ARCHIVED — N. N. Bailly
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
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 N. N. Bailly received on September 14, 2001 via e-mail
Subject: Response to the CPCDI
Response to the Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues (CPCDI)
I appreciate the opportunity to express my grave concern regarding the intellectual property provisions contained in the Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues (CPCDI).
Although the "Framework" document attributes "the rapid development of new technologies" with lending "a renewed sense of urgency" to copyright reform, it seems to me that some very real, and troubling, issues behind copyright reform are being ignored. The true aim of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) style reform is to remove the right of ownership, in favour of the concession of license; attenuating communication, in favour of control. These measures give far to much power to publisher, at the expense of the freedoms of the individual.
Some argue that new copyright amendments are needed to safe-guard emerging digital media. However, if digital technology makes possible the identical (bit-for-bit) duplication of recorded data, then "media pirates" truly have no need to bypass access control. Why trouble themselves with circumventing access controls when the recording and its associated encryption may be copied in whole. Who then, is the target of these new copyright measures? The consumer.
By disallowing the individual to examine, interpret, and transform digital media, core principles of Canadians will be jeopardized. The inability to examine, and sensorially render media in a form they see fit, not only infringes on the user's ability to make use (or "fair use" in American parlance) of their purchase, but in the case where the development of rendering systems is an expression in itself, the CPCDI clearly violates the individual's guaranteed freedoms of expression. Consider also, that reverse-engineering is often the basis for much technical innovation. If ideas are not allowed to be evaluated, examined and improved upon, then the very basis of communication as the glue of society is broken. We regress from individuals comprising a collective into corporations bickering over ownership and control. Simply by expressing an idea, the owner of that idea is exercising their freedom to give it a significant degree of public ownership.
Corporate groups have established new digital media, and will continue to develop new digital media. In most cases, the protocols of these new media are secrets protected on the corporate end by non-disclosure agreements, and protected on the consumer end by the increasingly draconian copyright laws. These protocols will become forbidden territory for the user, who is not permitted to directly access the media content. What is not clear, is what use a DVD will be when that technology has gone the way of the 8-track tape. What exactly is the purchase price of the DVD obtaining for the purchaser? What provisions are there for releasing digital content to the public domain when its copyright expires. What clauses for consumer protection are included in the new copyright reform?
Copyright reform seems to be plowing ahead where there is neither evidence of significant monetary damages, nor assurances that reform will provide a remedy. In contrast, the existing copyright law is perfectly clear regarding what constitutes lawful and unlawful reproduction of works protected by copyright. Rather than "new technologies", it is the expropriation of the control and regulation of future means of communication by corporate interests which should provides the true sense of urgency in copyright reform.
There is already growing discontent in the United States regarding the effect that the DMCA is having on the freedom of the individual (see for example www.eff.org). Canada should not be legislating in order to meet treaty requirements (WIPO) whose interests runs counter to those of the Canadian public, but rather should be advocating change which strengthens the freedoms underlying its democratic principles.
Yours sincerely,
N. N. Bailly.
(Address removed)
- Date modified:
