I'm not sure if I've mentioned it here before, but for the last several months our government has been holding a Canadian Copyright Consultation online.

Today is the last day to make a submission. As is typical for me, I waited until today to finally draft and submit my thoughts on the matter.

I avoided writing specific answers to each of the questions provided and chose a more freeform style focusing on the issues I feel are most paramount when considering any updated copyright legislation. You can read my submission in the extended entry.

My fellow Canadians,

I write today because I am very concerned about the direction Copyright reform in Canada will take as we move into an increasingly digital age. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States of America has stifled innovation, frustrated online fans of culture, and short-changed consumers. In this submission, I wish to address some important issues which are crucial in consideration of a copyright reform policy.

Anti-Circumvention
In the most recent incarnation of Canadian copyright reform, Bill C-61, and in the American DMCA, strong language is used to prohibit the circumvention of "digital locks". This language is extremely broad, and would criminalize a number of harmless activities which technologically savvy Canadians commonly engage in.

Ripping a legally-purchased media disc for backup, or for use on a portable media player (such as the iPod):
Canadians who own portable video playback devices may wish to transcode their existing DVD collection so that they may watch it while on public transit, or during a flight. Under anti-circumvention laws, this would become illegal, since all DVD or Blu-Ray discs include proprietary encryption. Media companies would like you to be forced to purchase an additional copy of your movie or TV-show for playback on a portable device; consumers most likely consider that unacceptable.

Unlocking a phone at your local mall for use with another cellular provider:
Cellphone unlocking businesses have become a common sight at many Canadian malls. This is because the best new cell phones are often released exclusively by one telecom provider and "locked" for use only on their own network. Also, a consumer's second-hand cellphone is much easier to sell if it has been unlocked for use on any compatible network. However, unlocking a phone falls under the broad language of "circumventing digital locks", and would become a criminal act.

Transcoding legally-purchased DRM-protected media whose format is no longer supported by the vendor:
This is perhaps the best example as to why DRM, Digital Rights Management, should not be protected from circumvention by law. In two notable examples, recorded baseball games sold by Major League Baseball, and music sold by Wal-Mart online, the aforementioned providers discontinued support for the servers and software which authorized consumers to play their media. So consumers who had legally purchased content from these providers were left without usable media. Without the recourse of being able to legally break the DRM and transcode the data to a different format, consumers pay out and may get nothing in return.

Reverse Engineering:
One of the hallmarks of engineering education is the process known as reverse engineering; that is, taking things apart to understand how they work. The devices being deconstructed are still protected under existing copyright and patent laws; the motives are purely to provide education and inspiration. Software engineering entails many of the same principles. But under anti-circumvention, software engineers loose their ability to deconstruct or decompile software to understand its workings.

Fair Use
This is another important concept which is difficult to define except through example. Fair use involves the use of copyrighted material without permission given intent and circumstances. Protection of fair use is an important consideration in any copyright reform.

YouTube:
In 2007, a mother uploaded a video of her baby dancing to a Prince song onto YouTube. The record label representing Prince immediately sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube to have the video deleted. The mother was in fact in the right under "fair use" terms of U.S. law. Clearly, the intent of the video was not to provide illegal file sharing of Prince's music; the music is merely incidental to the scene.

Wikipedia:
The website Wikipedia contains articles which contain copyrighted images. For example, the article on Apple Inc. will likely include a image of the Apple logo for demonstrative purposes. This qualifies as fair use.

Parody:
Re-wording existing songs, creating "sound alikes", or recreating famous scenes from TV or film is a staple of comedy. Any extension or redefinition of Canadian copyright law must remember that parody is an important part of our culture, and must be protected.

Consumer Protection
As a consumer, I believe that once I have purchased something, it belongs to me. Be it a movie, music, software, a cellphone, or an ebook. I can therefore decide myself how to use it, when to enjoy it, or what to play it on. This is a reasonable assessment of ownership that many Canadians would agree with. As long as I am not attempting to share the media with individuals who have not purchased it, my activities regarding the use of said media should not be criminalized. Any copyright reform should take this common sense into account. Any legislation which puts the rights of large media companies with powerful legal departments above the needs of the average Canadian is completely backwards.

What can we do to protect artists?
The first question to ask is: is the piracy of media in Canada causing such a drastic decrease in margins of artists that draconian laws are necessary? I think most would answer no. We are rapidly moving into an age where technology allows artists to create, disseminate, and sell their content to the public without the need for large media companies. This is the beginning of a golden age for content creators, and many musicians have already realized this change by going "indie" (independent) so that they may record, produce, market, and distribute their content themselves, without the need for a major record label. Media companies realize this trend, which is why they want to maintain a tight grip on the media they control. They're lobbying the Canadian government on the premise that artists are in trouble: quite the contrary. The best way to protect artists is for the Canadian government to protect outlets like the CBC, Canadian Content rules, and the Canada Council for the Arts.

I hope that Canadian legislators consider all of the issues I have raised very carefully before enacting new copyright laws in Canada.

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.

Regards,

Jesse Schooff