There are a number of misconceptions about why many Canadians are concerned about copyright.
This isn’t about free music.
Artists deserve to be paid for their work. But the law could regulate activities having nothing to do with content. It could make it illegal to unlock our cell phones, to choose the software on our computers, to play back music and movies we have payed for. We could lose control of our own property. Our computers or cell phones would be ours, but the locks on them would not be – and it would be illegal for us to undo those locks. Even when we do things that have nothing to do with violating copyright. A detailed description of the impact of regulating digital locks is here.
This isn’t a conflict between artists and consumers.
Excessive copyright hurts artists. It makes some kinds of creativity illegal. By giving control over media technology to powerful companies, it would limit the ability of artists to choose how they reach their fans and audiences. The Canadian Music Creators Coalition (representing Sarah Mclachlan, Avril Lavigne, the Barenaked Ladies, and others), the Documentary Organisation of Canada and other Canadian creators have expressed their concern about some of the proposed measures. Copyright law is intended to benefit both creators and the public by providing incentives for artists to create. This law would harm both groups. Appropriation Art, a coalition of artists, said of the previous proposal, Bill C-61,
“Bill C-61 makes it illegal to access existing material, modify it, comment on it and/or publicly display it. Critcism, parody and satire under Bill C-61 become criminal acts. . . . Bill C-61 is censorship”
This isn’t a matter of Left vs Right.
Proponents of fair copyright are of all political persuasions – radicals, libertarians, socialists, conservatives, liberals. All are in favor of vibrant Canadian culture and innovation. Many propose changes to that would make these things easier. But the proposals pushed by many of the entertainment lobby go in the opposite direction. Some people are concerned the law will erase property rights, others that it will grant control to American conglomerates. Some are worried about the threat to Canadian culture and expression, others that the new regulations will stifle innovation. Libraries fear the law could limit their ability to archive and access material, educators are worried that it could limit their ability to use media for education. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner is concerned that the law could “have a negative impact on the privacy of Canadians.”
The law will not stop piracy.
In 1998, the United States passed many of the measures being pushed on the grounds that they will stop infringement. Since then there have been thousands of lawsuits, and judgments as high as $1.9 million for offering to share 24 songs. Technology and consumer electronic companies have added locks to their devices and removed features for fear of running afoul of the law. Yet piracy continues; the architect of the law himself admits it has been a failure. Extreme laws cannot be everywhere; they cannot force people when people do not support the law. The only way copyright can stop infringement is if people respect the law. And they will only respect it if they believe that it is fair.
Canada has no international obligation.
Canada is under intense pressure from the United States to legislate harsh copyright provisions. Yet despite the claims of U.S. entertainment industries, Canadian law is already stronger and better reflects international standards than does U.S. law. Most countries around the world have not passed laws similar to this one, including many of our trading partners in Europe. We can comply with our international obligations without passing draconian copyright.