Hedy Fry on C-61, the Canadian DMCA

Members of the Canadian government are on the take from US media interests who are trying to criminalize, well, everybody. My MP, Hedy Fry, is a wonderful woman and I like her very much on most issues, but given that the film industry is a big deal here in Vancouver I expected the worst on copyright. Since she wouldn't comment when I asked her about her own party's copyright bill (C-60), I was surprised when she offered an opinion about Bill C-61. Although the Conservatives are only going a little farther than her own party in selling out Canadian citizens, she says that "This Bill does not serve either consumer or creator well," and that she would not support it without amendment. Some notable highlights:

"Everyone is in agreement that the Copyright Act has to be amended to reflect the impact of digital technology."

Really? Everyone?!?

"How to monetize digital technology to reward the creator and allow free and open use by the consumer is challenging"

...and it would be a challenge to finish that sentence, since it makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe "utilize" was the verb you were looking for?

"[...] since the invention of the printing press. The challenges seemed impossible then [...]"

Which challenges were those? The challenges of the established order keeping people under control and in continued ignorance? I do see a strong parallel, but it's not an auspicious parallel.

The text follows. Errors are hers (this letter is a mess). Proofreading, anyone?

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE 106-1030 Denman St. Vancouver, B.C. V6G 2M6 Tel.: (604) 666-0135 Fax.: (604) 666_0114	HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES OTTAWA, CANADA K1A 0A6	OTTAWA OFFICE Room 583 Confederation Bldg. House of Commons Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6 Tel.: (613) 992-3213 Fax.: (613) 995-0056
	Hon. Hedy Fry, P.C., M.P. Vancouver Centre
Chuck LeDuc Vancouver, BC		JUIL JUL 1 6 2008

Dear Mr. LeDuc:

Thank you for your correspondence concerning Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

As you are aware the previous Liberal government had tabled a Bill on this issue but it did not come to debate because of the election. The current Conservative Bill has been eagerly awaited since they announced their intentions, in December 2007.

Canada has signed two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties, but has not yet ratified them. The last time the Canadian Copyright Act was amended was in 1997 but these amendments did not address the WIPO treaty agreements. In the interim, communications technology has expanded rapidly. Everyone is in agreement that the Copyright Act has to be amended to reflect the impact of digital technology.

Bill C-61 should strike a balance between the right of creators to be reimbursed for their creative, intellectual property and the desire for consumers to have access to these creative works.

Indeed digital technology serves both the creator and the consumer well. It increases the reach and distribution of creative works as never imagined, before; which is precisefy what creators need and it gives consumers easy access to creative works that can entertain, enrich, and educate.

This Bill does not serve either consumer or creator well. It prescribes narrow, punitive solutions to a complex problem. In fact the Bill could well have the effect of curbing the use of digital technology, to the extent that it becomes useless. This would be a pity! As well, implementation of the measures in the Bill would be nearly impossible, unless one abandons all privacy rights or imposes locks on the digital technology that severely limits its application. How to monetize digital technology to reward the creator and allow free and open use by the consumer is challenging

---

- 2 -
As Liberals we believe that there should have been extensive consultations with legal experts, creators, distributors and conventional and digital media industries to find the right balance of solutions. It is typical of the Harper government that they do not consult but impose.

Liberals intend to begin these consultations over the course of the summer so that when the Bill comes to the House we can propose appropriate amendments. Moreover we believe that the Bill should be further subject to public scrutiny if it ever gets to committee stage. It could be that after we consult with the expert groups they believe that Bill C-61 is unsalvageable, in which case one would have to vote against the Bill and rewrite a new one.

These are exciting and challenging times in media communications technology that can broaden the consumption of arts and cultural products, in a manner unheard of since the invention of the printing press. The challenges seemed impossible then but solutions were found that led to a Renaissance of art and culture. We are at a similar point in history, now. We must not use a sledge hammer.

Once again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to contact my office if I may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Hon. Hedy Fry, M.P.
Vancouver Centre

And finally, a scan of the letter:

Why is this man smiling?

He is smiling because he is winning. His vision for free software is taking serious hold. It is possible to live a productive digital life using only free software, and I pretty much do (damned "free" Flash player).

When he wrote "the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity" at first I thought it was just baseless, humourous hyperbole, but upon reflection I came up with a different perspective on it. Software allows for automation. Human effort is expended to create software to solve a particular problem, and the human is compensated for that. But should the method for achieving that result become "property"? And whose "property" will it be? Almost certainly, that "property" will belong to a corporation. And corporations are not human. They are legal "people" (emancipated by the U.S. Supreme Court) but they are immortal, amoral, and their true role in our society is incompletely understood. Without the mechanisms provided through free software, and because of the structure of copyright (dictated by corporations), that "property" will almost certainly not be made available to anyone but other corporations able to pay for it. Being immortal, they enjoy many advantages humans do not, and humans cannot reasonably compete in certain areas.

Stallman is a clever guy. He figured out how to do a jiu-jitsu move on copyright to give people an economic model to put software in the hands of other people and organizations (yes, even other corporations). He invented copyleft, a way of enforcing the continued sharing of software, and did it in such a way that corporations couldn't cut it down without sawing off their own arms: copyleft is based on copyright. Without his invention, there would be no practical alternatives to corporate tools made by corporate tools.

Cheerleader of the Apocalypse

Peter Watts is one of the most delightfully pessimistic authors I've ever read. His breakout novel, Starfish, gave me temporary serotonin depletion before it energized me with vicarious grim satisfaction. The cozily hopeless ambiance of inescapable doom continued in the next three books of the Rifters trilogy (yes, it is a four-book trilogy, okay?), but evolved from a self-pitying wide-eyed hopelessness into a grimly enthusiastic, squinting near-nihilism which... somehow... strangely... never failed to lose hope. It is precisely my cup of tea, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the environment, natural disasters, biology, software, and the evolution of geopolitics. Mr. Watts is Canadian, and used to work at the Vancouver Aquarium, and many of the settings are familiar: Vancouver, Toronto, Sudbury.

His stories are grounded in real bioscience – and he provides wonderful notes and references in the appendices. Some of his pessimistic predictions about the timeline for weird bioscience, climate change and various enviro-disasters has been, if anything, optimistic.

"I thought I had years before this stuff caught up with me." _{(Footnotes to ßehemoth)}

His fourth (fifth) novel, Blindsight, is a deep-space adventure with a fun take on the nature of consciousness. And vampires. Good stuff.

All four (five) of his books (and many short stories) are available for free download on his site (which is awesome, shiny, rich & deep). I have donated twice to his tip jar (which he dedicates to the care and feeding of his cats); although I bought the books the first time I read them, I subsequently gave them away, but when wanted to read them again I could, so I really appreciate that he puts them online.

Print this book

I recently read the novel Roo'd by Joshua Klein: a near-future thriller that explores themes like body modification, poverty, and runaway corporatism. Although I had printed it in nearly invisible double-sided 4-up I was engrossed as I squinted at the pages on the poorly-lit bus. Although it was not without flaws, it ranked in my personal top 5 for the past year, and comes highly recommended, especially for code-heads of a literary bent. I would compare it favourably with Neal Stephenson and William Gibson, with some of the humour of the former and dark characterisations and settings of the latter. The author, a software developer, released the book for free download under a Creative Commons license. I gave the author five bucks, which is a damned sight more than he would have gotten through a publisher. A publisher probably would have made him change the title, though – I guess they're still good for something after all.