Last week I noted that following the international standard on copyright is complicated, since there are many countries that are moving ahead or already have reforms that better serve the interests of users. Things just got a bit more interesting as a French court has dismissed a lawsuit against an alleged file sharer for both downloading and uploading. Much like the federal court in Canada, the French court relied on the private copying system in reaching its conclusion that the alleged file sharing was not unlawful (arguments raised by a consumer group). While CRIA has argued that Canada is in danger of becoming an "analogue island," it would appear that the island just got a bit more crowded.TagsShareTuesday February 07, 2006
A pair of postings this morning provide an interesting, albeit discouraging, contrast between Canada and the United States on the role of the education community and copyright. Howard Knopf highlights the dangers of "excess caution", pointing to Copyright Matters, a document produced by several Canadian education groups. The document adopts an incredibly conservative approach to copyright with little of Supreme Court of Canada's enthusiasm for balance and user rights. The document fails the education community by envisioning the role of educators as guardians of knowledge rather than as disseminators of our culture and heritage.
Compare that approach with a speech delivered to the Association of American Publishers yesterday by University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman defending her university's participation in the Google Book Search program. Coleman argues that the program is "a legal, ethical, and noble endeavor that will transform our society."
Read the full speech, if only to see the kind of leadership that Canada needs on this issue.TagsShareTuesday February 07, 2006
The NY Times reports
that AOL and Yahoo! plan to implement a new email certification program
that will ultimately force commercial emailers to pay a fraction of a
cent per email to deliver their emails. The program, discussed throughout the week in the
trade press (here, here and here) envisions a multi-tiered approach to email:
AOL's defence of the program sounds much like the ISPs who defend a
two-tiered Internet. It argues that there are different classes of
service with regular mail and that this program simply replicates that
approach for email. Marketers, many of whom opposed taking strong
legislative measures against spam, now find themselves facing
significant additional costs to getting their email delivered.
- email from an address within a user's address book would proceed directlly to the user's inbox
- email that is certified (ie. paid for) would also proceed directly to the user's inbox
- email that is not certified would pass through AOL's spam
filters. The NY Times reports that one in five legitimate commercial
emails is blocked by the filters. Moreover, the filters frequently
strip links and images from the email.
I see several problems here. First, the new program has seemingly
little to do with spam since we're dealing with legitimate email. It
appears that this is really about a new revenue stream for providers
such as AOL and it may help push the ISPs toward further
differentiation of quality of service.
Second, should the revenues become significant, the program may
ultimately create an incentive to limit the reliability of anti-spam
filtering. If this does generate millions of dollars (as the Times
suggests), then AOL may find that it is profitable to have spam filters
that block lots of legitimate content since that will encourage more
senders to pay the certified email fees. Indeed, the program flips the
traditional incentives since the less reliable the traditional email
systems, the more valuable the certified email programs.
Third, AOL plans to discontinue a program known as an "enhanced white
list", which currently allows certain reliable email senders to get
their email through without it facing the prospect of being blocked by
spam filters. AOL now says that it will eliminate the enhanced white
list by the summer, forcing senders to sign up for its certified email
Fourth, the new costs will hurt users (who will pay indirectly for
these new charges) and many non-profits, activist groups, and smaller
businesses, who simply won't be able to afford these new costs.
TagsShareSaturday February 04, 2006
As I read reports tonight that France has advanced plans to legalize P2P, I was reminded that during the copyright reform process, groups such as CRIA are often heard to say that Canada needs to follow the lead of the rest of the world. In light of recent events, I suspect that many user groups might be inclined to agree. We could follow:
With a new Conservative cabinet set to be named on Monday, it will be important to remind officials that international standards means much more than just deciding what to do about the WIPO Internet treaties.TagsShareFriday February 03, 2006
Sony Canada has been hit with another class action suit arising from last year's rootkit fiasco. This suit is particularly interesting for a pair of reasons. First, it contains new allegations about Sony's conduct in Canada. In particular, it alleges:
Second, the complaint includes considerable analysis of Sony's alleged violation of both consumer protection and national privacy legislation. Given the analysis, the question that immediately comes to mind is whether the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Competition Bureau have launched investigations into the Sony rootkit incident. If not, why not?TagsShareThursday February 02, 2006
- Sony released at least 34 titles in Canada with sales of approximately 120,000 CDs
- Sony waited two extra weeks to begin recalling CDs in Canada as compared to the United States
- Sony did not do enough to remove the CDs from store shelves. One of the named complainants purchased the CD on Boxing Day, weeks after the recall was announced and the complaint alleges that the CDs are still being sold.
I'm just returning from participating in the OECD's Future of the Digital Economy conference in Rome. The conference attracted about 350 attendees with all expected companies, lobby groups, NGOs, and governments in attendance. I may write more about the conference next week, but it is worth highlighting my major take-away, namely the clear divisions for what are likely to be the two big battles in this area in 2006 (and possibly beyond).
