Charlie Angus on the Digital Divide
p2pnet.net news:- NDP federal heritage critic and Timmins-James Bay MP Charlie Angus was guest lecturer at the University of Ottawa’s Law and Technology Faculty late last month.
Among other things, he recalls the 1980s fight over VHS tapes saying, “Hollywood tried to wage war against the emerging VHS technology claiming that the recordable videotape would be the death knell of the industry. And yet, the explosive sales of VHS and DVD has breathed new life into the industry.
“I predict the same thing will emerge from the P2P technologies. Does this mean that politicians have no role to play in terms of addressing the threats and challenges of new technologies? Certainly not. The emerging debate over net neutrality is a good example of the need for basic ground rules to ensure fair access to the digital commons.
“Likewise with copyright.”
You can read Angus’ talk in full below.
Meanwhile, don’t forget his third annual Rockin’ Extravaganza at Toronto’s Supermarket restaurant/bar in Kensington Market, Toronto, on March 22.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Digital Divide
By Charlie Angus
I thank you for the invitation to be here this morning. As you know, copyright has been a major political battleground in Ottawa over the last number of years. But copyright, is just part of a broader spectrum of issues legislators must grapple with in the face of the incredible growth of digital technology.
For example, the issue of artistic remuneration on new digital entertainment platforms has become a central issue in the ACTRA strike.
Another example is the recent crisis in the Canadian Television Fund, where some cable giants have been looking to shift funding dollars away from traditional television programming towards new internet-based programming.
We could add to this the battles over interoperability between Apple and its competitors; the news that Bit Torrent is going into partnership with Hollywood or; we could talk about the politics of net neutrality.
At the core of these issues is the debate over what should be freely accessible and what cultural exchanges should come with a bar code.
The issues around copyright have often been portrayed as an either or proposition but as Creative Commons’ activist LawrenceLessig says, free as in free speech is not the same as free as in free beer.
What we need to do as legislators is move beyond the rhetoric of both lobbyists and activists and formulate social policy that will enhance the development of both digital culture and the arts.
When the Conservative government was elected, copyright appeared to be a priority with the new Heritage Minister. But it was also a priority with the two former Liberal ministers. Despite a lot of speculation about when this legislation would be brought forth, we are still waiting for the government to move. I would venture to suggest that the complexities of the debate are bumping up against trade pressures from our American allies. As the Conservatives are discovering, developing a coherent path forward is not an easy thing to do.
This morning I will try and lay out some of the ways that we might begin to work toward resolutions.
I am here today in two capacities. The first is as a legislator. As the Cultural Spokesman for the New Democratic Party I have played a role in developing our party’s policy on issues of copyright, net neutrality and domestic cultural commitments.
In this capacity I can offer some perspectives on how these issues are being played out on the Hill and give some comments on the limitations of legislative bodies to deal with the technological revolution that we are in the midst of now.
But I also speak as someone who has been actively engaged in exploring the possibilities of cultural and political expression in a digital world. I offer a resume of three areas of experience:
1) As a musician, I have been a member for 27 years of one of the key artistic collectives involved in the fight for fair remuneration on copyright issues. But I am also old enough to remember the bad old days of analog distribution. Despite our efforts to chart a DIY course as a young band, we were limited by the distribution models of the day. Everyone along the food chain of distribution and promotion took a healthy chunk out of our money until often there was nothing left but debt.
The Internet, however, has made it possible for an entry level or middle tier group to create a path to success with a level of independence and financial reward that was unthinkable a decade ago.
And this is galvanizing a whole new music revolution and it is exciting to witness.
2) I speak as a journalist and independent magazine publisher who has witnessed the impact of information technologies on culture.
It may date me as a dinosaur but I still remember when cutting edge technology was my mother’s electric typewriter that had a spool of white eraser ribbon placed on the cartridge to help erase the easy mistakes. Of course, if you wanted to rearrange a paragraph, you’d still have to pull out the paper and start over.
The first lay out I did was on a Mac Plus where the entire hard drive sat on an 800 k floppy disk. A 20 meg hard drive selling for $400 was a major investment. 20 megs seemed like endless storage.
In the mid 1990s I began a small magazine in Northern Ontario and was amazed to see the first fax machines roll out. It allowed the writer to transfer an article to the editor in another location. Naturally, the whole article had to be re-inputted. This was seen as a major break through that dramatically changed the timelines for production.
Within two years of the fax machine, our little magazine was accessible to readers all over the world. Why? Because the Internet and search engines had given us an online platform that could be seen anywhere. It put our publication on a level that would have been impossible to even dream of just a few years before.
3) I speak as an activist who was involved in galvanizing a northern, rural population to take on some very large and well-funded waste import schemes.
A few keystrokes on a new search engine opened an entire world because it allowed us access to information and contacts we would never have been able to find otherwise.
We were successful, thanks, in part, to our ability to network with experts and activists from all over the world.
This is the single most important factor in the world of digital culture – the democratization of information from people freely posting research, news and perspectives for public consumption.
It is a principle that must be fought for, articulated and defended.
And yet, when I was first elected in 2004, I found that, on Parliament Hill, the potential of the internet wasn’t being celebrated, it was being denounced.
For example, during one of the first meetings I had on copyright a lobbyist informed me that the Internet was little more than a ‘highway of stolen goods and child pornography that goes into the bedroom of every kid in this country.’
The industry message to Parliament was that Canada had become a bandit’s bazaar where hapless artists were regularly mugged for their wares. Politicians were being called upon to act as rush in with restrictive laws to help starving artists by implementing an agenda being put forth by large corporate interests.
This spin of urgency and fear was very successful in laying down the initial political discussion about copyright.
Former Heritage Minister HÈlÈne Chalifour Scherrer provided this perspective on digital culture: ‘There is no doubt we must modernize the copyright act as soon as possible. The emergence of the Internet and digital technology has shaken entire sectors of our society. I am thinking in particular of the protection of the intellectual property of our creative people.’
Listening to her you’d think that the digital revolution was like a carload of gangbangers that had taken over our quaint Canadian cultural neighbourhood.
This fear of the big bad Internet led the former Heritage Committee to come forward with a whole series of recommendations that was meant to address this crisis. The Bulte Report included a whole array of restrictive measures including; shutting down ISP providers simply on the claim of potential copyright infringements; placing financial tollbooths for students and educators who use the public internet; limiting the rights of librarians and distance education courses to access digital materials; providing legal protection for the imposition of digital locks on music and other products.
Educators, software innovators and cyber activists vigorously opposed this vision. However, the progress of this coalition was slow. I remember one politician who dismissed the coalition as the ‘license to steal crowd.’
Clearly the fight of the digital age harkened back to a much older battle; the feudal struggle between the rights of the public commons and the claims of organized private property.
Over time, it appeared as if the Liberal government on copyright had shifted somewhat. Bill C-60 offered some compromise but it was clear that most politicians were still very much confused by the details and shifting ground of technological issues.
The big question mark is where the new Conservative government will go on issues like fair use and DRMs. We had fully expected to see the new direction of copyright by last fall. But the government appears to have stalled out.
Nonetheless, it is fair to suggest that they are looking at the copyright issue through the lens of trade pressure from the U.S. The Americans have vigorously pushed the private property rights of large corporate rights holders. This position is pushed in trade talks aimed at forcing countries to ratify the 1996 WIPO treaty.
The WIPO argument has been an easy sell with the Conservatives are intent on bringing Canada much closer into the U.S. orbit. To hear some Conservative MPs speak, the fact that Canada has not ratified the WIPO treaty is a failure of our international obligations, placing us on the same pirate status as China.
Central to WIPO is the ability to impose blanket legal protection for the DRMs and TPMs that any corporate player sees fit to impose on their products. You then sue those who bust those locks.
But WIPO is problematic for both innovators and consumers. Imagine an international treaty that allows an automatic garage door company to squash no-name brand competition or makes it possible for a corporation to sue your niece because she downloaded an Avril Lavigne MP3. All in the name of intellectual property rights
If you look at who has ratified WIPO – Botswana, Bulgaria, Senegal and Kazakhstan, it becomes apparent that WIPO ratification is like the digital coalition of the willing. Smaller countries have been pushed into the agreement by heavy U.S. trade pressure. Canada, far from being a copyright pariah, remains alongside the EU and other middle powers in remaining just a signatory.
We need to remember that this was a trade deal pushed forward when the fax machine was considered cutting edge. Our obligation as legislators should not be to rubber stamp an out of date treaty. Rather we need to look for a 21st century solution to a 21st century problem. This is the route our European allies are taking.
In a way, Canada has benefited from the fact that our political leaders seem unable to work through the morase of copyright. It has allowed a more inclusive debate to emerge and some very interesting new models are being openly discussed.
The emergence of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition certainly had a major role to play in boosting the debate from the blogging pages onto the front pages of the nation’s papers. The arguments being put forward by Canada’s top bands has helped move the discussion away from simply talking about restrictive laws and into an exploration of new business models that are emerging.
But let us look first at the downloading argument. Did the proliferation of Napster, Kaza and other downloading systems hit the North American music hard? Most certainly.
Until the emergence of I Tunes there was a major gap between the proliferation of illegally downloaded music and downloadable music that one could pay for.
The response in the U.S. has been for placing restrictive rights on digital locks DRMs and TPMs. As well, the major labels have undertaken some highly publicized lawsuits against kids. This is the model the lobbyists seem to want to bring to Canada.
But there are some gaping holes in their argument. For example, as a parliamentarian, I recognize the right of a corporation to utilize TPMs to protect software, DVDs and such from unlicensed duplication. But it is our duty as legislators to insist on consumer protection. Digital locks do more than protect copyright — they have the potential to radically rewrite the whole principle of copyright. Digital locks allow corporate interests to extend their claims into the very homes of consumers.
When a consumer legally purchases a CD they should not have to worry whether the disc is infected with spy ware. Neither should the consumer worry that Sony has the power to decide whether or not your Sony CD can be played on a non-Sony CD player.
When new copyright legislation is brought forward, we need to examine the limits of DRMs and insist on legislation to protect both consumers and creators.
It is interesting to note that CRIA and RIA continue to speak vehemently against illegal downloading even though there is mounting evidence that legal music culture is thriving. I would suggest this hardline response has less to do with kids swapping tunes and is more about the threat digital culture poses to an outdated business model.
The internet has simply been more responsive to market changes. In most communities, the only CD sales take place at COSCO or Wal Mart. Sure its great if you want Mariah Carey or another copy of the Eagles greatest hits. But you’re unlikely to find the View, the Libertines or Arcade Fire.
Young people have always wanted ‘the song’ just like their grandparents did in the age of the 45. If it’s a choice between an illegal download and having to fork out $23 for a full CD they don’t want, kids will likely take the illegal route.
But if it’s a choice between an illegal download through some dodgy site and a fairly priced model from a legal download site, many kids will go the legal route simply because the quality is better and it will be easier to access.
The major labels are being dragged kicking and screaming into this new marketing world. Fortunately, the bands have been way out in front of them. More and more bands are finding they can actually make a living by cutting out all the middle men and setting up their own direct distribution to a fan base that looks to the internet not the record store for music.
One has only to look at the massive success of the Arctic Monkeys or Ok Go to see how the old distribution models can be bypassed by bands with talent and smarts.
I would suggest that the argument over downloading has already moved on in Canada. There is some very exciting dialogues taking place amongst arts organizations, musicians and industry about finding ways to monetize P2P.
