ARCHIVED — Schmidt

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 Mike Schmidt received on August 2, 2001 4:51 AM via e-mail

Subject: Copyright

>Copyright protection laws seem to be headed in a direction that is
>unhealthy for the public. In my opinion, copyright protection laws with
>regard to technology such as the Internet seem to be headed in a way
>that inhibits freedom of expression and learning. The reason why I
>feel this way is that copyright protection seems to be extended way too
>broadly. Well I realize that companies and artists want to protect
>their rights, we must also consider the rights of individuals. For
>example, in the USA the RIAA is trying to force ISP's to monitor their
>users activities and shut them down if they are found responsible for
>copying data that is protected by a copyright. I find it rather
>insidious that a corporate entity such as the RIAA can monitor anyone's
>activities online.Meanwhile the police must obtain a warrant if they want to
>physically check your residence. I believe that few people comprehend
>technology and, as a result, tend to panic and treat online activities
>differently. Questions which I believe to be very important are "How
>is it different if I steal something online then if I steal something
>physically from someone's residence?" "Why do I as an individual have
>less rights online then I do offline?" " Should I not be Considered
>innocent until proven guilty with regard to online copyright
>infringement?" "Should authorities not also have to obtain a warrant
>for searching my computer or monitoring my online activities?" "Who are
>these laws trying to protect citizens or industry?" "Are we a
>government of the people by the people and for the people or of industry
>by industry and for industry?"

     I believe these questions are all very pertinent and need to be
>raised in any future amendments to copyright laws. The fact is that the
>original purpose of copyright law was to stimulate invention by giving
>some protection to the authors of certain works. Copyright law seems
>to be diverging from it's original purpose, however. Artists and
>companies are using their rights in a way that inhibits innovation and
>prevents the spread of knowledge. For example, Napster was clearly an
>innovative technology that had millions of users at it's peak.It was
>nothing less then the total sum of all music ever created in one single
>place. Such technological innovation advances society and takes us to
>new levels. What neither government or industry seem to understand is
>what it's citizens desire. People are unwilling to pay the same price
>for something they download over the internet as compared to something
>they buy in the store. For example, using Napster as an example again,
>if I download a song off Napster I do not want to pay as much for music
>as I would if I were to buy the Compact Disc from a Music store such as HMV.
>


> The fact of the matter is that it costs companies
>far less money to distribute their goods via the Internet as they do not
>have to pay for the physical media in which the information would have
>traditionally been stored. Artists and companies still expect to
>charge the same price for their digital creation that they would for
>physical media eventhough it costs them far less to distribute
>digitally. Rather then passing on these cost savings to consumers they
>are instead charging the same prices. If we continue to allow
>copyright laws to move into the direction they are moving now it will
>mean that people on the Internet will not be treated the same way as
>they are off the Internet as the notion of "Innocent until proven
>Guilty" does not seem to exist. Similarly, prices will continue to
>increase for consumers if we do not also put limitations on how much
>artists are able to charge for digital products in relation to physical
>products. This clearly puts the copyright holders rights above
>individual rights.
>

