p2pnet - rss feed: Canada’s Copyright party is … the NDP?
In many of the comments about Bill C-61 on BLOGS all across Canada you can hear people saying that all the parties are the same, and that we need a Canadian Pirate Party. The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a political party in Sweden that focus on one issue: reforming of so-called “Intellectual Property” laws such as patent, copyright, trademark and other related laws (also called PCT) to better integrate with a modern technological and participatory society.
There is, however, something exciting happening in one party that warrants a closer look for those who think fair copyright reform is important, and that is the NDP.
First, I will admit that when I became involved in the copyright debate in 2001 this is not what I expected. My primary views on copyright could be summed up in some pretty simple statements.
- Only the owner of something should be legally allowed to authorize or place a digital lock on what they own. This should apply both to the copyright holder of content, as well as the owner of any technology.
- Digital locks or other file format incompatibility should not be legal to to be abused by copyright holders to tie the legal acquisition of content to specific brands of technology. I believe in protecting a free market from such harm.
- Copyright should support a full spectrum of methods of production, distribution and funding. The government has a poor history of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and should not be imposing business models on the private sector
Protection of property rights, protection and reliance on a free market, and keeping the government out of decisions best made by the private sector. This would be considered a fairly right-of-center set of policies.
As anyone who has read and understood Bill C-61 would know, the Conservative Party of Canada seems to have abandoned what one might have otherwise thought were core conservative values. They may not even understand their own bill, but they have nobody other than themselves to blame given how hard we have all been trying to meet and discuss these issues with them.
If you look around federal politics at who is most strongly opposing the policy direction articulated by Bill C-61, you will find the NDP.
It wasn’t always this way. From 2001 to 2004 the critic responsible for copyright from the NDP was journalist, playwright, and writer Wendy Lill. While she was someone whose livelihood was dependant on copyright, it was not really impacted by new technology and thus she was largely an outsider to the digital debate that we found ourselves in. She blindly continued the debates of earlier years where creators followed an overly simplistic concept of “some copyright is good for us, so more must be better”. She lead the NDP into promoting copyright be more tilted in favour of existing copyright holders, and wholly endorsed the policy direction proposed by the USA in their National Information Infrastructure task force, and in 1998 their Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Ms. Lill retired in 2004, the same time that author, broadcaster, editor, journalist, musician, negociator, and singer Charlie Angus was elected to parliament. Charlie also depended on copyright for his livelihood, but had considerable experience with new media. As an independent musician he understands the changes that are happening with the relationships between composers, performers and “makers” of sound recordings (record labels). He knows first hand that it is overly simplistic, and in fact dangerous to fellow creators, to believe that “some copyright is good, more is better”.
If you are not already familiar with Charlie Angus, you can read the articles we have under his riding of Timmins–James Bay. You can hear his forceful voice and message in an amazing audio mashup called “Made Worse In Canada“.
In the past I have been worried that it only took a one person change in the NDP caucus to switch from being supportive of the backward-facing reforms we saw in the USA NII/DMCA to the progressive position articulated by Mr. Angus. My worries have been greatly reduced by the message coming from other members of the current caucus, as well as future candidates.
Bill Siksay is the NDP member from Burnaby - Douglas, and is the current NDP Heritage Critic. He spoke out against Bill C-61 as parliament was going to recess in June, and more recently has dedicated an issue of his householder (Burnaby-Douglas Link, sent to everyone in the riding) to the issue of Bill C-61 and copyright. I am very excited by the idea of householders being used to educate everyone in a riding about an important and complex issue like copyright!
Past Guelph MP Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Liberal) resigned as of April 7. This means that a byelection is expected to be called by the prime minister by October 4′th. NDP candidate Tom King, a longtime artist and writer, has already stated in a press release that he plans to make the Conservative Bill C-61 an election issue in that riding. I am hearing suggestions in the back channels that there may be special events hosted during the election on the issue of copyright, and I will be very excited to personally participate in any way I can.
A Hill Times article NDP’s ’star’ candidate Byers sets sights on Vancouver Centre describes how a best-selling author and academic, Michael. Byers, is seeking the nomination in that riding. I sent some questions to get an idea of where his thinking is on copyright, and his answers (See IT World Canada article) are well thought out and very forward looking.
This is only four people, two of which are already in the house, and two more that may be part of the federal parliament after future byelections or general elections. This does suggest a very interesting trend for the party, and one we should actively encourage. Those of us who consider copyright to be important should do what we can to ensure that these people help define Canada’s future laws in this area!
Russell McOrmond - p2pnet contributing editor
[McOrmond is an independent author (software and non-software) who uses modern business models and licensing (Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Creative Commons). He’s also the CLUE policy coordinator and p2pnet contributing editor.]
July 16th, 2008 at 1:08 am
I’m sure a lot of Canadians voted Conservative hoping for a better future regarding copyright than what the NDP was offering at the time. It’s very sad that they haven’t come anywhere close to meeting those expectations, and now here Bill C-61 comes along. I guarantee copyright issues are going to hurt them when election time comes, just as it originally did the NDP in the last election. Interesting how things flip flop like that. Hopefully the next time the wife and I vote it will be more meaningful than it was the last time.
Just how long is it going to take the various governments around the world to learn that you just can’t put restrictions on human behavior and expect them to succeed? Look at China and their one child policy for example. All that did was create an environment rife with child abductions. Remember prohibition in the 30’s? How about the French revolution? We all know how well they went over. History is full of such examples. What the entertainment industry wants is not any different. You can get all the restrictive laws passed that you want, but in the end things will only worsen. Is downloading something copyrighted wrong? Maybe immoral at best, but certainly not any more so than some of the actions we’ve been seeing from the entertainment industry over the past several years. Two wrongs may indeed not make a right, and an eye for an eye probably does mean the whole world would go blind, but ask yourself why that is exactly. Much of who we are is a direct result of how we’re raised, but a lot of it is genetically hardwired as well. No amount of policy making can change that.
When I look at the entertainment industry, I see a swimmer all alone out at sea. They can’t stop swimming, for if they do they will sink like a stone. What they so desperately need, the only thing that can help, is for someone to throw them a life preserver. They expect that someone to be the government. However, if the swimmer is unable to adapt to changing conditions, stay afloat, and save themselves, do they deserve to survive? If it were just one person, the answer would be easy. Except, it’s not one person we’re talking about here but instead an entire industry, one some would say is corrupt right to the core. It’s hard not to agree with that sentiment when you look at their lobbying activities, as well as how they treat their own customers. The only thing lawsuits are going to achieve is the ire of a nation, if not the entire world. I’m sure it’s good money for them despite this, otherwise they would not be doing it. Making your customers hate you does not make good business sense, and never will. It is my sincere hope that our government will see the wisdom in forcing the industry to abandon outdated business practices in favor of a new system that benefits everyone fairly on all sides of the copyright issue. The law of the jungle has always been adapt or die. Without a doubt it will be interesting to see how the next five to ten years unfold, especially as the youth of today become the world leaders of tomorrow.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
The copyright issue was also covered in the newsletter sent to residents in Olivia Chow’s riding.