Sam Trowsaw: What next for Copyright Reform?

Sam Trowsaw:What next for Copyright Reform?

In the wake of the delay of the government’s copyright bill and the many interesting press accounts that have followed, it’s probably a good time to sit back and reflect on where to go next. One idea that has been picking up support is the call for a Public Inquiry, or Commission, on copyright legislation. While public inquiries are often thought of as proceedings that follow instances of official wrong-doing, the process could also be considered in the positive sense of contributing to policy formulation in a more transparent and thoughtful manner.

Globe and Mail: Ottawa accused of caving in to Hollywood…

Globe and Mail: Ottawa accused of caving in to Hollywood on copyright
Bill Curry

OTTAWA — The Conservative government hasn’t even released its proposed copyright reform legislation, but already a showdown is brewing between media producers demanding protection from tech-savvy pirates and the grassroots efforts of thousands of Canadians who believe the bill will be unjustifiably restrictive.

As a result, what was once a low-key issue in Ottawa is morphing into a potential political storm.

Basskin’s Little Thought

Recently the TV program  The Agenda featured a debate (free on their website) entitled Copyright and Intellectual Property: Whose Rights? Whose Property?  The show featured David Basskin (Counsel to the Canadian Music Publishers Association), Michael Geist (Canada Research chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa), Mathew Ingram (Business and Technology writer for The Globe and Mail), and  Robert Thompson (Canadian Correspondent for Billboard Magazine). The debate centered around the escalating impact of various forms of protest which resulted  in the delayed introduction of new copyright  legislation in Canada.    In particular the debate focussed on the formation of the Facebook group Fair Copyright for Canada.  As of this writing, the Facebook group numbers 31,000 members. While the Facebook group is significant the core issue still remains that of copyright

After dismissing the Facebook group and presuming that they (we) know nothing about copyright, Basskin then states;

”It’s a complex subject, let me reduce it down to a little thought experiment.  This is a piece of manuscript paper and you’ll observe that there’s nothing on here, just some lines and staves and some treble and base clefts. I’m going to leave it here with a pencil for the duration of our chat and see if at the end a song has appeared, because there are some people who would have you believe that they just write themselves.  Well, we’ll see.”

His little thought  experiment  seems to me to be just that, an experiment made up of little thought. I think the point he is trying to make is this… someone picks up a pencil, composes something, writes it on the manuscript paper and that person should then be paid.  His little experiment is problematic and symptomatic,  It is problematic in that  it supports opposing points better than it makes his own point, and symptomatic in that it clearly illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the creative process.

Firstly, musical notation on a manuscript paper is just one way of creating and notating music, but clearly not the only way. Music is a collection of sounds and these sounds can be collected and shared in a variety of ways. Sampling sounds and compiling them on a computer is another way.

Secondly, when waving the manuscript paper in the air, Basskin says,  “there’s nothing there”.   Yet when I see this same manuscript paper I see an inherent system of notation evolved over centuries by musicians, scholars, theorists; I see a language that enables composers  to communicate their thoughts to other composers and musicians in a meaningful and universal way.  A system of universal notation that  enables an infinite amount of creativity to be expressed in a manner that is understood by a vast audience. A system that is free. The idea that this system is free to use by anyone does not mean it is valueless.  In fact, by his action, Basskin inadvertently demonstrates that composers do not create from the void;  they are reliant on and build upon centuries of tradition.  They use that which is already there.

The third point is this; by the end of the show Basskin had already lost his own bet.  The ‘blank’ manuscript document he waved in the air contained not one but three compositions.  Alphonse Allais’  “Funeral March for the Last Rites of a Deaf Man”;  the John Cage composition ‘4:33′;  and the Mike Batts composition  “One minute of Silence”.   All three compositions  consist of ’silence’, and incorporate no ‘notes’ per se.  Certainly anyone involved in copyright law and music publishing must be aware of  the 2002 legal battle featuring the  Mike Batt v John Cage Estate in the UK . Composer Mike Batt settled out of court over  his composition  “One Minute of Silence” which  infringed on the John Cage composition ‘4:33′.    The settlement was for an undisclosed six figure sum (pounds sterling).  The suit was patently absurd.  Not absurd because of the music, ( I am a great admirer of John Cage).  It was absurd because it is very clear that John Cage would never have sued Mike Batt had Cage been alive.  It was absurd because the whole point of ‘4:33′…and the importance and power of the John Cage work is trivialized, not by the actions of Mike Batt but by the actions of the John Cage estate and the legal suit. 

