-circumvention legislation, doesn’t that render the argument that there needs to be anti-circumvention legislation null? If the gaming industry has been growing spectacularly well, why is there suddenly this need for anti-circumvention legislation in the first place?

Parr also argues, “implementing legal protections for TPMs will benefit consumers by providing greater certainty in the digital marketplace, which will, in turn, spur investment in the development of new digital products, services, and distribution methods; more consumer choice; and lower prices”

Question, how often does a hardcore gamer say, “Gee, I’d love to buy this video game, but I’m not sure I want to because I am uncertain about the overall game marketplace.”? Maybe what Parr meant to say was, “implementing legal protections for TPMs will benefit stock investors by providing greater certainty in a digital marketplace”. After all, it seems much more reasonable to hear a hardcore gamer say, “Boy, I’d love to play more games.”

Furthermore, TPMs have proven in every other digital authorized marketplace to enforce monopolies and put a further squeeze on competition and consumer choice. A modded console has been known to expand the functionality of a gaming console in ways that weren’t originally part of the console – allowing developers to create applications and find new innovative ways to use a game console. Conveniently enough, that wasn’t mentioned in the op-ed. If you want a recent example on how TPMs block innovation, you could do a whole lot worse than to read up on the RealDVD case or the DVD Jukebox case.

“If a creator or company chooses to sell their work as a digital product or service, legal protection for TPMs helps ensure that this choice is respected, much in the same way that locks on the doors of a bricks-and-mortar store allow the owners to determine when and how consumers can access their product.” Parr wrote.

It’s a flawed comparison to compare owning a product to a physical store. If one were to pay for that store, why should someone else add further restrictions on what one can do with that store even though it was legally bought and paid for? If one were to use the bricks and mortar allusion, the more realistic comparison is that if you were to buy a building and you are now the legal property owner of that building. Then, the person who sold that building said, “OK, now that you own this building, you are only allowed to have the store open every 10 minutes on the hour and you can only sell merchandise to people with shaved heads or people who have been to a Rolling Stones concert and a Linkin Park concert within the span of three weeks.” This is not a reasonable demand on the sellers part. You paid for the building under the premise that you bought it outright, it should be yours. Who’s to say you are going to turn it into a store and not a gym? When you pay for content with digital locks, you rent it, you don’t buy it.

Parr comment that has earned a lot of counterarguments was this: “Failing to protect TPMs under the law effectively means that the government is dictating the business model, which is bad news for business and for consumers.”

The government is certainly not dictating any business model by not introducing blanket anti-circumvention legislation. If a company wants to implement DRM, and one company did in 2005 with rootkit and spyware technology (and they were sued for it in the end), they are free to do so in Canada. Not implementing anti-circumvention technology is not saying, “All copy protection is banned in Canada” by any stretch of the imagination. However, many do see anti-circumvention legislation as effectively dictating how the market can legally operate.

All in all, while an OK attempt to justify anti-circumvention legislation, like all other arguments that we have seen so far that are for restricting copyright, the arguments are either a departure from reality, philosophically incorrect or simply relying on myths and unverifiable information.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

The CFHSS has issued a call to action on the copyright consultation.

“Representing as it does scholars who cherish and produce copyrighted works,” the CFHSS says, “the Canadian Federation of Social Sciences and Humanities certainly supports efforts to reduce the commercial‐scale piracy. However, we call for a law that balances the economic rights of creators and/or owners with society’s right to gain access to knowledge. Access to knowledge is a crucial stage in the life cycle of new creativity and innovation. The rights of scholars, students, universities, libraries, taxpayers and consumers must be preserved in order that this cycle can continue to generate novelty, critique, meaning, and collective cultural experience. Scholars in the humanities and social sciences work primarily with human creations, human ideas and human interaction – much of which falls under copyright. Our work in turn, once fixed in print or other media and shared with the academic community and the public at large, falls under copyright. Copyright thus to a large extent determines the conditions of possibility for our research and knowledge sharing. Many legislative amendments proposed and even introduced over the past several years would severely impede the ability of scholars to carry out their work, and the ability of Canadians to share with and learn from one another: we must be wary, creative, and outspoken about the next stages of copyright reform.”

