in 2007, the Songwriters Association of Canada gained some international headlines with a proposal to legalize non-commercial peer-to-peer file sharing through an ISP levy. This sort of proposal wasn’t new, but had not been so prominently put forth by an artist organization before. There were serious problems with the proposal, but it stimulated a healthy debate and it started from many correct premises — that file sharing should be embraced, that digital locks and lawsuits were not a way forward, etc. But it was a non-voluntary, “you’re a criminal” tax that could open the floodgates for other industries to demand similar levies.
I was a member of the Songwriters Association of Canada from 2007-2011, and I had the opportunity to express my concerns about the proposal to many people involved. Last year, I attended a session with an update on the proposal, and was surprised how much it had changed. The proposal had dropped the legislative angle in favor of a business to business approach, with an actual opt-out option for both creators and customers of participating ISPs. Unlike groups behind other licensing proposals, the SAC has actually been responsive to many concerns, and unlike other artist groups, the SAC takes a decidedly positive view on sharing music and the opportunities technology provides to creators. This attitude comes through in the proposal:
Rather than a legislative approach to the monetization of music file-sharing as we originally envisioned, the S.A.C. is now focused on a “business to business” model that requires no new legislation be enacted in Canada.
Our basic belief however remains the same: Music file-sharing is a vibrant, open, global distribution system for music of all kinds, and presents a tremendous opportunity to both creators and rights-holders. […]
People have always shared music and always will. The music we share defines who we are, and who our friends and peers are. The importance of music in the fabric of our own culture, as well as those around the world, is inextricably bound to the experience of sharing. [emphasis changed]
As the copyright debate heats up again in Canada in light of SOPA and new pressures on pending legislation, this positive attitude towards peer-to-peer file sharing was expressed again in a recent TorrentFreak interview with the SAC VP, Jean-Robert Bisaillon:
We think the practice [of file-sharing] is great and unstoppable. This is why we want to establish a regime that allows everyone to keep on doing it without stigmatizing the public and, instead, find a way for artists and rights holders to be fairly compensated for the music files that are being shared. […]
Other positive aspects include being able to find music that is not available in the commercial realm offer, finding a higher quality of digital files, being able to afford music even if you are poor and being able to discover new artists or recommend them to friends. […]
Music is much better off with the Web. The internet network allows for musical discovery despite distance and time of the day. It has sparked collaborations between musicians unimaginable before. It has helped artists to book international tours without expensive long-distances charges and postal delays we knew before. [emphasis added]
However, significant problems remain with the proposal. For example, the original criticism still stands as to how this would scale for other industries — what about book publishers, newspapers, movie studies, video game manufacturers and other industries that are also crying foul about “piracy”? The SAC dismisses other cultural industries pretty quickly, as if only the music industry is concerned about unauthorized copying. And, just like private copying levies have suffered from scope creep, as people no longer buy blank audio cassettes or CDs, or short-sightedness, as technology changes rapidly, it’s not clear how the SAC model would adapt to growing wireless and mobile computing or more distributed file sharing. Many more questions remain: Would small, independent artists, who are not charting through traditional means, get fair treatment? Is it wise to largely rely on a single, proprietary vendor, Big Champagne, for tracking all distribution? Would consumers be paying multiple times for music? What does it mean to “self-declare not to music file-share” in order to opt-out?
But the central problem with the proposal is the SAC’s copyright crutch. Jean-Robert Bisaillon says things like,
The Internet has dramatically increased the private non-commercial sharing of music, which we support. All that is missing a means to compensate music creators for this massive use of their work. [emphasis added]
And the proposal says things like,
Once a fair and reasonable monetization system is in place, all stakeholders including consumers and Internet service providers will benefit substantially. [emphasis added]
The SAC seems obsessed with a “monetization system,” when the truth is there is no one model, no magic bullet. Rather, the the sky is rising and the path to success involves all sorts of different models and creative approaches, most of which don’t depend on copyright or worrying about getting paid for every use. Even a voluntary license plan is still a bad idea. The means to compensate music creators isn’t missing, it’s just increasingly found outside of copyright.
Still, it’s important for the SAC’s voice to be heard as the copyright debate heats up again in Canada. As a creator group offering a positive take on peer-to-peer file sharing, and denouncing an “adversarial relationship” between creators and fans, they offer an important counterpoint to the SOPA-style provisions being pushed by Canadian record industry groups. I would take the SAC’s constructive and responsive approach over record industry astroturfing and fear mongering any day.
