Ethical reuse of content. People are doing it on the Web, at home, and at work. My wife burns copies of DVDs for the kids, so that they don't ruin the originals. I repost quotes and pictures from other blogs and websites for comment and discussion on this site. My family records TV shows and movies with our PVR. Though in Canada, I am concerned that some of these historical rights will soon disappear.

Don't get me wrong, content creators have a legitimate concern. They need answers to this most important question:
How can I make money (a living) from my content when it is so easy to copy and reuse?

I believe they can make a living in Today's world. I believe that new business models are being developed to embrace the realities of Today's digital media market place. I do not believe we should be creating legislation to maintain old business models and I'm not alone. To that end, a group of interested Web professionals have started an open group to discuss, inform, and promote the work being done on this issue. It's called, PlayTheWeb.org.

[PlayTheWeb.org] is interested in promoting the idea of “Web Play” through the ethical reuse of content on the Web. We want to report, comment, and promote Technologies, Techniques, Applications, and Business models that move this idea forward.
By ethical we mean reusing content while maintaining respect to the original rights of the copyright holder(s). ”Respect” is intentionally an ambiguous word left to interpretation of those engaged in the creative process.

There is a great deal of excellent work being done on proactive licensing for content available for reuse. There are people focused on tools, protocols, and formats to ensure content can be moved among systems, software, and networks. Play the Web is strictly focused on technologies and business models to support content reuse. If this is also of interest to you, please have your say and get involved.

One of the first things PlayTheWeb.org is trying to support is the development of a new open content attribution format in order to help content creators and application developers publish where and from whom reused content is being sourced.

I'm am presently a member of the Conservative Party of Canada though my membership will soon expire and not be renewed. I've been a supporter of the Party since I voted for Brian Mulroney during the Free Trade election. I was a member of the Liberal Party when I voted for Brian Mulroney. However, I could not vote for the Liberal Party that year. They were against Free Trade and I was for Free Trade. Despite the scare tactics of the Liberal Party campaign, I had no fear that Canada was about to be absorbed by the US, either culturally or economically. I believed that Canadians knew who we were as a people, and that we could compete in the market place. I believed that competition spurs innovation. I believed Canadians should have access to the best products and services wether they are sourced in Canada or the US, or the World for that matter. The Liberal Party under John Turner did not believe Canadians were confident in their identity or that Canadian companies could adapt to market forces and compete. We needed to be protected from 'the world' out there.

Although there were other issues and policies offered by both parties, I felt each party's position on the Free Trade Agreement reflected their macro-view on how they would govern on other issues. Would they govern from a fearful and protectionist position, keeping Canadians from competition or would they govern with strength, confident in our ability to adapt, compete, and excel. I voted for Free Trade and let my Liberal Party membership expire and eventually became a member of the Conservative Party.

Now with the pending introduction of Bill C-61 (or Canada's Digital Millennium Copyright Act), I will be letting my membership to the Conservative Party of Canada expire. I'm not likely to re-join the Liberal Party (I'm more than a little fed up with both these parties), but I will do my part to help defeat any party that wants to introduce a bill like this to the Canadian people.

Like Free Trade, BC-61 is a Bellwether issue for me. The Conservative Party's support for this bill goes completely counter to why I supported them 20 years ago. The bill is supposed to protect copyright holders, but in reality its purpose is to protect the 20th Century business models of traditional media. They need to be protected from the "world out there". It's a fearful bill. It does not show confidence in Canadian companies to adapt to new realities of the digital world. It puts us at a long term competitive disadvantage vis a vis the rest of the world. Most importantly, it will make criminals out of regular Canadians who copy and reuse content ethically.

Sources:
Business faces challenges under copyright legislation
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 39: TPMs - No DRM Labelling Requirement
Legislation is severely flawed Bill C-61 has some unforeseen implications
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 40: TPMs - No Regular Review Process
Bill C-61 Flawed
Fair dealing missing under rules of new copyright law
Copyright shifts format
Copyright Lobbying Behind Closed Doors

A friend of mine sent me a note on Terry Corcoran's latest editorial supporting Jim Prentice's copyright legislation. In it he labeled everyone opposed to the legislation - Telecom Trotskyites. I am still shaking my head that this story came from the National Post. I thought they were for Less Regulation, Less Government, and More Competition within free markets. This doesn't sound like it.

I love the allusion to Trotsky. Is this an allusion to the mass of people who are engaged in the industry in question actually protesting a bad bill? This makes us all Troskyites? My close friend and business partner Trevor Doerksen was an organizer for the Prentice open house protest in Calgary. We both believe in economic and personal freedom. We own our own companies and we own shares in other people's companies. I'm not too sure Trotsky would be a friend of ours.

It would seem that Terry's opinion is that the Government and a few large struggling media companies should legislate draconian restrictions on legal and ethical consumer behavior. The state's will over ours. This is 100% counter to economic liberalism. If Mr. Corcoran looks up people from Trotsky's time (1930s) who were diametrically opposed to economic liberalism he will find two very interesting individuals from history. Is this really what the National Post's is advocating?

Beyond the issue of actually curtailing ethical use of content, I and others believe that bill is counter to competition and innovation and will handicap Canada. Transparency and open access to information is today's reality. Even the Chinese government cannot control the information that people get in their country, and they are trying desperately.

Surprisingly, he lumps copyright issues with net neutrality. First net neutrality is a bloated on not well defined term in my opinion. However most advocates of Net Neutrality are focused on ensuring competition and innovation of all enterprises - the way of free markets. (Something, until now I thought Terry supported.) Take a simple point, without a level of net neutrality VOIP innovation would never have taken place, because it never would have been adopted by consumers - Telcos would shut it down because it cannibalizes their business. However, VOIP is great for consumers and businesses. It now saves my company about $2,000 a year. Sure that sucks for Telus. But they know how to compete. They can and must adapt. Terry obviously would prefer the government legislate them into a non-competitive advantage and monopoly on data services so that a small local company like FUGU Phone cannot compete.

Business models around the control of information and data are in utter collapse because new technology and consumption patterns have taken root. Mr. Corcoran, obviously believes that Canada should legislate ourselves back to the 1980s to sustain those failing businesses. I personally still believe in free markets and innovation and believe the markets will bring forth new businesses and opportunities, but to do so you must compete not sick your lawyers on our MPs to compete for you.

This has nothing to do with me, Michael Geist, or other thoughtful people being against copyright. We are all for new copyright legislation in Canada - we WANT it. But as a creator of IP, as a representative of individuals who create IP this bill is misguided and damaging.

I'd write a letter to the editor, but that would put control of my information into Terry's hands. It's a new world, Terry.

Additional Links:

Kempton Lam makes a point by point rebuttal.

Ars Technica is reporting that Congressman Howard Berman (AKA Congressman Hollywood) the chair of the Congressional Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property is advocating the gutting of the Safe Harbor Provision in the DMCA. Protecting copyright owners is critical, but Rep. Berman appears from this report (and this one) to be advocating the establishment of Information Police.

One more step towards 1984.

I've been a sleep at the wheel. It seemed so far off, and I wasn't too concerned. I honestly thought this would take care of itself with some smart people focused on the issue. But now, Michael Geist has made it clear that the Government is tabling new copyright legislation this session.

Michael posted 30 things we can do. I strongly urge you to take the time and read this and PLEASE take action.