Right here, the CFHSS makes a very important and critical distinction here. Very few, if any, support commercial piracy. Taking content, burning hundreds of copies and selling it on the street is something that will not lend you very much sympathy both from the industry and file-sharers alike. That doesn’t mean Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) or digital locks, as they have seemingly become most commonly known as in Canada, should somehow trump all forms of fair dealings. Commenting, critiquing and parody are among one of the most effective means of spreading culture around – something that benefits content creators, both who are getting critiqued and by creators who are doing the critiquing. Exceptions to copyright law that allow society to respond to creative works greatly enriches society as well as the original creative works.

CFHSS also comments, “It has been said that digital technologies create a necessity for greater protection for rights‐owners in order that the economic effects of the tech sector can be maximized. In our view, it is short‐sighted and narrow‐minded to think of new rights for creators or publishers as the only way to increase activity in the cultural and cyber industries.”

There is little doubting the kind of opportunities new technology has provided. The internet has helped connect artists to their fans in ways that was unheard of before. In fact, one musician has already commented how file-sharing has become a very valuable learning tool for artists. Now, artists are able to go through different genre’s of music and learn about what is out there to enrich their own creative pallets. There are even the odd person here and there now that would go so far as to say p2p is creating content creators. On a personal note, I should know as I am one of those people.

In short, here are the core arguments CFHSS are making:

1. Make the concept of fair dealing more clear and flexible to encompass the reality of teaching, learning and research in the context of digital technology by integrating the Supreme Court’s tests for fair dealing from CCH v. LSUC (2004) into the Copyright Act.

2. Forbid the circumvention of digital locks (DRM) only if the locks are broken for infringing purposes.

3. Avoid specific exceptions, such as those in C‐61 for digital interlibrary loan and educational use of the internet: fair dealing already covers many educational uses, and specific exceptions are often entirely
unworkable.

4. Work towards format neutrality in the Act, so that various media are treated in an equivelent way.

5. Add a provision that contract law may not trump fair dealing.

6. Refrain from lengthening copyright term.

7. Make provision for more practical access to orphan works

8. Eliminate crown copyright.

Already, the DOC has called to expand fair dealings for people who make documentaries.

Currently, a lot of this seems to coincide with what many are already submitting to the copyright consultation. Michael Geists latest update shows that the submission trends are continuing.

According to updated numbers, there are now 465 submissions against anti-circumvention or in favour of limiting DRM/Digital locks, 431 submissions in favour of stronger personal use/copying and backup protections, 400 submissions against another Bill C-61, 389 submissions that favour a “notice and notice” approach and 388 submissions in favour of establish a good-faith defence that the user believed their use of a work was fair and non-infringing. On the other side of the debate, there are 2 submissions in favour of stronger penalties for copyright infringement, 2 submissions in favour of implementing WIPO, 1 submission in favour of limiting file sharing, 44 submissions against works being available in digital or other forms for free and 1 submission in favour of turning copyright into a crime. With supporters of loosening copyright laws ranging between 10 times to about 400 times the submissions that ask for restricting copyright, the chances of successfully arguing that most Canadians want to follow positions expressed by the pro-copyright restricting camp, who have argued for a three strikes law, has grown increasingly bleak.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

It’s becoming one of the fastest ways to isolate oneself in the copyright debate. All you have to say is that you are for suing internet users, for a blanket ban on digital lock circumvention and for restricting fair dealings. While one may get a sympathetic ear or two, a vast majority of stakeholders will not share that viewpoint. In fact, there a few stakeholders looking at the US style copyright law and merely looking at fair use as a way of expanding fair dealings (fair use is actually broader than fair dealings currently).

