Canadian Copyright Crisis - Bill C-61

I'm very concerned about Bill C-61, a bill presented to the Canadian House of Commons concerning copyright. It is reasonable to say that this bill, if passed into law, will be worse than the American DMCA.
I have been in contact with the MP for Edmonton-Leduc Mr. James Rajotte. Please leave your comments on this post and I will deliver them to him this summer.

Here's a record of my correspondence with Mr. James Rajotte.

Via a website called copyrightforcanadians.ca, I sent my MP the following email:

June 13, 2008

Mr. James Rajotte
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Sir,

I'm a constituent who has been following recent developments in
Canadian copyright law. I'm concerned that the Copyright bill
presented by the government on June 12th goes too far in outlawing
the lawful use of copyrighted material, and does not take into
account the needs of consumers and Canada's creative community who
are exploiting the potential of digital technology. I'm disappointed
that this bill adopts an American approach to digital copyright laws,
instead of crafting a Canadian approach.

Canada's copyright laws need to advance Canada's interests. This
means copyright laws that respect ordinary consumer practices, such
as unlocking cell phones and copying the contents of purchased DVDs
for use in video iPods. The current bill outlaws these practices.
This means copyright that facilitates the work of Canadian creators,
such as documentary filmmakers, who instead find that this bill
outlaws the use DVDs as source materials for their films. This means
we find made-in-Canada solutions to the challenges of file-sharing,
such as consideration of the P2P proposal of the Songwriters
Association of Canada. Instead, this bill paves the road to
importing the consumer file-sharing lawsuit strategy that has failed
so spectacularly in the United States. Canada deserves better.

Please ensure that this bill really is made for Canadians by allowing
all Canadian stakeholders a say in its final contents. That means
meaningful consultation in the coming months, and opening up Canada's
copyright policy to more than just the special interests that lobbied
behind the scenes for this law. As my MP, I urge you to represent my
interests in the copyright debate.

Sincerely,

Emil Tremblay

In short order, I received a reply from my MP.

Dear Mr. Tremblay:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Copyright Act. As you know, this is a very complex and contentious issue that causes widely divergent views.

In this bill, the Minister of Industry, the Honourable Jim Prentice, has worked hard to forge a compromise between fairly compensating musicians, songwriters, artists, photographers, and film makers for their work and ensuring all Canadians may have access to and utilize the newest forms of digital technology.

For your information, Bill C-61 is at the second reading stage in the House of Commons. Debate at this level is over the principle of the bill rather than a specific examination of every clause contained in the bill. A clause-by-clause examination of the bill will be done at committee stage, if it passes second reading. As Chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, where this bill will most likely be sent after second reading, I want to assure you that it will receive a full, fair and open hearing.

I support Bill C-61 in principle, but I am ready and willing to listen to your views. If you have specific concerns or suggestions with respect to the wording of this legislation, please submit them to this office or to the Clerk of the committee and I will ensure that the entire committee deliberates on all of the recommendations.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with me.

Yours truly,

James Rajotte, MP
Edmonton-Leduc
Chair, Standing Committee on
Industry, Science & Technology

Immediately, I wrote my MP the following reply. Please leave comments here if you have anything to add or if you think my arguments are bad.

Mr. James Raotte,
First off, I would like to thank you for your prompt reply. While my first communication with you was a form letter produced by http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca, I wanted to write to you my personal views on this matter. As a bit of background, I am a 26-year-old Software Engineering student at the University of Alberta and live in Leduc (since May, 2007). Prior to my studies at the University, I was a professional musician working both abroad and in Alberta as a performer and, later, as general manager for a small independent record label. I say this to point out that I have personal knowledge and experience from the perspective of a copyright owner (music and software) as well as the technical knowledge to understand the functional issues involved.
I would very much like to have a personal meeting with you to discuss these issues if you are available at any time over the summer months. If I can be any help to you (for a perspective from a young (relatively) artist and engineer), I would be very willing to do so.

My concerns about Bill C-61 are threefold. I will address them in turn.