      I would like to take the time to state the way I think copyright law
>should be enforced. I believe that Internet Service Providers should
>only be allowed to monitor their customers if a warrant is issued
>granting the ISP the right to use their computer logs against the person
>being accused. I do not believe that companies such as the RIAA should
>be allowed to pressure ISP's into monitoring customer's online
>activities for the purpose of entraping them. The RIAA, according to an
>article I was reading, intends on shutting down services such as Gnutella
>and other peer-to-peer services by more or less entraping people by
>monitoring their activities. They would then go to the ISP and complain to
>the ISP that one of their customers is infringing upon the artist's copyright.
> I do not believe any corporation should be allowed to have this kind of
>power. The police have to obtain a warrant when they want to search a
>person's premises. Likewise, only enforcement agencies such as the
>police should be allowed the power to issue a warrant to an Internet
>Service provider granting the ISP the right to monitor a persons online
>activities. Companies such as the RIAA should not be allowed to
>circumvent people's privacy and personal freedom by using their power to
>intimidate ISP's. The way I think this issue should be approached is
>that someone like the RIAA can record IP addresses only and then use
>that information only to pinpoint certain ISP's. At this point they
>should be required to send their complaint to the ISP and the ISP at
>their discretion should have to call the police and obtain a warrant if
>the ISP gets considerable complaints of certain individuals infringing
>on copyright. At this point, once the ISP has obtained a warrant then
>they would have the right to monitor the individuals online activities.
>If the ISP is able to show that the person being monitored is in
>violation of copyright laws, the ISP at this point would be allowed to
>disconnect the customers Internet service and report the incident to the
>authorities. I believe that there should be substantial limitation as
>to what legal action could be taken against someone for copyright
>infringement. Given the nature of the Internet, and human nature, I do
>not believe that simple possession of copyright materials or download of
>such materials should be considered a crime. The maximum penalty for
>possession or download of copyrighted materials should be the cost of
>the materials and a small fine. In the case of distribution of
>copyrighted material, the laws should be somewhat more stringent. But
>the part of the law that really needs to be harshest is dealing with
>people who come up with the technologies that tamper with software
>intended to protect copyrighted material. For example, the person who
>created the DVD ripping software should receive a stiffer penalty then
>someone who simply used his software to rip a DVD. In the case of drug
>possession, police usually do not make a big deal out of people who
>simply possess illicit drugs for their own use. Enforcement agencies
>are more concerned with trying to stop the drug lords. Similarly, the
>stiffest penalties for copyright infringement should be against the
>people tampering with copyright protection mechanisms.

      In conclusion, I think copyrights should protect the Canadian public
>and Canadian consumer more then they should protect the copyright
>holder. I believe that copyright holders should not be able to bully
>ISP's into monitoring their customers activities. I believe that
>people's online activities should be given the same respect as their
>offline activities. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and concept of
>Innocent Until proven Guilty should extend to the Online Internet. If
>agencies such as the RIAA can bully ISP's into monitoring their
>customers, then democratic laws which have existed since the beginning
>of our country will have been lost. People will no longer have the same
>rights Online that they would expect to have when they are off the
>Internet. The problems that are occurring with the Internet are a
>direct consequence of inadequate copyright laws that are either
>unclearly defined or that extend too far. We need to ensure that
>Canadians are given the same online rights as they have offline so that
>companies cannot use their copyrights to empower them to do things that
>even our law enforcement agencies are not prohibited to do. In order to
>make copyright laws more clear and prevent them from hindering with the
>Charter of Rights a better copyright law needs to be brought into
>effect. I think the problem with the copyright law at present is that
>it is trying to be too specific and does not bring enough flexibility
>into the law. I think rather then try to come up with a law for each
>situation and to designate a certain person as the author or owner of a
>work that we need to come up with guidelines that would allow us to come
>to a fair conclusion as to who the rights belong. For example, rather
>then stating that the person who "owns the original negatives to a
>photograph" be the person who has rights to the photograph, I think we
>should come up with conditions. If the person who owns the negatives paid for most of the costs associated with creating the photographs and came up with the idea then they should own the copyright. On the otherhand, if the photographer paid for most of the cost of producing the photographs, and it was his idea to produce
>them ,then the photographer should be given the rights over the photographs. So what I am essentially proposing is that copyright law quit trying to define a certain person as owning a copyright and instead change the law so that it is
>essentially a series of conditions where it is not explicitly spelled
>out who owns the copyright. Instead, a series of conditions should exist
>which, when followed, will clearly ascertain who owns the copyright.
> Anyway, those are my thoughts on copyright law. I apologize if I made my
>critique of copyright laws too long and also apologize for any
>grammatical errors. I made this very quickly and did not proof read it
>so if I seem to ramble or do not make sense I apologize.

---