DMC-eh? Why Canada's new Copyright law is a mistake

Parliament is considering an updated copyright law. Unfortunately, it's a mistake that will cost consumers in the long run.

Below you will find:

• Background
• What is wrong with this proposed law?
• Where the law fails consumers
• What can you do if you disagree
• Recent articles and feedback on the proposed new Copyright Bill
• Additional Background - how far the music and film industries will go
• Other Related
  

Background

But before I begin, why am I writing this in a blog with a Scouting focus? Well the simple answer is that Scouts should do the right thing. In order for them to do the right thing they need good guidance and they need to understand the issues. One of our Scouts could become a future Prime Minister (at least 6 were Scouts). One or more of our Scouts may have to deal with outdated laws and conflicted interests. And before that, as all of our Scouts grow up they will have to learn to live with our laws; whether fair or unfair, and they may want to voice their own opinions on those laws.

At the heart of the issue is the balance between consumers and the producers/distributors of Intellectual Property or IP. Specifically IP includes things like books, magazines, music, and films. For years there have been battles between those controlling IP, those stealing it, and legitimate consumers who all too frequently get caught in the middle.

Organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are in the forefront of these battles which are both legal and technical.

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is one of the most despised innovations technologies in recent years. Flaws in its design and implementation can and have left consumers unable to access things they've purchased. Additionally, DRM is stifling and exacts a penalty on everyone who uses a computer regardless if they have any music or video. DRM has been cited as a major factor as to why people dislike Windows Vista.

I'm fairly certain that most people don't condone the outright theft of music and film for commercial gain. But the public perception of things seem to become a lot more cloudy when the issue becomes non-commercial sharing.

Let me be very clear, amassing a large collection of music, film, and other content without paying for it is wrong. And sharing that collection with the world is also wrong.

Buying music or video, recording it and then reselling the original is cheating the system too. This will be illegal under the new law.

So a key question becomes what is the boundary of reasonable fair use? Where is the balance? And how as consumers can we protect our rights?

Recent history has shown that the organizations controlling IP will aggressively pursue their interests and use every tool available to them. In the extreme, they and their agents have violated the copyright and licenses of others and they have been acused of violating other laws to serve their own interests. If only their voices are heard, consumer rights will very easily be trampled.

What is wrong with this proposed law?

While some of the clarifications are welcome, other provisions in this new Copyright Bill (C61) are not. Not only is it unbalanced, it appears to effectively remove the key idea of intent through anti-circumvention provisions, and will likely bring Canadians the same kind of legal harassment that has been seen in the US. This will go far beyond the issues of downloading and uploading.

Balancing the rights of the producers, distributors, and consumers of content is a tricky job. Commercial piracy is a large problem that needs to be addressed. The problem of downloading and file sharing is trickier to address without harming Canadian consumer rights.

While this proposed update to our copyright laws gives consumers some rights, it takes away a great deal more. We will be able to:

• Change the format of are old (analog) recordings to newer devices
• Use PVRs and VCRs to time shift view programs
  

But:

• We will NOT be able to do any of this for protected digital format which means we will not be able to move or copy protected CDs, DVDs, or individual songs and films
• We may be prohibited from backing up music kept on computers (or restoring content after loss).
• We may not be able to move content from obsolete formats to newer ones.
  

Where the law fails consumers

The Bill fails consumers who have purchased legal copies of copyrighted material in several ways. Broadening the scope of the Bill in the following areas would address these failings:

• Backup Copies
• Non-infringing Non-commercial Uses
• Format Shifting
• Interoperability

What can you do if you disagree

If you wish to take action against this proposed law and get your voice heard, please see:

• The Canadian DMCA: A Betrayal , by Michael Geist, June 13th
• Fair Copyright for Canada

If you are determined you can sometimes vote with your wallet. Avoid copy protected CD's, refuse to buy copy protected songs (most iTunes songs are protected using Advanced Audio Coding or AAC). Unfortunately there seems to be no legal unprotected video content available.

Recent articles and feedback on the proposed new Copyright Bill

• A great Editorial Cartoon, by Patrick Corrigan, The Toronto Star, June 15th
• Ottawa gets tough with illegal downloaders, by Matt Hartley, The Globe and Mail, June 12th
• Copyright bill's fine print makes for disturbing reading, by Michael Geist, National Post, June 12th
• Troubling details in new downloading law, by Michael Geist, The Toronto Star, June 13th
• Pros and Cons to Canada's new Copyright law, by Christina Spencer, The Toronto Star, June 13th
• Voices on Copyright Change, reader feedback, The Toronto Star, June 15th
• New copyright bill a step backward, letters to the editor, The Toronto Star, June 14th
• The Canadian DMCA - The Actual Text - Music - Sony Rootkit Legalized, an analysis of the Bill, by Drew Wilson , June 13th, (note: at ZeroPaid is a site promoting P2P filesharing)
• A music consumption survey conducted for British Music Rights indicates that 73% of the population in the UK wants legal filesharing. See this. This study also offers insights into why people download and share.
• What's new in the Copyright Bill? Discussion with Ottawa Law Professor Jeremy deBeer on Wednesday June 18th, The Globe and Mail - Update: This story has drawn huge attention on digg, here (but you may want to hide profanity) .
  

Additional Background - how far the music and film industries will go

• Sony authorized and distributed CDs that included software known as a root-kit that damaged the functionality and security of computers playing the CD. The software is arguably criminal in several jurisdictions, may have violated copyrights, and is the subject of lawsuits.

See articles by Bruce Schneier:

• Sony Secretly Installs Rootkit on Computers
• The Sony Rootkit Saga Continues
• Sony's DRM Rootkit: The Real Story

See these articles by Professor Ed Felton of Princeton:

• Sony CDs and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
• Does Sony’s Copy Protection Infringe Copyrights?


• And on a similar note, KaZaA sues RIAA for copyright infringement
  


• The technology and methods used to bring about DCMA take-down notices and lawsuits has been shown to be flawed. Researchers at the University of Washington tricked the process used by the MPAA/RIAA and others to issue over 400 take down notice for printers which are incapable of downloading or sharing content. See Framing Computers Under the DMCA.


• A number of lawsuits brought by RIAA have missed their targets and brought bad press:
  
• RIAA lawsuit hits family with no computer or Internet access
• RIAA withdraws $300m lawsuit against innocent pensioner
  
• Oklahoma woman takes sue happy RIAA to the bank
  
• RIAA ordered to shell out $100k for P2P witch hunt
  
• RIAA drops claim that grandmother stole online music
• RIAA tried to shake down 10-year-old daughter, suit claims


• Music Industry lobbyists wanted use anti-terror laws against downloaders, see European Terrorism Law and Music Downloaders.

Other Related

Some information on DMCA from the Electronic Frontier Foundation

• Whitepaper Unintended Consequences: Seven Years under the DMCA
• A summary of DMCA issues and cases, here.

The cost of DRM

• DRM in Windows Vista
• Monopolies and DRM

"Intellectual property" is a silly euphemism, Cory Doctorow, The Guardian (UK), February 2008

Laser pointers, bans, and stupidity

New South Wales just passed a law banning the use of high power laser pointers without a permit. See here. However, the effectiveness of law is already being questioned. See here and here. NSW is not the first place to put in place such a ban.

The ban was prompted by some recent misuse of laser pointers, where beams were flashed at the cockpits of aircraft that were taking off and landing. Let's make no mistake. There is simply no excuse for intentionally targeting aircraft (or any vehicle) with a laser. To do so is 1st degree stupidity at best.

Update: It turns out that the idiots pointing lasers at aircraft aren't the only stupidity in this story.

• In an ironic twist a local Sydney (NSW) art object has been reported to reflect green lasers into the sky and has reportedly hit a helicopter pilot in the eye. See "Sydney skies menaced by deadly raygun disco-ball".
  
• Premier (NSW) Morris Iemma opined that a pet toy would be a valid reason to own a laser, see "Laser ban impossible to enforce".

The real question is will the ban be effective? And by this I mean, are we going to see a meaningful reduction in the kinds of incidents that provoked this ban? Politicians seem to love to ban things. More often than not these kinds of bans are ineffective theatre designed to let them say they are taking action.

