2008-07-30 Geof's Dhaliwal Townhall Speech

I am here as a member of Vancouver Fair Copyright, an informal group of concerned citizens. I am concerned that Bill C-61 threatens Canadian art, culture, and innovation.

I am not here because I want free music. I am not here because I want free movies. I am not here because I don’t care about artists.

I am here because I *do* care about artists. What they produce is not simply entertainment. It is essential for our culture and for our democracy. Artists are worried about this bill. Appropriation Art calls it “censorship”. They say this is the first time a democratic government outlaws an art form. Canadian musicians say they see nothing here for them. Documentary filmmakers decry changes that will block them from commenting on our history and our society.

They are not alone. Canadians from coast to coast oppose this bill. We oppose its intrusion into our lives. We oppose its prohibition of legitimate activity. We oppose its threat to artists. For many of us are creators too. Who has sung a song instead of only listening? Who has made a collage? Filmed a video? Contributed to the Web? I have had young people tell me how with digital technology they learned to edit videos and music. Now they are creating original content. They are the artists of the future. Before us lies the promise of a cultural golden age, in which creativity and art are things we do, not simply things we consume.

But under this bill, art would be locked up. Not by humans - not by a judge or a court of law, but by digital locks: by computers with no ability to distinguish the good from the bad. These locks are embedded in our technology. There are locks in your iPod, your cell phone, your DVD player, your computer. They decide what uses are permitted and what uses are not. We may own the devices, but the locks control what they can do. And we do not control the locks. This law turns our computers into our guardians. It makes the locks inviolable, regardless of what they dictate, regardless of whether it has anything to do with copyright. It could be illegal to buy a DVD in Europe and watch it in Canada. It could be illegal to unlock your cell phone to use abroad. If someone placed a digital lock on it, it could be illegal to copy the text of a Shakespeare play.

This law would be an ever-present intrusion in our everyday lives. Ordinary activities in the privacy of our homes would be outlawed. Wherever there is silicon, there can be locks. Wherever there is software, there can be locks. Our cars have chips in them, accessed by mechanics when we go for a tune-up. With a lock, the manufacturer could determine who is permitted to perform repairs. In fact, there are already locks in our printers ensuring we use ink from the same manufacturer.

Proponents of this bill say this is necessary to stop piracy. But it won’t. The locks don’t work. Someone somewhere will always be able to open them. Unlocked once, content can be shared around the world. Following similar legislation in the United States, illegal downloading increased. Those who break the law in private will not be stopped. Few will even be caught. But artists and innovators will be stopped. They make their work public, so they cannot break the law. The documentary filmmaker will be prevented from copying public domain material from a DVD. The artist will be banned from creating parody or collage.

Because the artists don’t control the locks. Control must be centralized. It must be embedded in the technology. If you are Disney or Sony or Vivendi, you can influence the manufacturers to implement the locks you want. If you are small, if you are Canadian, you may not have that power. Control of the locks means control of distribution. It means control of markets. This law is ineffective for stopping piracy. But it is devastatingly effective for preventing competition. Copyright is effectively replaced by the private law of those who control the technology. If we pass this law, we will be giving away the keys to our culture.

This is not what copyright is supposed to be. Today, educators spread knowledge. Under this law, they must destroy course materials and lessons. Today, librarians make culture accessible. Under this law, they must monitor and control their patrons. Today, we have copyright to promote creativity and culture. Under this law, artists are blocked from building on our common heritage, from critique, from satire, from parody. This law treats digital content and technology not as boons to society, but as dangers to be controlled. The book from the library, the lesson in the school, the web page on the Internet, the technology to create and access these things: all are treated as contraband to to tracked, monitored, and circumscribed. What is at stake here is control - over our computers and our cell phones, over our art and our culture, over our everyday lives. This law amounts to digital and cultural prohibition.