Comments made by the Manitoba Music Industry Association drew particular interest at a recent Saskatchewan copyright round table. The comments are available in MP3 format and can be heard at around the 50 minute mark. While advocating alternative business models and obtaining new streams of revenue, the MMIA argues, “We find ourselves in the Manitoba music industry more aligned with some of the creators coalitions and independent music groups and less aligned with CRIA and the RIAA. Our members are generally speaking are not interested in anti-circumvention laws, they are not interested in suing fans. No one from our membership is going to go out and sue fans because they copied some of their music. What they are interested in is finding ways of monetizing the creative content.” (Hat tip Michael Geist for transcript excerpt)

This isn’t the first time entities in Canadian music have stepped away from the CRIA stance of anti-circumvention laws and suing music fans. In response to the lobbying power of the CRIA which pushed the government to have file-sharing lawsuits be brought into Canada (of which CRIA still suggests that they want to easily file lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers on their Free Music Myths page – 4th myth from the bottom, first paragraph) and to introduce anti-circumvention legislation, Canadian record labels and artists broke away from CRIA. Some of those that broke away formed the Canadian Music Creators Coalition which formed to defy the CRIA stance on file-sharing lawsuits and DRM in 2006. As a result, CRIA lost a vast majority of its credibility as it was since seen as little more than a foreign organization with the word “Canadian” in its name.

That was long before Jamie Thomas was fined $1.92 Million for sharing 24 songs and Joel Tenenbaums $675,000 fine for sharing 30 songs. If anything else, those fines, particularly the Thomas fine, has only served to horrify Canadians and cement the need to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial uses or to flat-out reject file-sharing lawsuits altogether.

Up to now, there’s a long-running theme of disallowing a blanket anti-circumvention legislation, being very cautious around file-sharing lawsuits, finding alternative streams of revenue and pushing for (at this point, it’s a cliche in the consultation) a balanced approach for copyright legislation. The push to tighten copyright laws has primarily come from organizations who are mostly influenced by foreign interests or are organizations that operate on behalf of foreign interests. The push against this viewpoint has come mainly from Canadians, Canadian businesses, Canadian content creators and organizations that are primarily Canadian. In terms of public opinion, the CRIA stance has further disintegrated in the copyright consultation.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

The op-ed was written in the National Post recently. While the subheading strangely resembles the Google mafia spam that gets sprinkled on our forums every so often, this op-ed could highlight a change in strategy for the copyright industry trying to lobby Canada’s policy makers.

As many who follow the copyright debate in Canada might recall, when the CMPDA successfully lobbied the government to introduce an anti-cam law, most experts observing the copyright debates saw this as a thin wedge approach prior to the controversy surrounding Bill C-61 (copyright reform legislation which has since died on the order paper). The anti-cam legislation passed with little resistance, though proved to be little more than legislation to criminalize what was already illegal. As a result, some experts criticized the copyright industry for not understanding Canadian law and, since then, the high profile theatre camera piracy busts utilized the so-called “outdated” copyright laws of Canada. The copyright industry argued that prior to the legislation, 90% of all movie piracy was traced back to Canada – a myth that was debunked, re-debunked, and debunked by the MPAA’s own statistics.

Compared to the laundry list of demands made by the copyright industry, the anti-cam legislation seemed like a small request in comparison. Bill C-61, however, looked like the rest of the demands the copyright industry had been wanting – blanket anti-circumvention laws to override fair dealings, criminalizing file-sharers with statutory damages, etc.

The failure to pass C-61 could have served to remind the copyright industry that they can’t have everything all at once. Politicians backing the legislation received a huge amount of public backlash. So did the copyright industry back off and go back to the thin wedge approach? Apparently not.

It’s particularly bizarre considering what is going on with the copyright consultation organized by the government. So far, it seems public opinion has beaten out the copyright industry’s demands by a landslide with hundreds of submissions from people from all walks of life rejecting the industry approach (nearly unanimous).

In this latest op-en, Barry Sookman, when discussing what he’d like to see in the copyright reform legislation, says, “The bill should also include a graduated response process to help stem infringements in peer-to-peer (p2p) networks. Studies show that over 70% of users will stop illegal file sharing when they receive a notice from an ISP about it, particularly when they also know that not stopping could have consequences.”

In other words, he’d like to see a three strikes law, then in the next sentence, basically proved why notice-and-notice is sufficient.

Sookman repeats the myth that Canada is a pirate haven even though Canada on the world stage isn’t even a drop in the bucket in terms of piracy. Not only that, but it’s been repeatedly admitted in Canada that p2p’s growth has, at worst, stalled and at best, on the decline.

