Archive for May 2012
C-11 ~ Copyright: Fallacy #2
“Wasn’t the whole purpose of copyright to allow artists, musicians, and authors to make a living?”
— @coyo
Well…. No.
Although the privilege of copyright was granted to writers (and later extended to other creators), they had a very limited ability to make copies. A writer could copy the manuscript by hand and sell copies to anyone they met. The printers had the expertise and the control of the expensive equipment, so right from the start the creators were disadvantaged, writers had no choice but to assign this “right” to the distributors.
Although the supposed justification for copyright is to allow creators to make a living, in practice the monopoly allowed the Stationers (or Booksellers, Printers, Publishers &tc.) to generate revenue and control publishing. Copyright succeeded so well for so long by giving the appearance of existing to benefit the creators. Creator support ensures that the market – the audience – honours copyright.
As time went on, creators wound up with ever decreasing power over this supposed privilege, while the distributors — now called publishers — accrued more and greater power, which they used to dictate terms to creators. The problem was that printing was only part of it; the distribution network was the other side of the equation.
More and more of our cultural pursuits have come under the “protection” of copyright. The music recording industry is the worst for creators, as many (most?) musicians were forced to give up their copyright in order to secure a recording contract. For all but the biggest stars, the effect is to thrust most recording artists into indentured servitude. Because of this, more and more musicians choose the independence now possible with affordable recordings and Internet distribution. Before the Internet, CRIA controlled the recording industry in Canada; but 30% of the Canadian Industry was independent by 2010. It isn’t piracy that threatens the legacy distributors, it’s competition.
In today’s Canada we also have a proliferation of copyright collectives which have devolved onto yet another “middleman” with a hand in the copyright till.
The only way for creators to access the funds owing them as a result of the copyright monopoly is by way of copyright collectives, which is why copyright collectives lobby for stronger, longer copyright.
Perhaps initially these collectives actually represented the interests of creators, but judging from the lobbying they engage in today, it seems pretty clear these collectives are primarily interested in their own needs.
Making it appear that copyright benefits the creators is a great way to have creators support
Both the technological revolution ushered in by plummeting copying costs and the Internet threaten the corporations and copyright collectives. Corporate interests want to regain absolute control of their industries while copyright collectives want to regain absolute control of their respective workforce. Both are threatened with obsolescence due to rapid growth of independent creators that threaten the old fashioned business models.
In response to this threat both special interest groups have been lobbying governments around the world to use legislative means to turn back the hands of time. Canada’s draft copyright legislation new copyright legislation will vest absolute power in Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) and give in to these demands with Bill C-11, which is ironically called “The Copyright Modernization Act.”
There is Still Time to Say “No”
[This is the second in my C-11 Copyright Series. Canada’s majority government is poised to pass Bill C-11, the co-called “Copyright Modernization Act” in spite of unprecedented Canadian opposition. The tragedy is most Canadians are unaware of copyright issues and don’t yet realize the growing impact it exerts over our daily lives.
This is the second in my C-11 Copyright Series:
C-11 ~ It isn’t just a danger to Fair Dealing
Nora Young interviewed CIPPIC’s David Fewer on her CBC Spark program, and one of the points that they discuss is the worry that TPMs (digital locks/DRM) will stop Canadians from doing “what we what we would ordinarily be allowed to do under fair dealing.”
But it is more than that.
Fair dealing is only part of it. Under Bill C-11 TPMs will stop us from doing things we are legally allowed to do, including things that have nothing to do with fair dealing.
If it is illegal to circumvent TPMs, Canadians will be prevented from accessing content that is in the public domain, or work that has been licensed to share. This is already happening now.
As a writer, I’ve been appalled that books in the public domain have been locked behind TPMs. Bill C-11 will make it illegal to circumvent this kind of TPM. Even using a pen and paper to hand copy the words of a public domain work like The Happy Prince if TPMs are present, will be copyright infringement – and illegal – when Bill C-11 becomes law.
Bill C-11 will make it possible for Microsoft to prevent people from replacing the Windows Operating System that comes preloaded on most computers with free software of our choice ~ like Linux. So Bill C-11 could very easily be used to kill free software in Canada.
Even worse, if it illegal to circumvent TPMs, it will be possible to prevent Canadians from accessing content that is our own.
