ARCHIVÉE — Savino (En anglais seulement)

PROCESSUS DE RÉFORME DU DROIT D'AUTEUR

SUGGESTIONS REÇUES RELATIVEMENT AUX DOCUMENTS DE CONSULTATION

---

Les documents reçus seront affichés dans la langue officielle dans laquelle ils auront été soumis. Toutes les suggestions sont affichées comme elles ont été reçues par les ministères; toutefois, toutes les informations sur les adresses ont été enlevées.

---

Suggestion de Massimo Savino reçue le 3 août 2001 1h31 par courriel

Objet : Keep it open : Canadian Copyright

Dear Officers,

On the subject of copyright reform, it seems clear to me that we as a nation should not go the way of the US in protecting artists. America as a whole has come out strongly in favour of enhancing copyright. This has had a marked effect, as you know. But it has not protected artists properly, rather it has protected the powers of artificial persons -- media conglomerates -- at the expense of artists, and of society as a whole.

Remedying copyright has already had an effect with the 199x Act, one that has stultified academic freedom. Extending those powers will give corporate entities the ability to browbeat citizens into buying its products and delimit choice.

The so-called 'cultural industries' will be wrecked by this. In particular, live performance arts will be discouraged in favour of the recorded, the contrived, and the vitiated. I'd say so-called reality programming fits all three.

I worry that extending copyright will turn the Canadian Internet into a further feeding ground for the media companies. How? Think of what happens when a copyright dispute occurs. Two sides face off in court over one party's perceived abuse of the licensing rights of another. Larger interests will statistically have a greater capacity for intimidation, as they have a greater range of financial and human resources, and this will in turn weaken other aspects of our culture to deleterious ends.

A previous attempt at 'defending the culture' identified explicitly a need to promote creativity through national content provisions, colloquially known as the CanCon regulations. After the Free Trade Agreement was signed, common opinion held that the idea of improving these regulations was now a non-issue. Leaving that aside, however, what I am trying to point out is that mindshare has as much importance in successful and legitimate rights defense as copyright, if not more.

What rankles about copyright extension is the implication that the general public is composed of lawless people without moral sense and greed. And that has the effect of obscuring a real problem, that of growing corporate power at a much greater cost to civil society and individuals.

Canada has supposedly one of the highest reporting levels worldwide of a number of computer-related economic facts. As might be argued by media companies, these facts should make us into raving pirates. But as we shall see, they do not.

• High cable penetration, the result of telecommunications policy during the last four decades
• The highest numbers of Net-enabled broadband users in the world (see above point)
• The second-highest number of heavy internet users, defined as using the Net for 10+ hours per week
• The highest levels of CD-burning penetration in the world
• A core of universities, technical colleges and private schools delivering scores of technically adept and brilliantly creative people (Waterloo, Sheridan Colege of Art)

Are we a country of copyright-violating CD pirates, then? Compared to countries such as China, we are not even in the running. What the above adds up to, though, is a nation of citizens that is comfortable with the ability to spread information quickly and effectively through the Net. Extending copyright will turn that fountain off, and diminish national sovereignty, by further giving rights to foreign actors at the expense of our own citizenry. It will clash with other aspects of government policy as well.

The Minister of Industry, Brian Tobin, pledged a short time ago to increase connectivity across the country. Think of what might happen if copyright were strengthened. The only players for connectivity will be cable and telephone companies. Let's say that for the sake of argument that we recognise that the medium is different from television, the communication has to be two-way. Once the pipes are in, there will be a need for content - both from the companies and the users. Giving copyright a rod will increase the possibility that the Canadian Internet will turn into television, because the only actors consistently able to enforce their rights will be the commercial ones. In other words, strengthening copyright will mean weaker Internet communities.

What stops us from becoming pirates? Is it copyright? Or is it economic, social and political freedom? Do we really need to change the laws to suit media interests? I think we would want to foster a spirit of openness where the individual can take part in the exchange of ideas, knowing that its existence played a vital role in enabling him to defend his own corner of civil society. Thank you for the opportunity to put my opinion forth.

---