ARCHIVED — Jack Dodds

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 Jack Dodds received on September 14, 2001 via e-mail

Subject: Canadian copyright reform

September 14, 2001

I wish to express my position on the intellectual property provisions of the Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues (CPCDI).

The whole issue of copyright in the digital era is highly controversial. New technology is making it easier to circumvent copyright. Those who feel that strong copyright law favours their economic interest have painted a exaggerated picture of the negative consequences of this new technology. In the U.S.A., they have succeeded in having legislation adopted (the DMCA) which criminalizes behaviour that was never before been considered criminal. This legislation encroaches on fundamental personal rights, including freedom of speech, for the dubious purpose of protecting the profits of multinational corporations. Similar legislation has led to bizarre situations, including the prosecution of a teenager for the supposed crime of allowing others to freely copy a computer program that he wrote. The initial intent of the legislation may be reasonable, but the long term implications are frightening. The precedent is established that it is a crime to publish certain types of computer program, even when the knowledge required to write such programs is easily available. This is a truly Orwellian concept.

A less biased analysis suggests that the public good will not be damaged by leaving these new provisions out of new copyright legislation. It is extremely doubtful that media and entertainment companies will be put out of business by the new technologies. The sharing of music, books, and other intellectual property by members of the public will put a ceiling on the profits that are obtained from best selling "superstars". The best selling items are the ones most easily shared in violation of copyright. But this would encourage these companies to create income by offering a more diverse selection of artists (in the broadest meaning of the term) who are not at the superstar level, providing better service, arranging unique real-time "live" events, and other innovations. Changing the law will insulate these companies from the real world. It is a substitute for innovation which encourages laziness on their part.

The public good may actually be better served by leaving the law as it is. One of the weaknesses of popular culture today is the narrowness of the selection offered. Huge profits accrue to a few superstar artists and the companies that market them. This is at the expense of those who are not "stars". The huge majority of capable artists cannot support themselves by publishing their written or recorded works. The diversity of works available to the consumer, and the number of artists who are actually able to support themselves through their art, could very well increase if the new technologies effectively put a cap on the profits that can be derived from the superstars.

There is no compelling reason for the government to solve the problems of the multinationals who favour strengthening copyright legislation. But there ARE compelling reasons to jealously guard traditional civil rights which are under constant attack from those who would sacrifice them to in an effort to protect commercial interests.

Commerce will continue regardless, but our individual rights will disappear if we do not give them priority.

Thank you for your attention,

Jack Dodds
(address removed)