When my sister first got Windows 7, the software wouldn’t allow her to transfer photos of her own kids, from her own digital camera, to her own computer. That’s a real life example of how TPMs can go terribly wrong. Because the assumption behind TPMs is that we are all infringing copyright, so the default is always maximum. Had Bill C-11 been the law at that time, my sister would have had to break the law to circumvent the TPMs (that wrongly accused her of copyright infringement) to transfer her own photographs — which she unquestioningly owned the copyright for — from her own digital camera to her own computer — both devices being her own physical property.
Just now I’m reading Lawrence Lessig’s “Free Culture,” where he writes about the MPAA argument that Intellectual Property should enjoy the same level of protection that physical property does.
“Creative property owners must be accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property owners in the nation. That is the issue. That is the question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the debates to follow must rest“
— Jack Valenti, MPAA president quoted in Lawrence Lessig’s “Free Culture”
But Bill C-11 goes far beyond equality, and clearly tips the balance so our physical property rights are overwhelmingly quashed in favour of the rights of Intellectual Property owners.
So it isn’t a very big jump to see that Bill C-11 will have the capacity to suppress independent creators from releasing our own work, because we won’t have the keys to the digital locks.
Enabling technology to enforce the control of copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by balanced policy.
— Lawrence Lessig, “Free Culture“
C-11 ~ Criminalizes TPM circumvention without Warning Canadians
Before making it illegal to circumvent TPMs, shouldn’t Canada make it mandatory for manufacturers to warn Canadians that the media and devices we buy use TPMs?
Especially since most Canadians don’t know what TPMs are?
Canadians don’t recognize TPMs.
- We think we are doing something wrong when we are prevented from copying digital photos we have taken of our own kids, with our own digital camera, to the hard drive on our own computer. We can’t tell if there is something wrong with the camera, the cable, the flash drive or the computer. It would never occur to us that the software has decided we are infringing copyright — especially since we aren’t. Our ability to copy our own digital content can be prevented accidentally or deliberately with TPMs (Technological Protection Measures).
- We don’t know the reason we have so much trouble trying to burn our home movies onto a DVD for Granny is because TPMs prevent the software from working properly. When TPMs (more commonly called “DRM” or “digital locks”) are added to our media and our devices the functionality is often degraded. In other words, to protect the intellectual property from consumer customers, TPMs that may break the thing are often considered an acceptable risk.
- We don’t know that our legally purchased DVD won’t play in our own DVD player because it is region encoded for a different region, another deliberate TPM. Consumers accept “region encoding” as a natural limitation of the technology, because we knew it was a physical limitation on VHS and PAL videotape formats. But the reality is that a DVD would play in any machine except that region encoding TPMs artificially prevent consumers from playing the DVDs we purchase on the device of our choosing.
- We don’t know that the DVD we legally purchased will not play on the digital device we own if it has a Free Software Operating System (gnu/linux) without first utilizing a player like VLC to circumvent the manufacturer’s TPMs — DRM or “digital locks.” Bill C-11 will make software like VLC illegal because it can be used to circumvent TPMs.
- We don’t know that we can’t save the YouTube video letter our grandchild uploaded for us because YouTube’s TPMs prevent this.
- We don’t know that when we’ve upgraded the hardware on our computer one too many times, the reason that our “improved” computer suddenly became a brick and simply will not work any more is because TPMs prevent it until we buy a new copy of the software. Bill C-11 will make it possible to prevent consumers from installing free software on our own computers.
- We don’t know that the Nineteen Eighty Four eBook we bought from Amazon disappeared from our Kindle because Amazon was simply exercising a is a deliberate TPM (Technical Protection Measure), more commonly called DRM or “digital locks.”
- We don’t know that the printer ink cartridge isn’t actually empty, but that the TPM has decided it is. Sometimes because we have made a certain number of copies, or maybe because there is a TPM which tells the printer that the cartridge can no longer be used after a certain date. So some printer cartridges can’t be refilled without resetting that date – which constitutes circumventing TPMs.
- We don’t know our scanner isn’t scanning those photographs because they have been “copy protected” with TPMs. Even though the photographer has (a) died (b) gone out of business or (c) long ago deleted the content from their drives. Further, we don’t realize that if we do find a way to scan the only copy of that milestone photograph of our loved one we will be circumventing TPMs, which will be illegal once Bill C-11 passes into law.
Not all TPMs are digital.
Some devices are assembled using specialty screws that can’t be turned with standard screw drivers. So you must possess the proprietary screwdrivers just to open it up. With Bill C-11 these screw drivers can be considered TPM circumvention devices, which will become illegal if Bill C-11 passes. Computer recycling depots, AV departments in schools and libraries, and of course repair shops across Canada will have to be very careful not to repair or refurbish any device with TPMs. It will be safer to throw many goods out rather than risking breaking the law to make repairs.
The Copyright symbol is a TPM. Overlaying the words “Do Not Copy” or some other kind of watermark on an image is another kind of TPM. Very often both of these TPMs are used in the commission of copyfraud. Creative work that was never “protected by copyright” (like the works of Shakespeare) or that have already entered the public domain (like the works of Oscar Wilde) are not subject to copyright. Anyone can use them, because the monopoly has expired. But there are a very large number of websites set up to sell copies of public domain art etc that claim copyright to which they have no right.
If copyright infringement is theft from the copyright holder, then copyfraud is theft from the public. Making copyfraud an offence would actually modernize Canadian copyright law, but as it stands, Bill C-11 will actually protect copyfraud, at the expense of Canadians.
TPMs effectively allow machines authority over human behaviour, and there is no appeal. How do you convince the hardware or software that it is in error?
No one tells us these things even *have* TPMs.
A great many of the problems we currently experience with our digital media and devices are caused by TPMs/DRM or “digital locks.”
Manufacturers place Technical Protection Measures on our media and devices in order to control our use of these things we own. They don’t want to draw attention to this; if they did, consumers might choose not to purchase the goods. As you can see from the examples shown, TPMs are capable of far exceeding “copy protection” and in many cases TPMs are currently employed to artificially impair the media or device to force consumers to upgrade or buy a new one. Which sounds rather like fraud to me.
What most consumers see is that something is broken. Some of us will take the digital goods back to the retailer, who will do their job and sell us a new one. Never mind that adding material that might be repaired but for Bill C-11 — perfectly good digital equipment — to our landfills is hardly in the public good.
Before Bill C-11, if the TPMs manufacturers added broke the goods we purchased, we could repair them. If the TPMs prevented us from accessing media that we were legally entitled to access, we could circumvent them. Or get someone who knew how to circumvent or repair them for us. Bill C-11 will make this illegal.
You can’t see most TPMs with the naked eye, so we can’t even tell if it is there because most TPMs are hidden. Which is why:
Bill C-11 Must Add Warning Labels
Citizens must be told:
- that TPMs are present, and
- what they do
Citizens can not be reasonably expected to follow the digital lock provisions of Bill C-11 without the inclusion of mandatory warning labels informing/explaining TPMs to consumers on “protected” media, including:
- movies,
- music,
- games,
- software,
- eBooks,
- images,
- services,
- etc.
and on “protected” digital devices such as:
- Computers,
- DVD players,
- CD players,
- game systems,
- eReaders,
- cell phones,
- cameras,
- digital drives,
- scanners,
- etc.
C-11 criminalizes circumvention of TPMs we don’t know are there
If Bill C-11 is passed without also mandating manufacturer warnings that inform consumers of the existence and parameters of the TPMs that we may not legally circumvent simply in trying to make our own digital media and devices work,
Bill C-11 will make all Canadians into inadvertent criminals
There is still a tiny bit of time left to contact our MPs and let them know we don’t want them to pass this Bill C-11 as it is There is still time to say “No”
C-11 ~ There is still time to say “No”
Not much, but some. Bill C-11 hasn’t passed — yet.
Call or write your own MPP, whose job is to represent you in parliament. If you don’t know who that is, you can find out here: [Find your MP]
What you write doesn’t have to be long and involved, or make terribly brilliant arguments. In my experience it is unlikely to be read or listened to. The best we can expect is a form letter response that doesn’t respond to what we’ve written anyway, probably months from now. But if enough of us write, they might listen because they can all count. It needn’t be long, but it must be now.
This is a sample letter:
Dear Mr. Albrecht:
As a constituent in your riding, I ask you to vote against Bill C-11 The Copyright Modernization Act.
