Phendrana Drifts

If it weren't for the fact that the bill is very much alive, I'd suggest I was beating a dead horse by talking about the the copyright amendment act under consideration by the House of Commons. After all, a quick internet search will yield dozens of blogs, newspaper editorials and other commentary on the subject (even a comic book). But the horse is not dead. At least not yet.

When I listened to Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josee Verner talk about the upcoming changes, I admit my first thought was positive - having downloaded music I seemed to be moving from nebulous waters of legality and ethics into being a copyright violator in $500 (or not, should I choose to follow the letter of the law should the act make it to proclamation). As it turned out, the devil was in the details, and the details transfer a lot of power into corporate hands - specifically foreign corporate hands.

A balanced look - certainly not perfect to either consumers or copyright holders, but perhaps a considered compromise - is shattered when you read that the copyright holder can override the rights afforded by the act by putting in "technological measures" or "digital locks." Once that is done, no copying at all is permitted, under threat of a $20,000 per instance. Whether or not a copyrighted work gets a digital lock or not is completely at the discretion of the copyright holder, and all of the rights that the new act supposedly bestowes on consumers is taken away in a blink of an eye and the compromise is gone in favour of the rights overwhelmingly held by giant multinational entertainment corporations.

And ultimately to what end - will Canada experience a cultural revolution of artists producing without fear of losing revenues to downloading? I doubt it - not that we can't have a renaissance of Canadian culture, but that it has been supressed for the past decade by piracy. Artists have at best mixed opinions on piracy and are increasingly looking at alternative models for getting their works out into the community and getting paid to do so. In the end, the rabid desire to protect copyrighted materials and zealously sue those who steal music and other works is not from artists but corporate labels and studios who see the loss of millions of dollars of their money, money which I believe was a result of overinflated CD prices in the 1990s and DVD prices today.

The rhetorical question at the heart of the amendment should be "What is the point?" Why are we passing this act? If it isn't to encourage and protect artistic works - which in all likelihood will be largely unaffected, then what? I hope the answer isn't just conforming to international expectations or pandering to the US.

Reform is needed - the law is outdated and we need a better balance. Just I'm not convinced Bill C-61 is it.

Twitter Updates

0 Comments: