The Canadian government is holding a national copyright consultation from July 20th until Sept 13th, 2009. It’s happening under the auspices of the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. Ordinary Canadians can participate in these consultations through the official web site [no longer exists] which allows for online submissions, a discussion forum, and a multimedia centre. Operating in tandem with the official discussion is a new web site from Michael Geist (Canada’s answer to Lawrence Lessig) called Speak Out On Copyright [no longer exists]. From Geist’s blog:
The consultation features five key questions:
1. How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?
2. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?
3. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?
4. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?
5. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?
In a nutshell, the government is asking Canadians to describe why copyright matters, how to ensure that reforms remain relevant, and what reforms would best foster innovation, creativity, and competition.
It is unfortunate timing that the start of the consultation should coincide (was it really a coincidence?) with the International Intellectual Property Association [no longer exists] release of the “Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy: The 2003-2007 Report”. In its own words, the IIPA “is a private sector coalition, formed in 1984, of trade associations representing U.S. copyright-based industries in bilateral and multilateral efforts working to improve international protection and enforcement of copyrighted materials and open up foreign markets closed by piracy and other market access barriers.” Translation: it’s a collection of U.S. neoliberal ideologues.
Read reaction to the report posted on Publisher’s Weekly [link broken]. The language is revealing. People who generate music or text are part of the “copyright industry”. It is the fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy. The IIPA needs to “level the playing field for U.S. industries overseas.” It’s that last bit, the “poor America” stance, that I find really hard to swallow. As I interpret it, this organization understands copyright as a tool in the (de)regulation of trade. It’s function on the international scene (through organizations like WIPO—World Intellectual Property Organization) is analogous to the WTO—reduce trade barriers so that American goods and services can flood foreign markets without regard for the indigenous (and often non-economic) harms these goods and services inflict.
The irony—or complete non-sequitur—in the IIPA position is that copyright IS a trade barrier. It is internally incoherent to advocate for reduced trade barriers for the “copyright industries” through the stricter application and enforcement of copyright laws. That’s like arguing that we can enhance our freedom by building more jails. Wait a second. Where have I heard that before?
Incoherence aside, there are lots of publishers who accept this position — especially when it’s in their interests to do so. Yesterday, the Associated Press [broken link] announced that it would be introducing digital rights management (DRM) technology to monitor and enforce its terms of use. It won’t work (see techdirt for why). Even so, as more media outlets get sprinkled by DRM-fairie dust, it gives more traction to a set of economic assumptions which favours a radically conservative world view.
Piracy in foreign countries (whatever that means) doesn’t happen solely because foreigners are bad people or devious, any more than Jean Valjean stole bread because he was evil. The deliberate violation of copyright laws and treaties is a complex phenomenon. For example, in developing countries, principled debate is often irrelevant. Western copyright-protected products are simply too expensive. Piracy becomes a de facto enforcement of our (broken) promise of .7% GDP in foreign aid.
There is the further dimension—culture—which is utterly absent from the IIPA’s terms of reference (the report was authored by Stephen E. Siwek of Economists Incorporated). I worry that the failure to acknowledge the non-economic dimensions of copyright law will inflict enduring damage, particularly upon local and indigenous cultural activities, either by preventing their emergence in the first instance, or by tearing them from their roots to satisfy more powerful interests. I worry that, given the Harper government’s dogmatic adherence to neoliberal principles in other more overtly economic activities, it will simply follow suit when reworking Canada’s copyright regime. However, I am heartened that the Ministry of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has been included in Canada’s consultation. Let’s hope we can keep U.S. ideologues from influencing the process.