-
Canadian Copyright Reform: To whose benefit?
Filed under Culture, Economics, Education, Politics, Popular Culture, Sharing, Social Media, TechnologyJul 6Here’s a letter a wrote to the Honourable John Weston, my Member of Parliament, voicing my concern over Bill C-32, the Canadian Copyright Reform Bill.
Dear Mr. Weston,
I am writing to you today to voice my concerns at what I see as a seriously misguided attempt to evolve fair and equitable law around the creation & dissemination of original works by artists, creators & authors.
Digital versus physical: property vs. ideas—I may lend someone my physical property, or I may sell or gift others my physical property. If I lend someone a book, once they have read and returned that book, the real value—the ideas represented by words & letters printed on paper and assembled into a book—is still mine, as well as imprinted into the mind of the person who I lent the book to. I still have the important aspect that is represented by the book, as well as the physical artifact, and most importantly, so does the person I lent the book to. In their mind. If the ideas represented by the creation of that book are important enough to the person who borrowed the book from me, that person will in all likelihood seek out more information by the book’s creator. As Tim O’Reilly, founder & publisher of O’Reilly Books has said: “More authors are victims of obscurity than piracy”. Mind share is very hard to build. This bill will not help anyone new to the marketplace do so.
Evolution & progress usually go in 1 direction. To attempt to enshrine into law rules that stop this from happening fossilizes business, creates monopoly, and builds frustration amongst consumers. When obviously better means of delivering customer value are available, and ignored, how can any political party that espouses an ideology of market-driven economics think that it is following that ideology by stopping the evolution of new business models? If the organizations that are so happy to meet with the sponsors of Bill C-32 are afraid or too lazy to innovate, then by current market-force economic theory, they should be forced out of the market by newer, more efficient providers of the same products & services. Market forces are not in effect when legislation is required to protect an industry’s value chains.
Most business-minded people work very hard to disintermediate unnecessary, wasteful steps in their business’s value chains. This is called maximizing efficiency, and delivering shareholder value. With the technology advances over the last several decades, and the familiarity and experience more and more people have with them, large distribution and sales networks are being made redundant. Is it honestly called “market forces at work” to fossilize the content consolidation businesses built in the middle of the 20th century, so that they can continue to monopolize in perpetuity what is no longer required in order to deliver to the market what customers want?
Government focus has been on discussing this with entrenched business models that want to keep things the way they were a half-century century ago. History, social science, technology & economic, does not work that way. Governments that implement legislation to fulfill the short-term goals of powerful lobby groups do not stay in power for long. The genie of a global network delivering the combined knowledge of all of mankind TO all of connected mankind cannot be put back in the bottle, on command of the declining content delivery industry. Governments were also lobbied by the stagecoach and livery industries to stop the spread of the automotive innovators in the early 20th century.
As the French learned in 1940, a fixed line of defence pointed in one direction simply means your opponents will manoeuvre around those defences, and defeat you that way.
Legislation, and the organizations that draft it, that does not explore and understand the landscape in which this legislation is intended to operate, make the situation worse, not better. This is akin to the Catholic church stopping Galileo from writing about his observations of the solar system, because it didn’t suit the Church’s ideology.
I urge you to voice questions to the House regarding these concerns. I am not alone in raising them, and I do not want to see my country create criminals out of its citizens to support the antiquated business models of industries that need to evolve, or go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. That is not the way Canada does things.
Respectfully yours,
Bruce M. Campbell
2 Responses to “Canadian Copyright Reform: To whose benefit?”
-
Tweets that mention beemcee.com » Blog Archive » Canadian Copyright Reform: To whose benefit? -- Topsy.com said on July 6th, 2010 at 11:08 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bruce M Campbell. Bruce M Campbell said: Post Edited: Canadian Copyright Reform: To whose benefit? (http://bit.ly/cqLqiy) [...]
-
The status quo sucks.
Sent from my iPhone 4G
