News

In the era of peer-to-peer file sharing, on-demand television and easy copying of video games and movies, Canadians often take for granted the availability and ease of using digital media. It's hard not to: the sheer amount of digital content available online is astonishing. For many, the Web is a black box that provides us with what we want, when we want it.

But with a new session of parliament a week away, a host of proposed changes to copyright legislation threaten to tip the legal balance further in favour of those who sell and disseminate cultural content, rather than everyone who consumes it.

As one example, under legislation sponsored by the Conservatives in the last parliament Canadians could be fined $500 for the downloaded songs on their computer. Thanks to our existing laws, no Canadians have been taken to court for downloading music, but, as customers, we have suffered from increasingly invasive measures taken by those who hold the rights to digital material. Companies aim to limit how many times we can install a song or piece of software, check to ensure that our music was purchased legally and may even track the websites we visit.

Piracy and theft are unethical and should be illegal, but the approach taken by recent governments to combat these legitimate problems is misguided. Unfortunately, the debate so far has not engaged the vast majority of ordinary Canadians who would be affected by proposed changes to our copyright regime — everyone who buys music, videos, books and movies in digital form. Rightsholders and their lobby groups, on the other hand, are fully engaged and pushing for changes that would benefit them.

How our laws are changed matters, as well-intentioned reform can lead to unintended consequences. A law designed to protect a cellphone manufacturer or music company may also restrict how we use our phones and listen to the music we have purchased. While copyright was not a hot-button issue in the recent election, party platforms do indicate that new bills in this area will be proposed, and Canadians need to be ready to stand up for their rights as consumers.

Copyright reform has been in the works for many years. Seven years ago, the federal government held a public consultation which garnered more than 700 submissions. Since then, six different MPs have served as industry minister and four have served as heritage minister. Thanks in part to successive minority governments, copyright reform has moved so slowly that only two MPs from the committee that dealt with the issue in 2004, Jim Abbott and Gary Schellenberger (both Conservatives), are still in the House of Commons. The most recent Liberal government proposed a package of changes, in the form of Bill C-60, which were ultimately shelved when the 2006 election was called. The Conservatives followed with Bill C-61, which was abandoned in turn because of the 2008 election. Newly minted ministers Tony Clement (industry) and James Moore (heritage) will lead the next attempt to change our copyright regime.

Contrast this pace with just a few examples of how quickly technology companies have pulled copyright holders into the 21st century and challenged existing business models. More than 5 billion songs have been sold through Apple's iTunes store in the past five years; YouTube has allowed millions of users to share more than 80 million videos; and Google's book search, which just settled a class-action lawsuit brought by copyright holders, has already made more than 7 million books searchable online. All three of these innovations didn't even exist during our most recent public consultation on copyright reform. Clearly, things have changed.

To see what's in store for Canadians in the next few years, it is instructive to explore Bill C-61 . Proposed by then industry minister Jim Prentice, the bill aims to modernize copyright policy, but tries to do so in a number of alarming ways. If the bill were passed into law, for example, unlocking a foreign cellphone for use in Canada would become illegal. Educational institutions would need to use digital-rights management (DRM) software in course content, restricting the way such media could be used and shared with students. Compared to other countries, and to current federal law, such stringent regulation is anachronistic. At a more abstract level, the bill would allow the terms of contracts, like those terms of use agreements we accept when installing software, to trump basic user rights. As it currently stands, companies cannot override our basic consumer rights with such agreements or contracts, helping ensure that consumers are treated fairly.

The fundamental issue underlying Bill C-61 and similar legislation in other countries is how to balance the rights of users or consumers with those of rightsholders or producers. Restrictions on media and technology use are often trumpeted as protection for creative people such as artists and musicians, and demonized by opponents as regulatory barriers that create economic rents and prop up failed business models. The truth is somewhere in between.

It is important to note that "rightsholders" are often the businesses that disseminate content, as artists are often asked to turn over their rights to the media companies that represent them. Popular bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have moved experimented with offering music online for free, and Flickr lists over 86 million photos that have been given away under a Creative Commons license , a legal agreement much more liberal than standard copyright.

This culture of sharing and fair dealing has led to art, music and even technology that we wouldn't see otherwise. Linux is the typical example of this, as freely available software that anyone can download, modify and share. For a more artistic example, think of music remixes — imagine if it were illegal to remix or remake songs?

What makes this issue difficult for everyone involved is the complexity of the legal documents and regulations surrounding new media and technology. Law is complex, and sometimes even the experts are unsure how regulations will end up affecting ordinary Canadians. Through consultation, the government can learn how to best balance the various interests at play to achieve its sometimes competing public policy objectives. Unfortunately, Canadian consumers are disadvantaged by the existing mechanisms of public consultation, which, despite being some of the best in the world, are designed to consult with organized, concentrated interests such as business or lobby groups, rather than content consumers who have diffuse interests.

Canadians interested in getting involved and speaking out can join a number of organizations promoting beneficial and fair copyright reform. Creative Commons Canada and Fair Copyright for Canada work on these issues and are constantly looking for Canadians to join in. Consumers can learn more at Online Rights Canada and SaveOurNet.ca . Writing to your MP can also be effective, as many were aware of Bill C-61 and some have openly discussed the coming copyright reform and broader technology policy.

There is a glimmer of hope that public consultation that truly engages ordinary Canadians will happen. The recent announcement of GCpedia, an internal Wikipedia for the federal government, shows just how far the federal government has come in terms of digital culture. Ministers Clement and Moore have a singular opportunity to consult with Canadians to develop reforms that will be fair for both consumers and rightsholders and position Canada for success in the 21st century.

Wojciech Gryc is the founder and director of Five Minutes to Midnight , a non-profit organization promoting open source software and new media in international development. He is currently studying Mathematical Modelling at the University of Oxford, on a Rhodes Scholarship

Jesse Helmer graduated from University of Waterloo, where he was arts co-op student of the year, and earned an MPA from Queen's University. He manages external relations for the Canadian Merit Scholarship Foundation, which granted a Weston Loran Award to Wojciech on the basis of his character, service and leadership potential