Bill C-11′s Technological Protection Measures are neither in my best interests, nor yours. If passed as it is, this law will infringe on my rights, both as a digital property owner and a content creator. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Laurel L. Russwurm
Note: Feel free to copy and adopt any of the many arguments I have proposed throughout this blog (search C-11) as I hereby waive the attribution for this ~ if anything I’ve written will help your own letter, please use it.
You can also write to the Bill C-11 Legislative Committee:
Bill C-11 Legislative Committee Chair: Glenn Thibeault, NDP
email: glenn.thibeault@parl.gc.ca
Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
email: dean.delmastro@parl.gc.ca
Paul Calandra, Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Heritage Minister
email: paul.calandra@parl.gc.ca
Mike Lake, Conservative Parliamentary secretary to the Industry Minister
email: mike.lake@parl.gc.ca
Scott Armstrong, Conservative
email: scott.armstrong@parl.gc.ca
Peter Braid, Conservative
email: peter.braid@parl.gc.ca
Phil McColeman, Conservative
email: phil.mccoleman@parl.gc.ca
Rob Moore, Conservative
email: rob.moore@parl.gc.ca
Charlie Angus, NDP Digital Affairs and Ethics Critic
email: charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca
Tyrone Benskin, NDP Heritage and Cultural Industries Critic
email: tyrone.benskin@parl.gc.ca
Andrew Cash, NDP
email: andrew.cash@parl.gc.ca
Pierre Nantel, NDP
email: pierre.nantel@parl.gc.ca
Geoff Regan, Liberal Critic for Consumer Affairs
email: geoff.regan@parl.gc.ca
As well, you can write to
Industry Minister The Honourable Christian Paradis
email: minister.industry@ic.gc.ca
Heritage Minister James Moore
email: james.moore@parl.gc.ca
and
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
email: stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca
It is perfectly acceptable to send the same letter to all concerned, and although postal mail is taken more seriously, email is increasingly acceptable, particularly when time is of the essence.
C-11 ~ What *are* TPMs anyway?
The majority of those Canadians who took my unscientific poll understand (or think they understand) what DRM is.
Yet very few taking my poll had any idea what TPMs are.
Friday May 4th was the International Day Against DRM. Although Canada has been talking about changing copyright law for well over a decade, DRM (Digital Rights Management, or Digital Restrictions Management) isn’t even mentioned in Bill C-11, the draft legislation currently before parliament.
Interestingly enough, many Americans are just as confused by the acronym TPMs as Canadians are, because, especially in the tech sector, TPM is more often an acronym for Trusted Platform Module.
If you search for “Technical Protections Measures” on Wikipedia, you will be redirected to the “Copy Protection” page. And oddly, although people talk about “Technical Protection Measures” the language in Bill C-11 is actually “Technological protection measures.”
Wikipedia will tell you that there is no “Technological Protection Measures” page, but provides a list of search results. Unsurprisingly, the first on the list is the Digital Rights Management page, which is appropriate since “Technical Protections Measures” or TPMs are pretty interchangeable with DRM.
Curiously, DRM is not mentioned in the American Digital Millenium Copyright Act either. The phrase “technological measures” is used to describe DRM in that bit of legislation.
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems …
(3) As used in this subsection–`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure’ means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work’ if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Bill C-11 defines TPMs thus:
“technological protection measure” means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,
(a) controls access to a work, to a perform- er’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or
(b) restricts the doing — with respect to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording — of any act referred to in section 3, 15 or 18 and any act for which remuneration is payable under section 19.
Short answer: TPM is Bill C-11 legal language for DRM.
If Bill C-11 becomes law as written, it will become illegal to circumvent DRM, even if the DRM is “protecting” work that does not infringe copyright. Work that is in the public domain. Work that qualifies as fair dealing. Work that is licensed to share. Work that doesn’t infringe copyright.
Bill C-11 will give DRM super powers in Canada.
If Bill C-11 becomes law, I expect DRM will appear on everything destined for the Canadian market.
WSIC (Waterloo Students for the Information Commons) has set up a DRM/TPM wiki
Happy Mother’s Day
This statue is in Victoria Park, Kitchener. I like the inscription on the plinth:
VICTORIA, QUEEN, EMPRESS
A MODEL WIFE and MOTHER
BELOVED, ADMIRED, REVERED
SHE SHALL LIVE IN THE
HEARTS OF HER PEOPLE
For Mother’s Day this year, you’ll find the legendary mother surrounded by tulips.