“We should ratify the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Internet Treaties.” Sookman adds, “These treaties represent the overwhelming international consensus on how to protect copyright on the Internet. Canada is alone among its trading partners in not having implemented these treaties. The laws they mandate — including requiring protection for digital locks — have proved useful internationally in stimulating investment in cultural products. The global experience shows they enable more diversified choice and access to digital products for consumers.”

It’s difficult to know where to begin with debunking the logic here. No widely used digital lock has gone uncracked. Digital locks have yet to prove their worth, and as such, many record labels including major record labels have been abandoning DRM’s false promise of preventing copying. Digital locks does nothing to stimulate the creation of cultural goods – as such, anti-circumvention laws does nothing more than harm the cultural industry by creating enemies of their own customers. Digital locks are the very thing that stops choice and access as they prevent users from using legally paid for content in ways they choose. In fact, Amazon’s Kindle proved that digital locks stops customers from owning what they pay for.

Of course, who is Sookman trying to kid anyway? If this push makes any headway in government, it proves that the copyright industry is only interested in fooling politicians into legislating draconian copyright law – now beyond what was so rigorously opposed with the Canadian DMCA. They clearly want it all. It’s politicians that have to deal with the public backlash, not the lobbyists. So if the government sells out a third time on copyright, it’s the politicians that will have protests in their ridings for legally breaking everyone’s equipment. At least if that happens, it would prove ever more obvious who the government ignores.

[Hat tip: Michael Geist]

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

There’s probably more text in all of the submissions and comments than a medical students entire textbook collection by now. So understanding the consultation at this point could feel like a lifetime worth of study. To help put things in perspective, Michael Geist has posted a handy graph to show where Canadians are standing on the issue of copyright reform. The graph is very telling what a vast majority are saying.

One example is the number of submissions against anti-circumvention or in favour of limiting DRM/Digital locks so far totals 114. Another interesting sample off of the graph is the number of submissions in favour of stronger personal use/copying and backup protections right now is at exactly 100. Another interesting number was the submissions against another Bill C-61 which is currently at 90.

So how did the pro-copyright camp do so far? Well, the number of submissions in favour of stronger penalties for copyright infringement totals 1 so far. Another interesting number was the number of submissions in favour of turning copyright into a crime which also totalled 1. So really, Canadians, judging by the graph, are one or two submissions from being unanimous on saying that copyright is too strict and needs to be loosened.

The news probably is something that would keep copyright advocates awake at night at the very least. Canada, currently, is overwhelmingly rejecting the foreign copyright industry’s stance on the issue of copyright. It’s no surprise given few people feel that they should be locked out of the very content they legally pay for.

So what’s the new strategy likely going to be for the copyright industry? If history is any good indication, the industry would more than likely push a message of how unethical Canadians are – though not in those words, but the meaning would, at least, be very close. The message would probably have a mix of how Canada is viewed as a “backwards nation” on the issue of copyright even though people in other nations are already getting rightly upset over changes in their copyright laws that are in favour of the copyright industry.

In the UK, for instance, last month, the copyright industry argued that if ISPs don’t start censoring the internet for the copyright industry without court oversight, throttle their users, and disconnect them for alleged copyright infringement, then the industry would “cause widespread job losses” – standard chicken little argument really. Already in the UK, two administrators of BitTorrent sites so far (OiNK and Filesoup) have been arrested and thousands of warning letters in an “education campaign” has been sent out to unsuspecting internet subscribers – a number of them whom never even heard of file-sharing before. So really, if those kinds of measures were put in place to stop file-sharing and it’s failing, then clearly embracing file-sharing would be the better way to go. Restricting copyright laws in other countries has been, thus far, a total failure to stop file-sharing. The only thing stricter copyright laws have created so far is more people who see the laws as a joke and using file-sharing anyway. So why repeat the failings of other countries just because a foreign industry says so?

