[d@DCC] CRIA Threats to Sue Ill-Conceived

[Russell McOrmond]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Tom wrote:

> How about a 4th group where nobody would buy their music regardless of
> any circumstances?

  In each case where such a 4'th group is created in copyright, I oppose
those aspects of the law.


  a) The private copying levy which has people not interested in specific 
"popular" works having to pay for them.  They did not opt-in to this 
situation in any way.


  b) Extension of copyright into "interfaces" which grants third-party 
control over ICT.  I believe that the users/owners of tools should be in 
control of them, not a third party.  Legal protection for TPM is being 
used by intermediaries as a back-door to interface copyright.
  Interface copyright revokes first-party control over tools in a way that 
is entirely separate from any use of works under copyright.

> It says protection, it didn't say anything about uploading or
> downloading morality.  For best protection, prohibit uploading and
> downloading without the authors' consent.

  Somehow something is getting lost in this conversation.  You seem to 
believe that uploading and downloading is identical responsibility.  If 
the uploader was uploading into a system where the assumption was that the 
works were authorized, does that change your feelings?  In this case the 
uploader is committing a form of fraud, but is the downloader doing 
anything wrong at all?

> Can you tell me what's wrong with statement 1 and statement 2?  To me, 1
> says, you don't accept my acts such and such, but 2 says you do it in
> other forms.  Firstly, you infringe the DVD author's right to put DRM on
> the DVD by ignoring their wishes and circumventing their protection.  If
> the author chose a protection method (under UN UDHR article 27.2) to
> protect their "literary or artistic production", how can you infringe on
> that right?  Nobody forced you to purchase their DVD.

  This is an act of civil disobedience.  The idea is to do something
that I believe should be a protected right in a very public way to assert
this belief.  I simply to not recognize in any way a "right" of a content
owner to have any say in the tools I choose to enjoy those works.  The 
United Nations declaration is a balancing act, and the 'claim' that DRM 
is a protected right under 27b is something I reject as I believe it to be 
a violation of article 19.

  By committing an act which I believe to be a protected right, I am 
forcing the discussion of these laws into the public.

  Are you doing this in the case of uploading works under someone elses 
copyright that did not choose to have their works uploaded?  Are you 
committing an act you believe should be protected in law, and doing so 
publicly?  Have you documented specific songs which you uploaded and their 
locations, along with a description of what you believe is wrong with the 
current law?

> If uploaders infringe rights, they're usually infringing on music
> cartels', not music authors'.


  In the case where a music cartel holds copyright, a musician signed away 
their rights to them.  We can believe that the musician should not have 
done that, but it still infringes their right to make that choice 
regardless of who the copyright holder ends up being.

  I do not personally like the concept of "work for hire" and believe that
creators' rights should be protected in copyright and that if any rights
are to be signed away it should be spelled out in detail in an employment
contract.

  Unlike the TPM/DRM/etc or private copying examples (where your 4'th
group comes into play), I am not going to get hired at some firm and
infringe their copyright as a form of protest against "work for hire".  
While being self employed may not be easy for some, it is still an option, 
and they are not being impacted by a policy which they have no choice 
over.

  I am still going to write about "work for hire" and suggest that this 
concept be removed from our copyright act.

> 
> Repeating works, but I wasn't repeating for people who knew.  Anyway,
> decisions on who gets paid should reside with the fans, not the cartels,
> nor their representatives, nor authors.
> 


  This is a perfect explanation for an opposition to Canada's private
copying regime, but I don't see how this relates to unauthorized addition
of works into P2P file sharing systems.

> > Those people (myself included) who do not want to pay music cartels
> > should simply not buy that music then.  Not buying it that also means
> > they should not have copied received via antisocial and immoral means.
> 
> Not participating doesn't work.  You're just contributing to their
> "pirate" myth, 

  If I did this silently, you may be right.  Instead I talk to MP's and
talk about the RIAA/MPAA/BSA (and Canadian counterparts) bogus statistics.  
I use myself an an example where their statistics are wrong, and suggest 
there are more people like me:

  - RIAA/MPAA statistics can't tell the difference between infringements,
protests, or any other reasons why sales may drop.  I ask policy makers to
do a simple thought experiment.  Take the drop in sales (supposedly from
10-15%), include the reduction in titles (20-25%), the general drop in the
economy, the movement of their primary market from headphones to
cellphones, and put "peer-to-peer" as an unknown.  It trivially shows them
that whether or not peer-to-peer is an infringement of creators rights or
not, the evidence suggests that it has caused an economic benefit for
copyright holders.


 - BSA/CAAST statistics can't tell the difference between infringements of
their member products, and people who have switched to Free/Libre and Open
Source Software.  http://weblog.flora.org/search.php3?query=CAAST



  When I speak to MPs that I have given my MP package to 
<http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=545>  I tell them that not 
only did I pay the recording industry superstars a levy on these FLOSS 
software CDs, but that if they install the software as replacements for 
BSA/CAAST equivalents that they will show up in the statistics as 
"pirates".  This gets the message across quite quickly.


> and they have a monopoly (radio, TV, other distribution/marketing
> channels.)  A tax freeze is still a tax, and there's no telling in
> future rulings.

  Agreed. I have nothing positive to say about media concentration, or the
private copying regime.

> That's nice and all, but do you go to the movies or watch movies on TV,
> listen to the radio or listen to music in a restaurant/coffee
> shop/hospitality establishment?

  This is not relevant to the protest as these are not the same 
"products" where LpfTPM and other such legal problems arise.  These legal 
problems occur where these content owners try to exert control in private 
homes over the private use of (otherwise) privately owned communications 
devices.

  I own my TV, radio, computer, eyeglasses, etc -- I reject attempts from
third party copyright holders to remove that right.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/


--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca