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…
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.