Some Canadians, at the very least, clearly gets this message. An overwhelming majority of Canadians realize that there are far better ways of dealing with copyright reform than what was seen in the Liberals Bill C-60 and the Conservatives Bill C-61. The government said that they have set up the consultation to listen to what people have to say and, so far, the best way forward according to the people of Canada is to loosen copyright laws and to push for new business models adapted to the digital age.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

At issue is a Finnish EU copyright directive which came into force in 2006 which criminalizes the act of merely talking about circumventing DRM. Mikko Rauhala had started a web discussion forum to also talk about the downfalls of the directive as well.

EDRI has more details:

However the Police started its investigation with the public prosecutor who was supported strongly by the Finnish Anti-Piracy Association which arranged the “expert” testimonies for the prosecutor. Soon thereafter, the case was referred to the Helsinki District Court which decided in Rauhala’s favor; that CSS was not a type of protection measure covered by the Directive and therefore the ban did not apply. The district attorney appealed to the Helsinki Appellate Court, which stated that Mr. Rauhala was guilty of illegally circumventing a technological protection measure and of providing an illegal service for the circumvention of protection measures. The Supreme Court of Finland denied Mr. Rauhala’s application.

Since all of the court decisions that were involved in the case wouldn’t touch freedom of expression as defined in the Finnish constitution, Rauhala had to take his case to European Court of Human Rights.

Given that this is a free speech issue, it’s extremely difficult to see what the Finnish authorities hope to accomplish here. If the mere act of talking about a DRM is banned, people will simply move to a website hosted and operated outside of the borders of Finland – not to mention using proxies to cover their trails in the process. Any punishment Rauhala would face is not immediately clear in this or other past reports.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

It’s a legitimate fear as it’s happened multiple times – a music service shutters its DMR music service and servers, rendering all legally purchased tracks useless. For those who do the more honest thing of purchasing music, the very idea that a corporate entity could render legally purchased material useless seems like a betrayal to consumer confidence. It’s not a realistic situation for those that spent 10’s of thousands of dollars on vinyl copies of music (that one day, the content themselves all fail at the same time) but it can technically happen with DRM encoded music.

It’s partly why it makes Steven J. Metalitz’s comments regarding authentification servers during a Q&A session of a copyright hearing so outrageous.

“we reject the view,” Metalitz writes (PDF), “that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards.”

He then explains the reasoning behind it, “No one expects computers or other electronic devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so.”

For many, this would mean that back-ups are illegal – especially in the event of a failure either on the user end or the retailers side of it. That would mean that people would be asked to pay for their legally purchased content again – so much for fair use.

“To recognize the proposed exemption would surely discourage any content provider from entering the marketplace for online distribution or offering consumers the convenience of online authentication of disc-based content unless it was committed to do so — or to guarantee the ability of a third -party service to do so — forever.” He continues, “This would not be good for consumers, who would find a marketplace with less innovation and fewer choices and options. Any argument that such barriers to entry are needed to protect consumers in some way is more appropriately addressed to the Federal Trade Commission, rather than to the Register and the Librarian in this proceeding.”

It’s comments like this that re-enforces what many have known for a very long time already – when you “purchase” content with DRM, you don’t own it, you merely rent it. With thinking like this, it’s no surprise when users turn to piracy. It’s not like they simply want to get content for free, it’s just that they want to be able to have the option to create a way to recover their content in the event something goes wrong – something the industry doesn’t seem to keen on allowing. It’s a mystery how preventing back-ups would be discouraging users and innovation when plenty of innovation revolves around re-using the works in unique ways – something DRM prevents.

“I’ve got 78RPM records from my grandparents’ basement that play just fine today — and I’ve got Logo programs I wrote in 1979 that I can run today. I own a piano roll from 1903 that I can play back if I can clear the space for a player piano. I’ve got books printed in the 17th century that can still be read” Cory Doctorow wrote in response, “and if they can’t be read, they can be scanned and the scans can be read. This is what an open format means.”

“It’s hilarious that the same yahoos who argue for perpetual copyright (implying that copyrighted works have value forever) also argue for time-limited ownership (implying that people who buy copyrighted works should be content to enjoy them for a few weeks or years until the DRM stops working).” Doctorow said.

