Green Party on copyright: responses from Dan Grice (Vancouver Quadra candidate)

(First published on IT World Canada blog)

Last Saturday, independent MP Blair Wilson announced that he will be sitting as a member of the Green Party of Canada. This is historic as it is the first Green Party member in a federal legislature in one of those few countries still using the First Past the Post voting system.

The Green Party will be taken more seriously because they have as many seats as the Reform party did prior to the 1993 election. Prior to that election their only sitting member was Deborah Grey who won in a 1989 by-election. During this election the Reform party won 52 seats.

With this in mind, people have been asking to hear more about their positions on copyright and related issues.

The Green Party has extensive policy documents which support Network Neutrality and Open source computer software. I didn’t see in my most recent look the type of digital copyright issues we might like to read about.

Copyright is an issue that comes down to the experience and judgement of individual members of parliament. While the parties may have policy and platform, this can change with the election of people with specific experience as happened with the NDP (see: Canada’s Copyright party is … the NDP?).

Dan Grice is the Green Party Candidate for Vancouver Quadra. His current job is as a Business Technology Consultant / Internet Web through his company VanAlive Communications. Given his technical background, it is great that he responded right away when I sent messages asking for comments from candidates.

I sent him the same set of questions I sent other candidates recently, with him deciding to comment more on software business models than other candidates have been able to.

Dan: I have no authority to officially answer on behalf of the party, but the following are my own answers guided by Green Party policy plus my own opinions.

Russell: Where do you stand on the benefit or threat of new media/technology?

Dan: I believe that new media and digital technology have provided a great opportunity for artists and producers to reach a greater mass and for consumers to enjoy artistic creation in new ways.

The focus of any legislation should not be on maintaining a narrow distribution model enforced by digital locks and threats of prosecution, but to put in place proper mechanisms to ensure performers and content producers are fairly compensated for use of their art works and to create licensing mechanisms which allow consumers to use them for personal purposes.

Russell: Do you believe that the tools which provide the primary means of production and distribution of knowledge should be under the control of private citizens, or some third party? If a third party, who should that party be? If citizens, would you endorse our petition?

One way to make copyright less complex and far less controversial is to have it focus on public activities, and less on activities (such as the creation of personal copies) which modern technology has made private. Private activities such as time, device and format shifting of lawfully acquired content, could be carved out of copyright though a living Fair Use regime.

Dan: As citizens, it is advantageous to promote as much freedom in how and what we can share as possible, and how we can use the information. (The Green Party believes this is essential to participatory democracy) If there are limitations (such as the blocking of known child porn web hosts), then the decision need to be done through an elected body that is responsible to citizens.

When it comes to content, I don’t support copyright legislation that blocks how an individual uses content they have purchased or that obstructs individuals from having the right to modify or possess content for personal use. I oppose legislation that would punish individuals for modifying content they have licensed to use, to back up, transport, or convert it to a new format.

I do support fair copyright, where public usage of content or content distributed as part of a commercial transaction may have limitations, as no one has the right to earn profits off of another’s labour or art form without their consent.

I also feel that those who distribute content without permission should be liable to the creator for compensation, but this should not be punitive except where a malicious violation occurs.

Russell: Would you support or reject the idea of carving out private activities from copyright?

Dan: I would support exempting private activities. I think there can be some confusion between public and private activities when there is file sharing or public postings of content that must be addressed.

Russell: Many people see Copyright in terms of a balance between rights articulated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 17. Property (tangible), 19. Expression , 26. Education, 27. Cultural and Creators’ rights.

How well do you feel we have balanced these rights so far?

Dan: Traditionally we had done a good job, but I think that technology evolved faster than creator’s rights and as such we need to ensure that content creators are fairly compensated for use of their works in a way that does not limit technology or future usage.

Russell: Is there a specific balance that makes sense to “harmonize” internationally, or is there a right balance for each country, or for each different stage of development?

Dan: Countries have the opportunity to ensure that their own content producers are fairly compensated and that broad treaties are beneficial to ensuring that countries can allow their own content producers to have international experience.

These arrangement should be made through democratic institutions and not through corporate alliances such as the WTO or other broad based international pacts.

In Canada, I would say it may be beneficial for the government to have a small levy on telecommunications usage go to support content producers and to make it easier for Canadians to get exposed to their own culture..

Russell: Domestically, do you believe that Canada has had the right balance in the past, and the right balance with recently proposed legislation?

Dan: Our legislation was balanced but unequipped to deal with digital media. Currently proposed legislation is faulty in failing to protect private usage and for relying upon a draconian limitation on tools used for content manipulation. It also does little to support artists and content producers and is far from a holistic approach.

Russell: Many different types of creativity can be covered by copyright. While some can be considered art and entertainment, some are a memory prosthesis (most common use of many types of recordings: photographs, audio, movies), and some is functional (computer software, scientific/medical knowledge, etc). Much of the discussion and policy around copyright presumes that copyright only or even primarily regulates commercially created art and entertainment.

Dan: The questions blends copyright and patent law. Both need to be updated. I don’t think Canada has been vocal and our position up until this point has had very little impact on the rest of the world.

Patent, copyright, and trademarking all need to be modernized. Government can take a role in identifying ways in which we can protect creative activities or intellectual discoveries without hindering future technology or content creation. As a MP, I would look at ways to ensure creators are compensated and that our technology and artistic communities have stable funding, as well as looking at various content licensing models and work to find a better balance between content producers and consumers.

