Copyright Q&A with Michael Byers, presumptive NDP candidate for Vancouver Center
(First published on IT World Canada blog)
A Hill Times article NDP’s ’star’ candidate Byers sets sights on Vancouver Centre describes how a best-selling author and academic, Michael. Byers, is seeking the nomination in that riding. I decided to do a written interview with Mr. Byers on copyright, included below. It looks like Vancouver Center will be an important riding to watch for those of us interested in copyright.
Russell: I wish to apologize if the preamble to any of these questions is leading. It is hard to get at the views our community is most interested in without providing context. If these are too detailed, or too long, please answer what is interesting to you or what would best convey your own perspective on this complex topic.
The government suggests that Copyright is about striking an appropriate balance between creators and consumers. While we all believe that creators should be fairly compensated, creators have been divided on how to modernize copyright.
For instance, compare the stated views of the Creators Copyright Coalition (CCC) and those of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC) or Appropriation Art (AA). While CMCC and AA members are also counted (sometimes more than once) as CCC members for statistics, the views they express are very different.
One area of discussion is the impact of technology. Some creators believe that allowing citizen control over communications technology would be a great benefit, and other creators see this as a threat.
Q: Where do you stand on the benefit or threat of new media/technology?
Byers: New technology is rarely a threat. Emerging technology creates new opportunities for innovation. Business and society need to adapt to these new realities not by attempting to outlaw the march of progress, but by discovering ways to benefit from the new reality. An example would be how content producers (Television and film studios) initially fought against VCR’s but eventually were able to create new, and very successful, businesses by embracing the new technology. We do not advance as a society by trying to stifle innovation and opportunity, it would be terrible if succeeded.
Russell: One way to reduce the “threat” from new technology is to reduce the ability of individual citizens to control technology. While this may reduce copyright infringement, it also reduces creativity as the tools used to record, edit and distribute and access creativity are the same whether it is used for creativity or infringement.
Locking down devices so that their owners are less able to control them is one of the policies we have seen recently (1995 USA National Information Infrastructure task force, 1996 WIPO treaties, USA DMCA, Canadian Bill C-60 and Bill C-61).
We created a petition to oppose this policy direction http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
Q: 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?
Byers: The primary means of production and distribution of information needs to lie with private citizens. Historically those societies with the easiest access to the means of distributing information (such as printing presses, and public radio stations) have been the freest. Focusing the means of distributing information in a few individuals, whether they are government or some third party, is ultimately bad for democracy.
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.
Q: As a human rights activist, how well do you feel we have balanced these rights so far?
Byers: Historically Canadian policy on this has been more balanced, but is now heading towards a much more strict protection of property rights holders, without enough attention to the need of cultural, expression and educational needs. This is troubling as we seem to be trying to adopt the excesses and mistakes of the American DMCA legislation.
Q: Domestically, do you believe that Canada has had the right balance in the past, and the right balance with recently proposed legislation?
Byers: The rights balance in the past has certainly been better in Canada than in the US under DMCA. With the introduction of C-61, Stephen Harper’s conservative government is attempting to outdo the worst mistakes of the American DMCA.
Russell:There are many mechanisms to compensate creators. The debate around enforcing compensation appears to come down to a question of locks (locks on content, locks on devices), levies (compulsory licensing) or lawsuits (suing those who infringe copyright). Locks remove choices from software authors and technology owners (including creators), and levies only support a single business model for creators (collecting royalties). Only enforceable and enforced (via lawsuits) contracts can support a full spectrum of options for methods of creation, distribution and funding for both creators and their customers.
Q: Should Canada be providing legal protection or other encouragement for digital locks on content and/or devices?
Byers: Digital locks and DRM should not be encouraged, as these tend to overly restrict the rights of consumers and the public. I would support legislation to explicitly protect the right to circumvent digital locks that prevent people from exercising their legal rights.
Q: Should we be using more or less compulsory licensing in Canada? Should we reserve this option only for extreme situations? What criteria would you propose?
Byers: This question has two parts. The second is answered below. As for compulsory licensing, I think it is a reasonable solution for all broadcast media, not just radio. Basically I would update the rules around compulsory licensing to include things like Internet based streaming media.
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.
Q: Do you think Canada should be supporting and promoting alternative royalty-free methods of production and distribution where possible?
Byers: I support the work of Professor Lessig’s Creative Commons organization. I also support other innovative uses of copyright such as the GNU Free Software foundation and other open source and open knowledge projects.
Russell: Hon. Hedy Fry is the incumbent in Vancouver South, and is a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In a meeting I had with her, and in public statements, she has articulated a view of copyright focused entirely on protecting industrial production methods (major music labels and studios).
Byers: I’m not surprised by Ms. Fry’s position, since the Liberal Party traditionally has been more responsive to large corporations than individuals Canadians. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that I’m seeking to replace her as the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre!
Q: How would you differentiate your views on copyright from those of Hon. Hedy Fry?
Byers: Ms. Fry doesn’t seem to have much of an opinion on copyright outside of her party line. I believe that fair copyright is one of the most important areas of interface between average citizens and the government in a 21st century knowledge based economy. As such, striking a fair balance between the rights of ALL stakeholders is critical, not simply favouring the major entertainment producers.
Dr. Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. Prior to 2005, he was a Professor of Law at Duke University in North Carolina where he taught-among other things-international trade law, including international intellectual property. He is running for the federal NDP nomination in Vancouver Centre, which includes Yaletown, Coal Harbour, False Creek and the eastern portion of Kitsilano.