The Galen Erso Problem
This is a cool idea, but in general, wouldn't there be a major question of trust? Like, at minimum, you'd need someone else to audit the work and verify the person is not intentionally creating new vulnerabilities or backdoors or otherwise trying to pull a Galen Erso. (Assuming the organization in question is not actually an evil empire; otherwise, carry on, Galen!)
Copyright serves no non-human purpose
First, this is one of my favourite pictures in life. Period. Whenever I hear the word "selfie," I just see that monkey.
On the substance though... look, I'm way more sympathetic to PETA as an organization and even the idea of non-human animal personhood these days. I've gone through a huge conversion on animal issues. I'm honestly unsure if some non-human animals should actually be considered persons (depends what we mean by person...).
But, grant that for the sake of argument -- this lawsuit still makes absolutely no sense.
Let's recognize that legal personhood has a nasty history of being used to exclude humans and deny them legal rights, and let's admit for the sake of argument this is true at times for non-human animals.
What possible purpose could copyright ever serve a monkey?
Copyright is about providing an incentive to create. Does anyone, even anyone at PETA, seriously believe that monkeys wouldn't take selfies without copyright? (I never thought I would have to ask that question...)
Even if monkeys are persons... copyright is about humans. This is about human technology, human laws, and more importantly, about an incentive for humans to create. What possible use could any animal have for human laws about... well... imaginary property?
Even if you believe monkeys need an incentive to create, it wouldn't be through human copyright. I'd suggest a banana...
Software freedom is a must
The more software controls things that weren't traditionally the computers, the more important software freedom becomes. We run cars through safety tests, but not source code audits? Cars, airplanes, drones, pacemakers, etc... the software needs to be free and open source as a prerequisite. It's increasingly necessary (though not sufficient).
Re:
> I'm not surprised the Holy See is full of freetards. They haven't even bothered to copyright the Bible.
If only that were true...
See also:
http://brandonvogt.com/free-word/
The Holy See: Pope Francis is picking up on Pope Benedict
Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate:
These concerns of the Holy See are not new:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1037005473.shtml
A new song?
United breaks guitars... and puppies.
Google's products rely on surveillance
There's a lot Google can and should do to resist government surveillance, but Google's products themselves rely on centralized surveillance for their features. You don't get Google personalization or contextual ads or a useful Google Now without signing up for some pretty comprehensive surveillance of your online activities (and the more surveillance you sign up for, the better Google services are at what they do).
Now, there's a big difference between signing up or opting in to Google surveillance as a Google user versus having the government step in and scoop up all that data behind the scenes (Google users are giving their data to Google, but their not intentionally giving it to the NSA), and that's where there's a lot that Google can and should do... but the whole Google experience is based on user surveillance. It's no wonder that kind of centralized, surveillance-based infrastructure is going to become a target for overreaching governments.
The real safeguards and solutions that interest me aren't more secure surveillance-based systems, but decentralized, user-controlled services that don't have that giant, central data store that needs safeguarding in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. I'm not sure this project will succeed, but have you heard of the FreedomBox Foundation? They're aiming to make it easier to run your own StatusNet / Diaspora / ejabberd / Mediagoblin / GNU FM / whatever else from a little plug server... kind of like how GNU/Linux distributions like Debian package up all kinds of desktop software in an easy-to-use way, so you don't have to compile and build everything for your computer, FreedomBox aims to take the "distribution" model into the net services application space it seems.
Personally, I think they have a long way to go to really make it out-of-the-box point/click/install easy, but that kind of distribution idea combined with small-scale plug servers that you can easily run from your house... that seems like an interesting p2p angle to experiment with.
I run a bunch of stuff off my living room computer, which is externally accessible, but I'm a sysadmin... something like FreedomBox aims to make that kind of thing a little more accessible.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I agree the proposal has lots of problems, and they're definitely assuming that very few people want to opt out, that opting in would be the default, etc etc, and that there should be some "system" that pays all songwriters, rather than working to develop business models, etc etc.
I'm not saying I agree with the proposal.
But I still think it's important to recognize how it's changed. They started off with a legislative solution, something that would be baked into the Copyright Act for which there could be no easy opt out. They're dropped legislative change in favour of licensing agreements, with a real opt out -- even if the implementation on ISP bills might be lousy (and I bet it would be with a lousy ISP).
It's still not a solution I support, but nonetheless I am encouraged by how responsive they've been to criticism -- and I've been a critic speaking to some of the people very heavily involved, while I was a member of the SAC. I find it encouraging that, unlike many other music industry lobby groups, they aren't tone deaf, they've been making significant changes to the proposal. Even if I don't agree with the proposal, I still like the direction it's been heading in.