There’s plenty out there who would easily recognize that given that the computer is effectively a copying machine for the most part, it’s not surprising that many would see this latest argument from the industry as backwards at best.

[Via Arstechnica]

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

You could probably write an entire encyclopedia on all the different aspects of copyright and how Canada should reform its copyright laws. It’s probably why the transcript, in spite of its length, seemed to abruptly end with lots left unsaid as time ran out. While there was the assertion that all of the topics were actually touched on during the round table, in fact, things like the issues surrounding patents, something that tends to be a whole different ballgame at times, was completely absent from the round table. That’s not to say the round table was narrowly focused, it actually did cover a huge wide range of topics. One could probably have three round tables and still not touch on all the subjects around reforming the copyright laws in Canada.

Perhaps one of the issues that might be of interest to Americans was something that was left unsaid – no one was supporting the Jammie Thomas conviction. The commentary surrounding the conviction noted that the million and a half dollar fine was disproportionate, though the fine was actually much closer to 2 million. On a number of occasions, Jared Moya, the other writer for ZeroPaid, noted how while the file-sharing lawsuits were supposedly to educate the public and deter them from file-sharing, the huge fine would likely have the opposite effect where people would question the legitimacy of the fine. This concept most certainly resonated with those that participated in the round table and sparked commentary how a punishment for copyright infringement should fit the crime – and most agree that a $2 Million fine for 24 songs is disproportionate given that one can buy an individual song for $1.

There was also commentary on how stopping file-sharing, short of tearing down the entire internet and rebuilding it from scratch, was not going to happen. There was also commentary on how the entertainment industry needs to work with ISPs to set up a business model where, for example, users pay a flat fee and offer popular files on a server. This would alleviate stress on the networks (though it should be noted that bandwidth consumption has been going down in recent years) and give users what they want.

DRM, TPM’s and other “digital locks” was under the spotlight with a very notable tone that a blanket ban on circumvention was wrongheaded given that it blocks uses that would otherwise be legal. There were only two representatives that supported digital locks, Steven Ellis for the Canadian Film and Television Production Association who argued that it enables geo-fencing and Danielle Parr with the Entertainment Software Association of Canada who said that digital locks enables users to play World of Warcraft and gives consumers choice while in the same breath saying that revenues are up for those that he represents in a country that doesn’t currently ban the act of circumventing digital locks.

Go back to the idea of geo-fencing. What geo-fencing is is basically selling content online only to those that are located within a certain country or in certain countries. Typically, a given system would read what IP address you are connecting to a server an determine what country that IP address originates from. If that IP address is recognized as an address that comes from a country outside of the allowed ranges, the server will prevent that user from doing some things including buying content. This system seems to fail to acknowledge that the internet makes users all over the world be a part of a global village. Blocking people from other countries from, most notably, buying content, is not a sustainable business model. It’s like owning a store in the middle of downtown and you would only sell your products to those who have a permanent Cleveland Giants tattoo right on their bicep. What if you like the Oakland Raiders instead? Tough luck, but you’re not wanted in this store. Geo-fencing online is pretty much the same thing. What if you don’t want a tattoo in the first place (ala anonymous online users not using a proxy in the correct location). Sorry kid, not happening. Most people would question how sustainable that store is in the first place.

Of course, you don’t have to take our word for it. The people behind prominent online music store Beatport.com certainly feels your pain:

We all know how frustrating these restrictions can be. A lot of our employees are DJs from all ends of the spectrum- from basement DJs, to club residents, to DJs who have toured all over the world. Even our CEO Jonas Tempel holds a residency on Saturday nights at Beta, and regularly tours with Bad Boy Bill. And those of us who don’t fall into the DJ category are at the very least, electronic music aficionados. So we all know how frustrating it can be to listen to a track that you absolutely love, only to find out that it’s not available in your territory.

As many of you may already know, these restrictions have always been around, but were just not as noticeable as they are today. For example, in the past when you went into a record store to buy your music you only had access to what the distributors were allowed to sell. Similarly, the agreements that we have made with our labels can limit the areas where a release may be sold if it is already available by another, more prominent label in those regions. Release dates can vary from label to label as well. Some releases that are available in all territories may not be available everywhere at the same time. In fact, a lot of the limitations that we deal with now are still based on standards that were set by physical distribution. We are working hard to change some of these outdated practices, however, we always try to keep in mind and respect the fact that our labels are trusting us with their most valuable asset.