The first big battle again involves digital rights management (DRM) technologies. While one might be forgiven for thinking that we're back in 1996 rather than 2006, but DRM came up at virtually every panel. From my perspective, the news is that there is at least some acknowledgement of the problems involving DRM. The privacy, security, innovation, etc. issues are still largely ignored, however, there is a tacit (and sometimes explicit) recognition that DRM has created consumer concerns.
The battle lines revolve around the source of these concerns. For the content companies, the problem lies not with their DRM but rather with the interoperability problems engendered by DRM. They argue that the problem therefore rests with the electronics companies, who insist on releasing devices that won't recognize all DRM, thus leaving consumers stuck with products that frequently can't be shifted from device to device. This discussion reminded me of the recent headline during the Canadian election which ran along the lines of "Martin attacks Layton for not attacking Harper." In this context, the not-particularly catchy headline would be "Content companies attack electronic makers for hurting their attack on consumers with their own attack on consumers."
Incredibly, this is described as a "neutrality" issue. The content companies would like a device neutral world (except when they don't, such as with the broadcast flag) in which DRM will work on all devices. Indeed, there was some discussion about the need for government mandated interoperability.
Another recurring theme at the conference pointed to the other side in this debate. It was remarkable to see the amount of discussion around the growing importance of user-generated content. Although unfortunately tagged as the rise of the "amateur" (or marginally better "creative activation"), there were noteworthy presentations on Creative Commons, the BBC Creative Archive, Flickr, Google Book Search, and blogs (Technorati founder Jason Sifry reported that 75,000 new blogs are being created every day with Japanese emerging as the leading language for blog postings in January - less than 1/3 of blog postings were in English).
Among this group not only is DRM not needed (which drew a response from Intel's representative who seemed genuinely puzzled at its absence), but it is harmful with negative effects for free expression, user acceptance, as well as privacy and security. This again brought up the growing call for DRM consumer protection that would better protect against DRM misuse.
Given the "buy your senator an ipod" campaign in the U.S., I expect that this is where the battle will be fought. Once everyone in the Senate has an iPod and experiences the limitations of DRM, the response from the content companies will be to blame the consumer electronics industry and to try to force changes to devices, not the DRM'd content itself.
The other big battle will be well known to readers of this blog - network neutrality. The issue surfaced repeatedly in questions and comments as a serious threat to the digital economy. That said, Verizon was on hand to present its IPTV, which looked a lot like a private Internet. It isn't described as such of course, but we were told that the residents of Keeler, Texas are thrilled with the new high speed lines that permit transmission of high-definition television and other content. Content companies also like it - so much so that Disney was delighted to strike a deal with Verizon to deliver its content in this way. And it turns out that Disney gets more than just fast delivery of content in the bargain as Verizon has agreed to assist them with their IP enforcement efforts.
Ultimately, if the OECD's conference was unable to arrive at a consensus on the future of the digital economy, it succeeded in highlighting where the future battles will be fought.TagsShareWednesday February 01, 2006
The Canadian Press picks up on the story involving Nettwerk's backing of a defendant in an RIAA suit. The story includes some additional comments and insights from Nettwerk's Terry McBride. McBride says that he has the support of all the artists that he manages including Avril Lavigne, the Barenaked Ladies, and Sarah McLachlin. In fact, he notes that he's received emails of support from several U.S. congressmen, a U.S. senator and some record label presidents. Says McBride:
"It's time to step up and say 'This is crazy.' My hope is that this (Nettwerk's support) will create a positive concrete conversation between the artists, their managers and the record labels as to what the future is. . . The fan is the future. Suing the fan is like shooting yourself in the foot."
Graham Henderson, the president of CRIA, was apparently unavailable for comment.Update: The Toronto Star has coverage with yet more comments from Terry McBride, including "Avril would never sue a fan, so obviously the RIAA can't claim that they're doing this on Avril's behalf because she wouldn't be suing anyone. Their interests are very different than the interests of our artists."
Update II: Terry McBride, who clearly is not planning on remaining silent on this issue, is featured in this podcast that includes an interview with the Nettwerk CEO.
Update III: Graham Henderson speaks.
TagsShareTuesday January 31, 2006
Several Canwest papers run a story this morning (Montreal Gazette, Edmonton Journal)
on the move toward a two-tiered Internet in Canada. I'm quoted expressing
concern, but the most important part of the story comes from Telus,
which not only confirms the move toward tieried pricing ("The industry
has to move toward different charges for Internet customers with
diverse needs"), but for the first time acknowledges that the company
is considering matching the BellSouth approach of charging websites for
access to their network ("The company is also thinking about charging
large firms such as Google
or eBay for access to its network, something that Bell South and
AT&T are also proposing in the United States.")
Interestingly, the Toronto Star has a story
today featuring an interview with CRTC Commissioner Kevin French who
notes the concern with the two-tiered Internet but says "We're aware of
the problem and believe we have the legal equipment to
deal with it, but we don't have a case in front of us. Somebody has to
file a complaint."
There is no need to wait. With the Canadian telcos on record stating
that this is where they are headed, the time for the CRTC and Competition Bureau to act is now.TagsShareMonday January 30, 2006
My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, freely available version, BBC version)
examines the U.S. Department of Justice's demand for search data from
the world's leading search engines. I argue that while much of the
focus has been on the privacy implications of the USDOJ request, the
story highlights a much bigger issue - the significant risks and
rewards that arise from retaining enormous amounts of data.