Later, in the TV programme (and in same dismissive tone we hear throughout) Basskin, describes ‘the issue’  as being between those ”who support creativity and those who believe things should be free”.  This is the type of disingenuous, simplistic nonsense that does nothing to move the dialogue forward.  I am a creator, I support creativity.  Copyright as it exists retards my abilty to create.   Further restrictions will make this situation worse and yes I think some things should be free.  Access to culture is one of the cornerstones of our society.  

footnote
The CMPA claim to represent composers, yet their website contradicts this. Exhibiting the music industry ‘our cup is half empty and fans are bad’ approach to reporting, the CMPA choose to describe a successful experiment in downloading music with the headline “Radiohead Record Worth $0 To Fans – Study Shows” and yet Thom Yorke of Radiohead sees the project very differently.

In terms of digital income, we’ve made more money out of this record than out of all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever — in terms of anything on the Net. And that’s nuts. It’s partly due to the fact that EMI wasn’t giving us any money for digital sales. All the contracts signed in a certain era have none of that stuff.

Howard Knopf: A Public Domain Project for WIPO?

Howard Knopf: A Public Domain Project for WIPO?
It’s no secret that, for a long time, it has not been the best of times at WIPO.

For whatever reason, WIPO has been singularly unsuccessful in the past decade at international norm setting. While it continues to take in enormous amounts of money from its patent and trade-mark operations, and has done a terrific job at domain name dispute arbitration, its treaty making role in substantive law has basically fizzled. The reasons are complex and the result is sad, because there are some really dedicated and highly professional people at WIPO and in various member states who have tried to get good things done.

Michael Geist: Canadian DMCA Raised in the Senate

Michael Geist: Canadian DMCA Raised in the Senate

Concern over the Canadian DMCA spilled over into the Senate yesterday, with a pair of questions over the lack of balance and the CDMCA delays.

Globe and Mail: How did copyright become cool?

Globe and Mail: How did copyright become cool?
Ivor Tossell

When did copyright law become sexy? Jim Prentice must be wondering. This week, Canada’s freshly shuffled Industry Minister was set to table new copyright legislation that could have completely changed the relationship between Canadians and their digital media. But then he backed down, at least until the end of the year.

Howard Knopf: Copyright Interruptus

Howard Knopf: Copyright Interruptus

It started. It stopped. It almost happened. Twice in one week. The tabling that was supposed to take place on December 11, 2007 didn’t happen. It was supposed to happen again today, Thursday, December 13, 2007. It didn’t happen.

This is a bit ambiguous. It would have been better in some respects to see the bill in all its detail – and let the public have 6 – 8 weeks to analyse and debate it before the House resumes. Now, it’s back to the backrooms, where anything can happen. Hopefully for the better, possibly for the worse.

Cisco: The Power of Web 2.0 on Government Legislation

Cisco: The Power of Web 2.0 on Government Legislation
Morgan Elliott

Recently, the power of Web 2.0 came to the fore front on influencing copyright legislation in Canada.
The story wasn’t about individuals on Facebook, MySpace, or in blogs influencing the drafting of legislation, but rather how they were able to prevent it from being introduced.

Russell McOrmond: Canadians have already said NO to WIPO…

Russell McOrmond: Canadians have already said NO to WIPO Internet treaty ratification!

Canadians have very clearly said no to article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), and article 18 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), and thus have said no to ratifying these treaties.

No Canadian DMCA this year

This morning a storm passed us by. The Conservative Government did not table the Copyright Bill An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The Bill was not introduced. It is critical that before this Bill is tabled again, the Government hear, understand and respond to the growing concerns expressed by thousands of Canadians.

We are a country that is independent and creative. We are not a country that will flourish under excessive copyright laws. Canada must have laws that put Canada first.

There are groups that put profit before all else. They have forgotten what it means to be Canadian. They have not fully considered the fragility and importance of free and creative expression. They have allowed pecuniary interests to guide them. These groups must see that they will be held accountable for the future direction Copyright law takes and the damage excessive laws would inflict on the Canadian cultural environment.

On the masthead of his website Jim Prentice, Industry Minister, has a banner which reads
‘Stand up for Canada’. Last week tens of thousands of Canadians did just that when they rose up and protested against unbalanced copyright legislation. The events of the last few weeks show that far from being a ‘fringe element’ THIS is the voice of Canada. Will the Government listen?

Next Page »