My weekly technology law column (Vancouver Sun version, Ottawa Citizen version, Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the emergence of new models of book publishing that might be described as "books 2.0." For example, Wikitravel, one of the Internet's most acclaimed travel web sites, was launched in 2003 by Montreal residents Evan Prodromou and Michele Ann Jenkins. Using the same wiki collaborative technology that has proven so successful for Wikipedia, the Wikitravel site invited travelers to post their comments and experiences about places around the world in an effort to build a community-generated travel guide. In less than five years, the site has accumulated more than 30,000 online travel guides in eighteen languages, with over 10,000 editorial contributions each week. The content is freely available under a Creative Commons license that allows the public to use, copy, or edit the guides. Building on Wikitravel's success, Prodromou and Jenkins recently established Wikitravel Press, which introduced its first two titles earlier this month. Wikitravel Press represents a new approach to travel book publishing based on Internet collaborative tools and print-on-demand technologies that should capture the attention of the industry for several reasons.
Archive for February, 2008
Industry Minister Jim Prentice faced questions yesterday (transcript, video) during Question Period about the allegations of copyright infringement by the Conservative Party.
Rob Hyndman reports on yesterday's meeting of the local Toronto chapter (which is approaching 500 members).
My posting yesterday on the SAC proposal resulted in several emails that essentially asked – if you are against DRM and against levies, what do you propose to do? That's a fair question, though I did not think that the post was meant to bash levies but rather those that dismiss alternative proposals as distractions. I did note that I think the SAC proposals suffer from some significant flaws. To reiterate and expand:
- There are always competing policy priorities. Given the importance of broadband access for commerce, communication, culture, and education, I think that any proposal must not unduly undermine the policy goal of universal access. I think that a $5 monthly increase would represent a sufficiently significant price increase such that it might drive some away from broadband.
- The SAC proposal only addresses music. I expect that others – video, software, and cultural groups – will also demand their piece of the pie. In fact, that's already happening with the proposal for ISPs to contribute 2.5 percent of profits for creating Canadian new media content. I think that any proposal must comprehensively deal with P2P and this one does not.
- The $5 monthly fee strikes me as absurdly high given the revenues of the music industry. Music continues to generate significant revenues and this additional billion in revenue bears little relation to any possible revenue decreases that might be attributed to P2P (which is itself debatable).
- I am not convinced that this model requires government intervention at this time. These are still early days and there is the possibility that the market could adopt this model – either by a voluntary consumer fee or a negotiated ISP license for its customers – without legislative intervention.
- There are some doubts whether the proposal is consistent with Canada's international copyright obligations.
- There are some doubts about the fairness of the distribution of a levy.
Notwithstanding the doubts, I am not an absolute critic of levies.