Russell: Should Canada be providing legal protection or other encouragement for digital locks on content and/or devices?

Dan: I don’t believe digital locks should be encouraged for limiting which devices a content can be used on. At the same time, I do realize that some business models (such as software) require protection against unlicensed copying and others (such as movie rentals) use locks to offer consumers the ability to lease content for short terms.

Government has a role in defining whether locks are being used to facilitate usage or to limit it.

Russell: There are alternative methods of production and distribution, such as peer production and peer distribution, which do not rely on counting copies or collecting royalties. This reduces copyright infringement by royalty-free licensing what citizens want to do, leaving a few commercial companies as potential infringers. While these methods do not work for all creativity, there are some such such as software (Free/Libre and Open Source Software) and educational/scientific/medical knowledge (Open Access) where this is the fastest growing part of that sector.

Dan: I would support the creation of an alternative licensing arrangement where content producers are financially awarded based on different criteria. (An interesting licensing arrangement already exists for radio stations who pay a flat fee to license content.) This would allow content producers to opt-in and be compensated based on a non-transactional model.

However, we also have to be realistic on the limitations of FLOSS software and its distribution model. Very few peer-to-peer or open source business models have shown to generate enough revenue to support complicated development structures. For example, if it was not for a high license rate that Adobe charged, we would not have seen as high quality graphics tools exist. The FLOSS model is better suited for instances where a high amount of customization or servicing is required and the core software is a foundation for other tools.

Russell: Do you think Canada should be supporting and promoting alternative royalty-free methods of production and distribution where possible?

Dan: Yes. I agree that we should support and promote an alternative model. I am personally interested in using gateway access fees to be distributed based on some quantifiable viewership model.

That being said, there will always be a necessity for some sort of royalty limitations and intermediary status. I just feel that our efforts our best put into increasing base funding to artists and content producers.

Russell: What policies would you promote in order to protect the interests of the growing number of creators who are independent of traditional copyright-holding intermediaries?

Dan: I would like to see the Canadian government use existing agencies such as the CBC and others to deliver content to Canadians, with a fair compensation scheme going back to artists and a decentralized version of shows.

We must stress that it is no good to any content producer or consumer if quality content is not produced.

Russell: I have offered my own thoughts on a post-industrial era in an article titled “Key question about the shape of the knowledge economy.”

In your mind, is the relationship of knowledge in the knowledge economy like products in the industrial economy, or is knowledge in the knowledge economy like machines in the industrial economy?

Dan: It is both. Some technology serves to create other technology (such as FLOSS), where as digital content is often a finalized product meant to be enjoyed as is.

Russell: How would you differentiate your views on copyright or related policies from other candidates in the riding?

Dan: I hope they share mine. I don’t think this is a partisan issue as much as it is ensuring that a balance between fair compensation for content producers and fair usage to ensure that licensing and copyright does not impede on technological development.

I asked Dan for some quick clarifications on some answers, and he offered the following.

Dan: I’ve been involved with software development in the past and realize the need to secure ones product is real. When you have a 4 or 5 person team (or more) working in production, you need to be able to have a business model that is sustainable.

Open source software can be excellent, (ie linux is top of class) but most free software only exists because there was a paid alternative. I can’t imagine this actually being an issue at the door steps, but if it was, there is a balance required between allowing creators to protect their intellectual property, and using patent or copyright legislation to block technological advances.

The first thing we need to do is separate digital tools from entertainment in this discussion.

Most music and movies on their own do little to advance human knowledge so there is little altruistic point from justifying them as being part of a knowledge economy. The only real issue with DRM is device lock in and transferring your music assets from one platform to another. I find that DRM is hardly justified for low risk purchases such as music and that content licensees should have the right to utilize third party tools to backup or enable the content to play on another device.

I feel that many consumers, if given the option of buying something for a low price in a convenient matter, will gladly pay and that content piracy existed because content producers took forever to create an internet based distribution system.

On a scale of issues, a locked down song is hardly a threat to humanity which is why I don’t take a strong stance on supporting or eliminating DRM. Compared to patented, genetically modified crops, music legislation should be low on the priority list. The current copyright legislation went far over board and attempted to criminalize using tools for personal usage or fining mere possession of a non-licensed media, which I strictly oppose. However, at the same time, I think that a content producer has the right to put reasonable limitations on usage of the media.

With higher end tools and software, it is a far different discussion. You asked whether under a knowledge economy would we be better off if knowledge and tools were more accessible and affordable. I would say YES. I would also say that there is a balance needed. If we eliminated proprietary technology, patents, and software protection, we could likely end up with an economy where no innovation occurred and where the pace of technological growth slowed. If we get rid of the carrots ($$$) often secured by software lock down, we may risk eliminating the incentive. This does not mean that I think the patent law is by any means complete and does not do its own bit to limit technology growth.

I’ve used software where the license is a few thousand dollars per seat, but where the scope of usage is so limited that there is no way they producer could have produced it without a reasonable rate of return.

I think the relevant topic for me, as a Canadian, is not how to we use DRM or whether or not these locks should exist, but how to we maximize innovation and how do we ensure our content producers can compete and survive in a global economy. For me, this means changes to our tax laws and increasing base funding for arts and technology sectors, improving our education system, and working to promote alternative channels for distribution. It also means protecting small companies from being bullied by large companies, and fixing patent law to remove patents which are overarching and describe common items.

I also think the Green Parties policy regarding FLOSS is excellent, in which we would ensure that no proprietary software is required to do business with the government,