When meeting with some members of
parliament I have
used
a gun control analogy to explain
digital locks applied to
communications technology. A minor form of gun control is
being hotly debated in parliament and the media in the context of a
private
members Bill C-391, which has "repeal of long-gun
registry" in its title. A highly controversial form of
third-party control over communications technology is part of
copyright
Bill C-32,
even though this key aspect of the bill is not yet adequately
understood.
I felt it might be an
interesting thought experiment to compare and contrast these two
proposals and the political debate surrounding them. In my case this
thinking was useful for me to better understand the opponents of the
Canadian
firearms registry, and thus it may be helpful in allowing
others to better understand opponents to legal protection for
technological measures.
Here is how the analogy goes: Imagine a form of gun control where all guns are locked. Legal
protection is granted to these locks such that it is illegal for the
owner to unlock without permission, including for uses of the gun
that would otherwise be lawful. In order to use a gun, its owner
must call up an animal rights activist to get permission.
This is the essence of legal
protection for technological measures applied to devices. The
communications technology is locked by the manufacturer. Legal
protection is proposed to be granted in Bill C-32 to these locks such
that it is illegal for the owner to unlock the communications
technology without permission, including for uses of the technology
that would otherwise be lawful under existing Canadian copyright law
as well as the traditional definitions of copyright. The permitted
uses of the communications technology are restricted to those
negotiated between the hardware manufacturers and the incumbent
content industry, with the incumbent content industry being the least
likely to grant permission. This is a set of companies successful
prior to the invention of this new technology, and that wish that
this new communications technology never existed in the first place.
The following are, in point
form, some comparisons in how these two different restrictions of
technology are understood and being debated. To save space I will
use the acronym TPMs (technological protection measures) to describe
technologies used to grant someone other than the owner control over
communications technology. It is easier than writing communications
technology control, digital rights/restrictions management (DRM), or
the whole slew of other related terms to describe these ab(uses) of
technology.
- When a gun is used, the
result can be death. The death may be the intended target, or an
unintended target, but the most common use is to cause the death of
something that was previously living. Many abuses of guns are
already illegal under a variety of different laws.
- When information technology
is used, the result is knowledge is shared. It may be beneficial or
potentially harmful for various parties for that knowledge to be
shared. The most common form of potentially harmful sharing is
copyright infringement. Some copyright infringement leads to loss of
revenue, while others have no effect or increase revenue. The
economic analysis of copyright infringement is quite complex. Other
potentially harmful forms of communication are regulated, where it is
the specific idea being communicated and not the technology itself
that is being restricted.
- Many members of the
Conservative party in Canada oppose mere registration of firearms. On the other hand, the same party is thus far pushing legislation in
the form of C-32 which legally protects someone other than the owner
of technology being in control of that technology.
- Many members of the NDP are
strong supporters of gun control, with there being a split in the
caucus about the long gun registry. The NDP has Charlie Angus as
their critic on copyright, and he has been an outspoken
critic against legal protection of TPMs and C-32. Charlie
was also supportive of repealing the long gun registry, but may
change his mind because of political
interference from Conservatives who seem intent to defeat
their own proposal.
- The strongest supporters of
the registry and TPMs are people who, when being honest, will admit
they wished the underlying technology didn't exist at all. It is not
just registration or manufacturer control they are ultimately
interested in, but abolishing. Registry and manufacturer control
over these technologies are just seen as steps in the right
direction.
- "Something must be done. This is something". I have heard this from both supporters of
the long gun registry as well as supporters of legal protection for
TPMs. They are generally unwilling to discuss whether this specific
"something" helps or hinders the alleged problem they are
trying to solve.
- Many supporters of the long
gun registry are supporters of gun control. They see the registry as
a form of gun control, while many opponents don't see how it relates
to gun control at all.
- Many supporters of TPMs are
supporters of stronger copyright protection. They see TPMs as a form
of stronger copyright protection, while opponents don't see how TPMs
relate to copyright at all (Note the Bill C-32 FAQ
where I argue TPMs are a matter of contract/e-commerce law).
- Police forces generally
support the restrictions. Police forces may not give adequate weight
to the benefits to society and/or the individual citizen of
technology which has both beneficial and harmful uses. As a matter
of policing it is simpler to reduce the existence and/or citizen
control over the technology. This is not an insult of police forces,
but a recognition of human nature.
Please add in the comments
other ways in which these two policies and the debates around them
are similar or different.
---
Russell McOrmond is a self employed consultant,
policy coordinator for CLUE:
Canada's Association for Free/Libre and Open Source Software,
co-coordinator for Getting Open Source Logic INto Governments (GOSLING),
and host for Digital
Copyright Canada.