Blog - Unity Behind Diversity

Searching for beauty in the dissonance

Tagged: bill c-61

Songwriters and musicians disappointed with Bill C-61

I’m proud to be a member of both the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) and the Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC). Both organizations have expressed their disappointment with Bill C-61. It’s not that hard, really, but it’s noteworthy since the bill is supposed to be “protecting artists.”

The SAC is concerned about their proposal to monetize peer-to-peer file sharing (aka the music tax), which I’ve described as a forward thinking approach from backward thinking minds. The proposal has the right idea (to embrace the technology), it just goes about things the wrong way (namely, the fee is involuntary). Bill C-61 would completely undermine any attempt to accommodate the technology. The SAC’s response to the bill is quite critical:

C-61’s intent to halt [unauthorized file sharing] will be very expensive, will erode the good relationships we have with music lovers and will not be effective…

Where the SAC music file sharing proposal is consumer friendly in that it embraces file sharing… bill C-61 is unfriendly to music file sharing and would make this very popular activity clearly illegal;

Where our proposal is economically viable and is designed to generate income for creators and rights holders, the bill C-61 approach to file sharing is not economic for rights holders. Money generated through lawsuits would simply go to legal costs;

Where our proposal is practical and sensible in that it builds on existing activities… the bill C-61 regime would be impractical relying as it does on enforcement and punishment to reverse how many consumers access our music.

The CMCC’s response is even harsher:

It’s all locks and lawsuits… Suing fans won’t make it 1992 again. It’s a new world for the music business and this is an old approach… The question is, who gains from this bill? It’s not musicians. Musicians don’t need lawsuits, we don’t need DRM protection. These aren’t the things that help us or our careers.

If artists are against Bill C-61, who is it supposed to be protecting?

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Post a Comment

What the Canadian DMCA means in practical terms

Given the tabing of Bill C-61 this week (aka “the Canadian DMCA”), I’ve decided to put the coverage in context with some practical examples and questions.

Under the new legislation:

  • It will be illegal for anyone in my house to watch a DVD on a computer, since we run GNU/Linux (courtesy of the digital lock provision which outlaws “unauthorized” DVD decoders)
  • I would be liable for $500 in damages ($6000 if it’s per song, which isn’t clear) for loading A Perfect Circle’s Thirteenth Step — which I own — onto my computer, an album that problem sells for $9.99 on iTunes (courtesy of the digital lock provision and limitations to statutory damages). If I share that album with my younger brother, I may be liable for up to $20,000 in damages (again, assuming it’s not per song) because it ceases to be for private use.
  • It will be explicitly illegal for my parents to share their digital music collection with each other, even though they share their physical music collection (courtesy of the limitations of the private copying of music provision)
  • Canadians are finally explicitly allowed to time shift broadcasts. Except, if someone tells us that we’re not allowed to time shift broadcasts. The time shifting provision is completely undermined by the digital lock provision
  • The time shifting provision has the following limitation: “29.23 (d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time;” I guess my family may have to destroy the old VHS recordings we have of Christmas specials from when we were kids or television shows my mom has appeared on in the past, less we be hit with $500 a piece damages for keeping these recordings “longer than necessary.” Nevermind the episode of Canadian Idol from last week, that (*gasp*) may still be sitting on your DVR
  • What exactly qualifies as making available? (See New Rights and Protections for Copyright Owners) If I have music in a shared folder on my local network, but my WiFi is unencrypted, am I making it available? The $20,000 upper limit for damages applies to making available.
  • Posting a copyrighted photo on the Internet? Up to $20,000 in damages, thanks to the limitations of the limitations on statutory damages.
  • Posting a copyrighted video on the YouTube? Up to $20,000 in damages, thanks to the limitations of the limitations on statutory damages
  • Educational institutions can now make use of content on the Internet, unless someone says they can’t make use of content on the Internet (courtesy of the digital lock provision).

There is some good news, but it’s largely made irrelevant by the bad. For example, things like time shifting or format shifting are, at best, in a legal gray area at present. Bill C-61 would permit these actions explicitly… unless someone says they aren’t permitted. Without the digital lock provisions, this might actually be a step forward. Too bad those anti-circumvention measures are central to the bill.

Michael Geist feels betrayed. Darryl Moore examines some of the negative effects on everyday activities. The Canadian Music Creators Coalition says the bill doesn’t help Canadian artists. 10,000 more Canadians have joined the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group. I’m flat out angry.

At least the CRIA is happy. This would give it the ability to sue music fans.

Join the protest.

Other coverage:

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Permalink | Comments (1)