First, a sociological point. Of all the hundreds of under-thirty people that I interact with regularly, nearly all (read 99% or more) of them engage in some sort of file sharing on the internet. The majority of these people do not do so out of any criminal or malicious intent. How can this be? Perhaps a personal anecdote would be the most effective way to communicate this.
Several weeks ago I was watching the film "Into The Wild". While watching the film, a song came on that I really enjoyed and wanted to listen to again. I paused the movie and went to iTunes (Apple's online music store), and searched for the song there. Immediately I found the song, and in less than 30 seconds, I had purchased the song (for a very reasonable price of $0.99) and was listening to it. The important thing to note here is that if the song were not available (1)easily, (2)in high quality, (3)without inconvenient restricitions (read cumbersome Digital Rights Management or DRM), (4)quickly, and (5)for a reasonable price, then my next step would very likely have been to visit some site on the interenet and obtain the song for free.
Thanks to iTunes, music is often available in the agreable way I described. In the case of certain music (certain record labels) and almost all movies and television shows, no such mechanism exists in Canada.
Again, I bought the song. I wanted to buy the song. In this case, the system worked for me. But this could have just as easily not been the case. Generally speaking, if I am not able to get what I want for a fair price and to be used how I want to, then there are alternative means for me to get this stuff.
I use this as an example of what piracy means culturally to young people. Piracy, for the most part, is not about stealing or getting something for free. It is about having access to the sum of human artistic expression (music, movies, video games, etc.) in a non-cumbersome, reasonable way. If the market provides good, reasonable solutions for which to pay for these things, then piracy will become a non-issue.
Now, with this in mind, consider this. File sharing on the internet is part of young-canadian culture, just as much as hockey or Tim Hortons. Passing laws which attempt to limit file sharing will criminilize these people, marginilizing them, and, in my opinion, causing great harm to Canadian society as a whole.
I realize that this is in many ways a specious argument; "just because culture engages in something does not make that something right" (for example). Without going into it too much, consider the effectiveness of Prohibition for our neighbours to the South.

Second, a market progressiveness point.
Historically speaking, the entertainment industry has been petrified of change. When the player piano was invented, there was huge opposition by copyright owners to it as it would allow music to be distributed in a new and unpredictable way. It was the same with the phonograph (record player), casette player, Compact Disc, and online distribution (Napster, etc.). On the movie and television side, the VCR, laser disc, DVD, Tivo, and online various distribution channels were considered by industry leaders to be innevitably desctructive to their industry.
In every case mentioned above (except online distribution), there were strong attempts to pass laws to make these technologies and practices illegal. Eventually however, industry figured out how to exist and flourish in these new paradigms. The entertainment industry is currently petrified of what the internet means to their business. They are in the stage of panic, but they can and will get through it. This is a situation where the market needs to figure out the new paradigm. This is not the time to pass new laws; certainly not before anyone knows where the Media industry is headed.
Consider my previous anecdote. iTunes has been produced by market forces, not laws. iTunes is a valid competitor to piracy, and for me at least, wins out over piracy. I think I am not alone in this.
Bill C-61 is, in my opinion, an attempt to hold back progress on behalf of an industry that is afraid of change. I urge you to consider the role of government here, rather that government should not assume a role as of yet. It is too early. Let the market do what it's good at, even if it's afraid of it.

And third, a point on Technology.
As stated early in my email, I am a Sofware Engineering student. Bill C-61 and the Entertainment Industry as a whole speak much about what is known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), or Copy Proctection, or any number of other terms that mean the same thing. DRM (and its related notions) is a technological attempt to prevent the copying of content, or at least to control what kind of copying and to whom, where, and when this copying can be done.
Technologically speaking, effective DRM is impossible. DRM can not work. Without going too much into the theoretical details here, I will try and explain why. DRM means that the data is encrypted. In order to enjoy the content, this data must be decripted and then presented to the consumer (TV screen, speakers, etc.). This means that the ability to decrypt the data must be intrinsic to the device that the consumer is using to experience this content. In other words, the key to decription must always be availableat the device, and so obtainable to an enterprising person who wants to "crack" this encryption.
Ulitmately it means this: To those who will pirate content, DRM is only a small hurdle to cross (these are the people who understand technology in an intimate way and so DRM will never be effective against them). But to the majority of consumers, this DRM is becoming more and more onorous, causing huge headaches and confusion. To your avegare consumer, DRM causes constant problems. To your average pirate, DRM causes no such problems.
DRM hurts the people who want to pay for their content. DRM does not stop piracy at all. In short, DRM is inneffective and destructive to the entertainment industry as a whole. The market is slowly realizing this (consider iTunes Plus, Radiohead, Netwerk, etc.)

I am not a lawyer or a particularily talented debatist, but I hope you will read and consider the points I have made. Please let me know if you would like any clarifications. Again, I would be very pleased to meet you and discuss these issues if you have any time this summer.

Thank you for your service.
Kind regards,

Emil Tremblay

I'll post any updates I have to this correspondence.