At the end of the day we are all here for the music, and we would love to see worldwide rights on all tracks. Until that is possible, we feel that keeping a more extensive label catalog brings us one step closer to reaching our goal.

Some might go as far as to say that those who restrict their catalogues to the paying public have absolutely no right to complain about slumping sales.

Overall, it looks like the round table does reflect the overall situation in the open portion of the consultation we reported on earlier. A very small minority of stake holders are beating the drums that support C-60 (Liberals) and C-61 (Conservatives) while the vast majority of Canadians disagree with that approach. Not hard to see just how far left field the government was when they tabled Bill C-61.

See also:

Michael Geist’s notes

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Already, there are over 450 responses to one page alone on the consultation website. Skimming through the comments, one quickly notes that comments that are for restricting copyright are few and far between (with many comments disagreeing with those who were for restricting copyright laws) People from all walks of life, from educators to artists to DJs to software developers to average consumers to librarians (etc.) have been gravitating to the copyright consultation to express their frustrations with DRM and how Fair Use isn’t broad enough. There was even the odd comment on how even if file-sharing is criminalized, the punishment should fit the crime (something that has been a huge controversy in the US over the conviction of Jammie Thomas who was fined $1.92 Million for sharing 24 songs)

Michael Geist has been tracking the copyright consultation. He already pointed to formal submissions received in the first two days. He also set up speakoutoncopyright.ca to help spread the word about the consultation in Canada.

In the midst of all this, Geist did submit his own comments advocating a more flexible fair dealings, abolishing crown copyrights, and instituting a notice-and-notice regime (as opposed to the notice-and-takedown scheme heavily promoted by CRIA, the Canadian arm of the RIAA)

Geist also pointed to several other submissions. One was by a user named “Saskboy” who recommended a copyright term of 18 years and that people should be charged for copyright violations if there is demonstrable harm done to the industry (perhaps, as opposed to the hypothetical harm which has been a reoccurring theme by the industry as they target users for copyright infringement online) as well as telling other countries to “go copyright themselves” if they don’t like Canadian laws.

Another posting by Tyler Laing noted how smaller artists make virtually no money through the major recording industry even though the industry sells thousands or millions of albums. As an example, he points to a Courtney Love article which highlighted this reality.

I personally submitted my own comments which had numerous suggestions which mentions idea’s promoted by others. Other suggestions I included were instituting a “use it or lose it” regime for copyright holders, accessible liability for false infringement claims, recognizing internet access as a right, protection from state mandated censorship and surveillance for the purpose of copyright enforcement, extending the safe harbour regime to include services and other creators, ending patents on human life, and heavily scrutinizing ACTA.

The Canadian Coalition for Digital Rights advocates a fair dealings that protects backing up content, users being protected from statutory damages, and a system that doesn’t just put a blanket ban on circumvention.

There’s been coverage in the Torontoist, the Edmonton Sun, and the Vancouver Media Co op.

Realistically speaking, if you wanted to find those who were for restricting copyright laws, you had to dig deep into the consultation to find those straggling comments. The CBC was eventually able to find someone who was for restricting copyright, ACTRA. Amazingly, ACTRA said that digital locks are an “important issue in terms of preventing piracy.” Perhaps a challenge is in order. Name three albums or movies that never made it to p2p strictly because of DRM and not because of obscurity. Even the content protection, BD+, found on BluRay discs have been cracked in 2008. All that over top of the fact that the DRM protecting WMA files was crackable via FairUseforWM back in 2007 (A DRM that was, before 2007, considered uncrackable) So, in reality, in terms of preventing works from entering the p2p ecosystem, DRM as a solution has been little more than a pipe dream promoted by DRM vendors.

Right now, the only thing left so far in the consultation is the transcripts of the first closed door round-tables which may prove to be interesting.

Geist is also tracking general comments on the consultation as well.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.