[You can find more photos of both the statue and the park on my Visual Laurel Tumblr blog.]
Happy International Day Against DRM
In Canada we’re living in the looming shadow of Bill C-11 which will criminalize circumvention of DRM.
As a writer, I very much support the Reader’s Bill of Rights. Whether such initiatives will be able to co-exist with Bill C-11 is doubtful.
*sigh*
Credits
Text created by ReadersBillofRights.info which has been released under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Cell Phone background by laurelrusswurm under a Creative Commons Attribution Unported License (CC BY3.0)
review⇒ WE ARE LEGION: The Story of the Hacktivists
The Internet and its attendant technology has ushered in change more dramatic than any previously seen in human history. Even worse, this technological revolution has happened with blinding speed.
Even though we’ve reached a point in Canada where most of us — from toddlers to seniors — use the Internet in our daily lives, most of us don’t really understand much of what has happened to the world as a result.
And a natural human reaction is to fear what we don’t understand. Scary sounding crimes called Identity Theft and Hacking didn’t exist when I was growing up. So when we hear scary sounding words like cyberterrorists and hactivists we are scared. We don’t know what these things are, exactly, but that just makes it worse. How do you protect yourself against what you don’t understand?
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that :
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”
And there has never been as good an illustration of Clarke’s third law as the Internet.
in Canada
Anonymous panelist
Right now there is a Private Member’s Bill before parliament called “Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act.” If this passes, the Criminal Code of Canada will make it illegal for Canadians to cover our faces. Some point out that it will only be illegal for “Riots and Unlawful Assemblies.” The catch is that only the government gets to decide when a lawful assembly becomes unlawful.
Normally private member’s bills don’t get a lot of traction, even when presented by a member of a majority government. The few that do become law usually require multiple tries to get support. But this bill has sailed through first and second reading with massive support because people are afraid of masked protesters.
After all, what could be more frightening than Anonymous?
Anonymous
When an arch-villain of epic reach and power rises up from the magical realm of the Internet — and then successfully attacks powerful multinationals and governments — it shakes our world view.
Nothing like Anonymous has ever existed before in the history of the world. The closest example I can think of is the mythical many headed hydra; when the hero cuts one off head, two more sprout in its place.
Director Brian Knappenberger
The apparent omniscience and omnipotence of a such a group is disconcerting, as is its lack of accountability.
Who is “Anonymous”?
And why do they do the things they do?
Documentarian Brian Knappenberger has done a masterful job weaving together the stories of several members of Anonymous. His film, WE ARE LEGION: The Story of the Hacktivists puts a face on Anonymous.
Although some of the interview subjects utilized various methods of obscuring their identities, several don’t. As the narrative unfolds it becomes apparent that some of these have already been “outed” by the American Justice System.
Pay Pal 14 defendant Mercedes Haefer points out that the price of her online activism as a member of Anonymous she faces a prison sentence years longer than any a convicted pedophile would receive. She is one of the idealistic young people facing incredible jail sentences for what attorney Stanley Cohen characterizes as virtual sit-ins.
McGill University’s Gabriella Coleman answers questions following the screening
One of the experts interviewed in the film is McGill University’s Gabriella Coleman, currently the Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy. Coleman helps make sense of Anonymous, providing insight into both the behaviour and the evolution of the decidedly non-hierarchical group.
This film was both thorough and informative. But it’s also an eminently well constructed documentary, as good as any I’ve ever seen.
see the film
In many ways, this film is a biography; Brian Knappenberger has crafted a powerful film that demystifies Anonymous.
No matter how much or how little you know about civil rights in the Internet age, WE ARE LEGION: The Story of the Hacktivists is well worth seeing.
There will be two more screenings at the Toronto HotDocs Festival, 3:00pm Thursday May 3rd & 7:00pm Saturday May 5th at TIFF Bell Lightbox 1, 350 King Street West, Toronto
Note: Advance Tickets for Saturday’s screening are already sold out; arrive early for “Rush” tickets.
Following the Hot Docs screening, Director Brian Knappenberger takes a question
