Vancouver Sun Editorial: 2008 June 18
When the federal industry minister introduces amendments to the Copyright Act by telling people that the government has no intention of enforcing them, you know there's a serious problem.
Yet that's precisely what Industry Minister Jim Prentice did upon introducing Bill C-61. Evidently aware of the considerable backlash the bill would receive, Prentice said it would be up to industry to bring actions against consumers who violate the proposed law's draconian provisions.
And make no mistake about it, the amendments are draconian. While Prentice attempted to sell them as a balance between the rights of content creators and consumers, it's clear that consumers -- and in many cases, creators -- can only lose should the new regime become law.
First, let's look at how the proposed law is being sold.
The government has emphasized that "time-shifting" provisions will allow consumers to record television programs to watch later, and that provisions pertaining to music copying will permit them to copy songs onto their iPods.
Sounds good, until you realize that these freedoms are largely illusory: The amendments also include "anti-circumvention" provisions which forbid consumers from picking digital locks, which are often included on CDs and DVDs.
Hence there's a good chance copying music to an iPod will be illegal, for example, despite the feds' assurance of consumer freedom.
There are, in fact, many wholly legitimate reasons for picking digital locks, just one example being that the consumer may want to stop privacy-invading technology. So the anti-circumvention provisions contain a privacy exception, but that, too, is illusory, since the law bans the software necessary to pick the lock.
Similarly, people with visual or hearing impairments are also free to break locks, but anyone helping them would be guilty of an offence, so their chances of making use of the exception are slim to none.
What about the use of copyrighted material for educational purposes? Once again things look good, provided you don't look too closely.
For example, libraries can make digital copies for customers, as long as the copies will self-destruct, Mission Impossible-style, within five days.
The law therefore takes away everything it gives consumers, and more. And while some members of industry are happy with the bill, many others, including the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, stand opposed because the bill resorts to the failed American method of forcing creators to sue their fans, rather than helping "musicians get paid."
The fact that the bill relies on the American method is not just a coincidence, either, as it is almost entirely the result of the intense pressure U.S. authorities placed on Ottawa. In contrast, there was precious little public consultation during drafting of the proposed law.
Prentice claims that the bill is a "win-win," though it's not entirely clear who will win.
What is clear is that if the bill becomes law, all consumers, and many content creators, are destined to lose.