Such incidents are also not unique to Australia, they have been recorded in the US and Canada and there are incidents dating back to around 2003. See here and here.

Understandably the pilots union supports a ban on these devices. Thankfully they were open to legitimate uses such as astronomy.

Laser pointers can be invaluable for teaching astronomy to small groups of people. They can also be annoying to other astronomers if used carelessly. Like many issues, finding a balance can be challenging.

Incidents such as these are a natural consequence of technology, any technology, becoming inexpensive and widespread. I have a hard time believing that these could be accidents. How many of these incidents were fuelled by anger, alcohol, or drugs? How many were poorly thought out pranks?

Banning high powered laser pointers and requiring a permit will raise the bar for people getting these devices. Essentially there are three groups of people to consider. Those with a legitimate need that will go through the bureaucratic hoops to continue using one. Those that do not will circumvent the system with intent. And those in the middle that don't have a legitimate need or the determination to get a permit. A ban is really only going to affect the middle group.

Handheld lasers exceeding 500 mW are for sale! Also, there are widely videos showing you how to build your own high power laser using surplus CD and DVD lasers (specifications vary from 30 mW to 300 mW with 100-150 mW being common)!

The problem is not the inexpensive laser pointers available in dollar stars. They aren't very powerful, typically under 1 mW, and can be used for presentations and entertaining pets. While I doubt these would have any effect on pilots at range, I would err on the side of caution and not want to test the assumption.

Laser pointers used for astronomy are something else all together. For starters the human eye responds poorly to red and blue light compared to green. A green laser should give you the best visibility with the least power. But how much power?

A number of factors affect visibility. The thickness of the beam. The moisture in the air. Even light pollution.

Over the years I've borrowed a few of these devices to use as star pointers. The smallest was a 5 mW green laser. This just didn't cut it. It was only really barely visible on moist nights with dark skies. On the other end of the spectrum, was a 55 mW class IIIb green laser. This one seems to be visible in just about all nighttime conditions. While this is a far cry from the 500 mW ones I've seen advertised, it is still over powered for star pointing. I've had discussions with others that suggest a 15 mW laser should be adequate for star pointing. But what I'd really like to see is something with variable power so that you can get just what is needed and no more.

Safety with these lasers is a matter of awareness, attitude and responsibility. When I was a Scout, I learned to shoot a rifle. We were taught never to point a gun at anything we did not intend to shoot. Never under any circumstance. The same applies to a laser pointer. When I use one, I follow a few simple rules:

• Keep control of the laser at all times yourself. Avoid rapid and wide movement. Don't let children use the laser.
• Never point the laser at anything that might be an aircraft (or vehicle). Avoid moving objects and flashing lights.
  
• If you need to point at a moving object, trail behind it. Do this even if you're sure it's not an aircraft. During Earth Hour, I was pointing out the International Space Station. Even though I was 99.99% sure it was the ISS and the laser couldn't affect the people on it, I still trailed the laser behind it.
• Be aware, look around carefully before pointing.
• Be respectful of other groups around you.
  

A NSW man was recently sentenced to three years in prison for shining a laser pointer at a police helicopter. See here. Others have been similarly convicted in other jurisdictions.

Now what will bans like these actually do?

• It will probably raise awareness of the risks.
• It may make it harder to obtain and use powerful laser pointers. Although without importation bans this will be less effective.
  
• Fewer people will seek to own such devices. (probably)
• Conversely by banning them, more people may want to own these devices.
  
• It may promote more responsible behaviour from laser owners. More likely it will slow the growth of irresponsible owners.
  
• And adds to the possibility of stiff penalties for abuse. Although, other laws can be used for this purpose and stiff penalties have already been handed out.
• It may not even help police track down abusers, because you can't simply stop looking after you've checked out all the permit holders. The abuser probably won't have a permit.
  
• It may criminalize people unfairly if not carefully applied (probably).

Will bans like this reduce such irresponsible incidents? That remains to be seen; but, I suspect that it will be less effective than its' authors hope. It also raises a lot of questions about what is considered "legitimate use" and who will be legitimate users. Lastly, I'm concerned about overzealous enforcement.