Re:
Re:
I'm not sure I buy the filter bubble thing entirely. I got into an in-depth abortion debate almost a year ago with a close friend, and three other people that he went to high school with, people who I am Facebook friends with but rarely interact with, acquintances. Now, anytime that anything remotely related comes up, or that me and someone else from that group comments on the same post, it shows it in all of our news feeds right away. Facebook is trying really hard to suggest something we might be interested in again, but it's mistakenly thought that the one-off debate thread configuration is a bubble worth recreating... And, there are a few other people whom I've debated once or twice on other topics that have reappeared in my news feed often since, even though we don't interact otherwise... the bubbles aren't always things that mirror our personal views. Though, I do resent the way the news feed algorithm works increasingly... Facebook has a very simplistic view of what it thinks I want to see...
Re: Re:
Re: When a social network will actually be able to bring about change...
Re:
Wow. So, you didn't read my article or their proposal. This was the original 2007 proposal, a legislative change to add a new right of rumenaration, something much more closely modeled after the private copying levy. They explicitly dropped this at least a year ago, and are putting forth a business to business solution that involves negotiating with ISPs to offer licenses to customers, and that explicitly would have an opt-out option for customers. So, it's no longer a non-voluntary plan, no longer a legislative plan. You could opt out.
And, if you couldn't tell, I still don't think it's the right plan. But that doesn't make it socialism or non-voluntary.
Re: Re:
Why do you say you aren't allowed to torrent? The SAC's intent is to legal non-commercial file sharing via whatever means through licensing. They explicitly say in the proposal that it would require no behaviour modification. Their intent is clearly to make it legal to share, with torrents or other p2p technology or whatever, through licensing.
Re: Are we sure about the facts here?
I don't think the government had a comprehensive position there either, but they put their foot down in the end. Even if it was reactionary, they responded to the uproar on behalf of consumers rather than letting things go ahead Bell's way. Not visionary, but not in the industry's pocket.
I was referring more to the wireless spectrum auction while Prentice was Industry Minister. I'm not sure whether those rules were drafted while he was in office, could have easily been something he inherited from a predecessor, but he was Industry Minister while they were actually implemented. That is, in the face of lobbying from Robellus, he still set the rules to reserve 40% of the spectrum for new entrants and force the incumbents to offer roaming to them. It was that auction that allowed WIND, Mobilicity, Public and Videotron(?) to get spectrum and launch a few years later.
It's not anti-telco at all, but he at the very least didn't cave into pressure from the incumbents to keep new entrants out of the market.
(Copyright, on the other hand...)
Re: f-that
It definitely can be a cop out. But two examples of where it's relevant:
To the extent that's actually true, if the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner says things are okay? The system is set up in such a way that this sort of thing isn't considered a big deal, even though it may well should be.1. As I understand it, Stockwell Day isn't technically doing anything illegal. He's not a lobbyist. But, he's advising lobbyists on their government relations strategies. The rules against lobbying are pretty weak if you can avoid falling afoul of the law by just removing yourself one-level from the lobbying.
But, I mean, Day's website says this:
2. WIND Mobile had to get into the lobbying game to stay alive in Canada. They've faced legal challenges around Canadian ownership requirements, have had to lobby the government to get auction rules that will let new entrants into the market, etc. So far, IMHO, WIND has used virtually all of its lobbying ability to do things that are good for consumers, but the fact that they have to play the game and drive truckloads of cash up to Parliament Hill? That's a problem with the system.
But yeah, otherwise, I agree -- even if the system is broken, that wouldn't excuse behaviour that's actually corrupt. That would be a total cop out. But there's a lot of behaviour that isn't corrupt, but isn't really beneficial either, which is tied to more systemic problems.
What about software?
What effect would this have on free software licenses, like the GNU GPL or Apache or BSD licenses? How would that effect the use of Linux-based operating systems, like Android or many web servers, or other popular free software like Firefox, Chrome, WordPress... ? While this sounds insane enough for cultural works, it seems even more monumentally stupid when it comes to free and open source software, which relies on licenses that waive most of these rights at the centre of a lot of collaborative and commercial software development...
Re: Lulz
Ha! Didn't even catch that... :)
Re:
I was wondering about that one too... couldn't tell if that's some uncommon short-hand I've never seen or yet another typo... they do use both 3d and 3rd in the policy. Oh, Grooveshark.