As election day in Canada approaches (Jan. 23rd), voters have had their sensibilities assaulted by the usual carping that comes from candidates who have nothing substantive to work with. The current liberal government has stumbled—and will probably fall—not because it took a stand on an important issue (since that would be an honourable defeat) but because of corruption. And it will probably be replaced by a conservative minority government which promises to function with about as much compassion as a cold wind in January. There has not been much of interest to weigh upon the minds of voters. Although the media portray the election as hotly contested, I doubt voter turnout will top 60%. There you have my predictions.
But then I caught wind of something else happening in the midst of the election campaigning—something that smacks, yet again, of liberal cowtowing, conflict of interest, and … dare I say it? … corruption. Nevertheless, it concerns an issue of lingering importance to Canada as a culture—the threat of an american-style copyright regime.
In brief, Toronto’s Parkdale/High Park riding incumbent, liberal MP Sarmite Bulte, held a $250/plate fundraiser hosted by the likes of Douglas Frith, head of the Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association, and Graham Henderson, head of the Canadian Recording Industry Association. In addition, over a number of years, she has collected campaign contributions from these organizations. Remember that Sarmite Bulte is the MP whose name is now associated with a 2004 report produced by the Canadian Heritage Standing Committee regarding the future of copyright law in Canada. Professor Michael Geist describes the report as “remarkably one-sided,” and this raises the suspicion that the report may have been “purchased” by the entertainment industry lobby. Naturally, Ms Bulte denies this and rails at Geist. She is quoted in Maclean’s as saying: “I will not apologize for being a strong supporter of the creative community.” I will not unpack why her comments are about as disingenuous as a conservative party election campaign. Check my related rants for reasons why comments such as this reflect a stunning lack of nuance. Our national interest lies in fostering a rich and flourishing culture, not in pandering to the loudest brat in the class. For a good set of links on this incident and on the broader issue, check out the blog, False Positives.
What interests me more is how Bulte’s relationship to the entertainment industry has come to light. This is a clear example of a reversal in information gathering. Print media like Maclean’s have culled the story from bloggers who live in Bulte’s riding. There is something virulent about the way this story has spread. There is something beyond institutional control, just like the digitized music it tries to contain. The liberal party hasn’t the slightest idea how to manage negative press once it passes from established media into browserland. Nor does any other political party for that matter. It’s understandable that Bulte should rail at Geist; anger is a normal response when a person feels utterly helpless. She must feel like she has crawled into bed with a lover who caresses her with one hand and beats her with the other.
Here’s what’s at stake:
1) Free speech. If you succeed in controlling the dissemination of one digital medium (music, for example), you enforce this control only through technology which can be applied with equal efficacy to other digital media (blogs, for example). What begins as protection of economic interests devolves into violations of fundamental freedoms (freedom of expression, for example, that hallmark of a liberal democracy).
2) Culture. Here, in keeping with my idiosyncratic education, I apply a Lonerganian analysis to the issue: Artistic expression emanates from our pure desire to know the world, the same desire which motivates all our knowing. The activity which transforms the unknown into the known is a cumulative process which advances from lower to higher viewpoints. Each stage in this ascending process is an answer to prior questions, but it is also the source of further questions. Only with further questions can we become fully human, by honouring our pure desire to know. Since no individual can know everything, the advance to higher viewpoints can occur only if it is understood as a communal activity. But this cannot happen if people impose proprietary claims upon their answers, because such answers will then have been removed as potential sites for further questions. Or, as Lonergan might express it, proprietary claims introduce bias into the process of our knowing and inhibit us as a community of knowers, as a culture, from attaining to higher viewpoints. Therefore, it can contribute to stagnation at best, but more likely to a cycle of decline.