The authorities' initial data request was stunning for its sheer
breadth. The USDOJ requested all web addresses (URLs) contained in the
Google database as well as a record of "all queries that have been
entered into your company' s search engine between June 1, 2005 and July
31, 2005." In other words, it wanted a list chronicling every website
in Google database along with literally every search request over a
two-month period. When it faced resistance, the USDOJ agreed to a
narrower request that included a random sample of one million web
addresses as well as a list of every search string during a one-week
Although none of this data relates to a specific individual - it covers
hundreds of millions of Internet users - the request has still produced
a chilling effect as many begin to question whether search requests
thought to be anonymous could ultimately be tracked back to them.
In a broader context, the demand also highlights the growing challenge
associated with data retention. All companies, particularly those
operating online, recognize the value of retaining information about
their users. Some information is essential to providing customer
service, while other data can be used to provide users with a
customized experience by eliminating the need to re-enter passwords,
automatically posting relevant content, or sending permission-based
email marketing that accurately reflects the users' interests. The
value of information extends beyond personal data. Once aggregated,
retailers can spot trends among demographic groups, ISPs can gauge
usage patterns, and search engines can identify what is on the minds of
the world' s Internet users.
Given its value, it comes as little surprise to find that companies
retain such data for lengthy periods, using sophisticated data mining
technologies to analyze the information. While these previous examples
illustrate the rewards of data retention (which benefit both companies
and their customers), significant risks also exist.
The same data can be mined for purposes that extend far beyond the
reasons for which it was initially provided. The Google case provides
a classic illustration in this regard as mere search terms take on a
new significance in the hands of Department of Justice lawyers. Some
data is not consciously provided at all - it is simply gathered
automatically with little thought given to its potential uses. For
example, private parties may demand ISP server logs that are generated
automatically to assist with new defamation or copyright lawsuits. One
of the biggest risks associated with data retention comes not from
requests that proceed through the legal system, but from security
vulnerabilities that puts sensitive data into the hands of hackers.
Last year, more than 50 million people in North America received
notifications that their personal information had been placed at risk
due to a security breach.
While Canadian privacy law establishes general obligations on data
retention and destruction, there are few clear legal obligations to
either retain or destroy information. In light of recent events, it is
time to search for some solutions. TagsShareMonday January 30, 2006
Nettwerk Music Group, Canada's leading privately owned record label (and a label that refuses to use copy-controls), has taken the remarkable step of joining the fight against the RIAA's strategy of lawsuits against alleged file sharers. The company, which represents some of Canada's top artists including Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne, and Barenaked Ladies, has intervened in a lawsuit against a Texas teenager. The RIAA claimed thousands in damages based on alleged downloads, including Avril Lavigne's "Sk8er Boi."
Nettwerk CEO Terry McBride says in response:
"Suing music fans is not the solution, it's the problem. Litigation is not 'artist development.' Litigation is a deterrent to creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love. The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists' best interests."
Nettwerk Music Group has agreed to pay the total expense of all legal fees as well as any fines should the family lose the case against the RIAA.
Update: So "wow" isn't particularly analytical and I think this calls for a bit more. Bob Lefsetz, of the Lefsetz Letter, comments this morning that this may be the beginning of the end of the RIAA suits. Perhaps, though the cracks in the recording industry strategy can be seen with IFPI's recent acknowledgment that file sharing usage is largely unchanged over the past two years despite more than 20,000 suits along with the growing number of Canadian artists, including Matthew Good, Steve Paige of the Barenaked Ladies, and Jane Siberry, who are speaking out against the suits or seeking alternative approaches.
While I think this is a good thing, better would be the prospect of shifting the dynamics of two important debates. At the moment, copyright reform is often treated as synonymous with addressing file sharing (ie. see the Toronto Star response to the Bulte piece last weekend). This has been one of the most unfortunate side effects of file sharing as a meaningful debate on the future of music in Canada as well as the best path for copyright reform is lost amid the cries of sharing, stealing, and private copying.
We need a real discussion of music in Canada that goes beyond file sharing to include private copying, fair use, the limits on the use of DRM, the transparency of collectives, canadian content requirements in the Internet era, and support for the artists. It is a debate that must include the independent labels who are responsible for 90 percent of new Canadian music, the artists from all perspectives, and user interests. It is a debate that is about much more than file sharing.
We also need a real discussion of about copyright reform that goes beyond file sharing to include using new technologies in our schools, encouraging new creativity, as well as protecting privacy and security. It is a debate that would look to the recent Google cache decision in the United States and question whether we would get the same result in Canada. It is a debate that would look at crown copyright, statutory damages, and fair use.
If we begin to get these debates, Nettwerk's move won't be the beginning of the end. It will be the beginning of something much bigger.
Update II: The mainstream media in Canada is starting to pick up on this story with articles in the Toronto Star, Canada.com, and the CBC.
TagsShareThursday January 26, 2006