The copyright debate is currently still in overdrive right now. Many who have tried to characterize the copyright debate as little more than a bunch of networked users versus big content have been almost entirely from the minority voice who wants to restrict copyright in Canada. In reality, the copyright debate spans much farther than just two kinds of people. It’s a total fabrication that the copyright debate is just a simple little issue that needs little attention.

In fact, in some respects, the issues surrounding file-sharing in the copyright debate have almost taken a side-seat for larger issues such as digital locks and fair dealings. This theme backs up earlier evidence that Canada is a country that pays for consumed content. If it was a piracy haven where everyone was just downloading copyrighted works, the digital locks issue would barely surface in the debates since people who download rarely, if ever, have to worry about encountering a digital lock.

The issue of fair dealings has been nearly a broken record had the need for “balance” in the copyright laws haven’t been such a dominant theme already. Fair dealings is an issue for most people who are interested in creating content in the first place. A chairwoman for the Writers Union of Canada wasn’t exactly supportive of expanding fair dealings and said how university faculty are on salary while contract writers were not. If one were to presume this was the only real part of the debate, they’d be greatly mistaken as there are several forms of other fair dealings as well – well beyond just writing.

The DOC has informed ZeroPaid that it supports expanding fair dealings for people who create documentary films. Here’s their position on the copyright reform debate:

DOC leads the charge on documentarians’ position to avail themselves of a Fair Dealing exclusion for their productions and to that end, works in tandem with the academic, legal and production communities to publicize this information.

While the issue of fair dealings with respect to documentarian’s for some might be vague and distant to some, in 2006, the issue of copyright as it relates to documentarian’s was a huge issue. The flash point controversy was Death By Popcorn where corporate owners used copyright to halt the production of that documentary surrounding a hockey team. It brought the harsh reality of copyright for documentarian’s right into the forefront of the public conscious.

“We are storytellers.” SUZANNE CHISHOLM, director of Saving Luna commented. She continued, “We believe in the power of narrative nonfiction storytelling to reach human emotions and explore the experience of life on this planet. We believe there is intrinsic value to society and to other lives in telling stories that try to describe things that matter with accuracy and honesty. Some documentary filmmakers want to use their work as advocates, to change what people do; we want to use our work as empathetic storytellers, to understand what people do.”

Given that award-winning documentaries are produced in Canada, it’s almost a travesty to see how many hurdles producers have to go through – and copyright is one of those big hurdles with such a tight fair dealings exemption in copyright while their American counterparts enjoy a much broader “Fair Use” exemption. One could argue it’s an unfair advantage in a way.

With the DOC, and their 800 members, arguing for an expansion of Fair Dealings, it drives the point home that there are many content creators seeking a loosened copyright law in some form or another to make it easier to make content in the first place. As Lawrence Lessig once said, innovation always builds on the past. The tighter copyright laws are, the harder it is to make content such as documentaries as they often end up incorporating other peoples works – inadvertently (i.e. on someones shirt) or otherwise.

Some might argue that tighter copyright laws will save jobs and help the economy. It’s a somewhat amusing claim given that the DOC “outputted $440 million in 2005-2006 (latest available figures) and generated over 15,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada”. An entity pulling in so much for the Canadian economy is asking for a fair dealings exemption – loosening copyright laws for the purpose of creating content.

The copyright debate has already had its dramatic twists and turns. A couple have argued for keeping fair dealings the way they are. Many, now including the DOC, are either directly or indirectly firing back asking for a loosening in the copyright law – in this case, expanding fair dealings for the purpose of documentaries. Who knew there were more players in the copyright debate than consumers and the big four foreign record companies and the foreign owned movie industry?

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.

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.

It may be a small setback to advocates who want to broaden their rights when they copy a CD. According to 01net (Google Translated), a French court has ruled that if a company puts Digital Rights Management (DRM) on their CD and a consumer can’t play it, the company did not break any laws and cannot be held liable for damages. Naturally, proponents for DRM applauded the decision (Google Translation)

While many users of content may feel that copying is a right, the ruling seems to just reinforce what has been generally set in stone in many other countries, that, legally speaking, private copying is an exception, not a right. If a company chooses to put DRM on their CD, then they are entitled to do so.

In countries like Canada and the United States, there are systems where if one buys a blank CD, they also pay into a levy system which makes it’s way back to rights holders. Whether or not the system is fair has been a topic for debate for years. Still, there are many examples of this system reinforcing the fact that private copying is an exception under law, not technically a right.

The real battle has been fought on whether a user has a right to make a copy of, say, an album, and burn it onto an additional CD or any other device. In short, it has been a war between the “I bought it, it’s, therefore, my property, I can do whatever I want with it” perspective and, “We need to stop piracy and enforce our intellectual property rights” perspective.

This ruling, judging by the reports, doesn’t seem to be that big of a departure.