ARCHIVED — Ford

COPYRIGHT REFORM PROCESS

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED REGARDING THE CONSULTATION PAPERS

---

Documents received have been posted in the official language in which they were submitted. All are posted as received by the departments, however all address information has been removed.

---

Submission from Andrew Ford received on July 30, 2001 7:16 PM via e-mail

Subject: Copyright reform

Good day,
   I had the opportunity to read a webpage published by your department:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html

Allow me to quote from this page:

The departments believe it is now an opportune moment to initiate consultation with stakeholders on whether the Act should be amended to:
   * set out a new exclusive right in favour of copyright owners, including performers and record producers, to make their works available on-line to the public;
   * prevent the circumvention of technologies used to protect copyright material; and,
   * prohibit tampering with rights management information.

The point of consulting with "stakeholders" seems somewhat moot to me. To be generous, it is not unknown for business and industry to overstate the dangers to them in matters such as copyright. It seems to me, however, that such companies can continue to conduct business without being granted exclusive new rights at the expense of the populace. Let us not be duplicitous here, these initiatives do not favour the performer in any meaningful manner. The primary beneficiaries are large media companies, and the larger they are, the more they benefit.
    Take the DVD encryption scheme for example developed by major motion picture studios unilaterally through the MPAA if I am not mistaken. The encryption scheme does not prevent copyright violation through unauthorized copying and distribution. It is a simple matter to copy the entire encrypted DVD, since the player software must do the decryption. It does, however provide control over the consumer, through the viewing software which must have access to the decryption keys provided by the RIAA. Such unilateral action never favours the consumer, since there is no incentive for studios, for instance, to provide the least restrictive practical copyright controls. Even if it is not intended, such controls will inevitably become onerous, since it will be good "business sense" to exploit the controls and those who don't will be at a competetive advantage.
    In effect, the consumer is the main stakeholder in this matter, because the introduction of new rights favouring the copyright holders, and in particular criminalizing tampering with the controls placed on media, such as under the DMCA in the U.S.A., provide further means for companies to exploit the consumer, without any incentive for them to treat the consumer fairly.
    As a Canadian Citizen, I find it appalling and unacceptable that the government would provide business with such a means to exploit consumers. These companies tend to be enormously profitable, especially in relation to their cost of production. The government is supposed to act in the public interest and not in the interest of business when those interests are at odds. This is clearly not in the public interest, since harm to the public will far outweigh benefits to them in terms of employment and taxes payed in the long run. Therefore, I ask that you take this into consideration when determining your course of action.

Thank you for your time,

Andrew Ford.