The problem is that, despite the appearance of viable solutions, most politicians are completely out of the loop. At the end of the day, the point of entry for these issues remains the well-financed lobbyists. This is not a slight on politicians but the reality is that MPs are generalists, dealing in large brush strokes. Technological change is about precision and details.
As well, changing legislation is a very slow process and new laws remain blunt and imprecise instruments. We will need some hard pushing to bring politicians up to speed on how new technologies are turning the ‘threat’ of digital mediums into ‘opportunities.’
In some ways, we are reliving old battles. When high quality FM radio signals were invented in the 1930s, the U.S. regulatory agencies did everything they could to shut this technology down because it posed a competitive threat to large AM radio interests. Thus the public put up with second rate AM signals for 30 years because politicians didn’t want to inconvenience big corporate players like RCA.
The other example is the 1980s fight over VHS tapes. Hollywood tried to wage war against the emerging VHS technology claiming that the recordable videotape would be the death knell of the industry. And yet, the explosive sales of VHS and DVD has breathed new life into the industry.
I predict the same thing will emerge from the P2P technologies.
Does this mean that politicians have no role to play in terms of addressing the threats and challenges of new technologies? Certainly not. The emerging debate over net neutrality is a good example of the need for basic ground rules to ensure fair access to the digital commons.
Likewise with copyright.
Does there need to be a discussion about how to ensure fair use of educational materials is balanced with the rights of authors? Certainly.
Do we need to give enforcement agencies the power to go after commercially driven pirates operations that are trading in knock-off DVDs, software and music? Certainly.
Do we need to lay down ground rules so that artists, writers and actors won’t be left penniless simply because the new viewing platform is an ipod and not a television set. Yes.
Do we need to find ways for Canada to ensure that its domestic cultural policies are not simply made irrelevant by youtube and myspace? Most certainly.
We will never move forward as a nation, however, if we simply allow lobbyists to write our cultural policies. What we need to do is to engage the artistic and the technological community in a looking for solutions.
First, we need to sit down with the various sectors and negotiate the ground rules for recompense of copyright works. This is the way it has always been done. It’s not going to be easy but there has never been an easy road with copyright regardless of the technology.
Secondly, instead of fearing the impacts of digital technology on Canadian cultural policies, we need to examine ways of increasing our public presence of Canadian voices in the realm of digital culture.
Canada is in a unique position to develop legislation that will make it possible for the digital revolution to continue to grow.
I would refer you to the 2005 study by the Honourable Laurier Lapierre, the Chairman of the National Advisory Board of Canadian Culture Online, entitled, A Charter for the Cultural Citizen Online. The report outlines a broad vision for fostering online culture in the 21st century. Among the recommendations is the creation of an online cultural agency, similar to the CBC, to promote and fund the development of online culture. Lapierre is asking for a level of funding to place digital culture on a similar level as film and television.
Certainly Canadian film makers and artists have spoken of the need to create a digital platform for the exposition of Canadian artistic products. So far, however, the idea has fallen on deaf ears.
It is, I suppose, easier for governments to legislate against something than to imagine the creation of something new.
What is exciting about Lapierre’s vision is his attempt to refocus the language around digital issues.
Lapierre does not speak of us as consumers but as citizens. This is a powerful concept. The digital citizen, says Lapierre has a claim on the ‘public commons’ of the internet. He has gone so far as to lay out the ‘Charter for the Online Cultural Citizen‒ Those rights include the ability to exercise choice in content. This free and unfettered choice will foster a sense of democratic ownership of virtual public spaces.
Championing the rights of the online citizen could lay the groundwork for a political/social/cultural dialogue with the generations coming of age online. It certainly stands as a powerful bulwark against those who, through digital locks or electronic tollbooths, are essentially arguing for the pay-per-use privatization of knowledge.
As legislators we need to work on the premise that Canada should look confidently into the digital world of the 21st century. It is where we belong as citizens of the world.
Also See:
Rockin’ Extravaganza – Charlie Angus fund raiser, February 23, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
