The excellent Lore Weaver, over at The Atheist Conservative shared some wise thoughts:
In ten years when digital social networking has an unparalleled pervasiveness, will we want legislation that makes criminals out of the majority of the populace? We will live in a world where sharing a social experience with our peers will include sharing the experiences crafted by the Intellectual Property of various creators. We need to build legislation that protects the public from the nefarious exploitation by stranglehold distribution.
I couldn't agree more. Our right to share information naturally and freely is of the most fundamental importance. I think there is another sinister ramification to laws that would criminalize individual non-commercial sharing: PRIVACY INVASION.
If Canadians accept the principle that "we shouldn't share" files, CD's DVD's, books, etc.; then we admit that there should be laws against sharing. This is the turning point: either we should be allowed to share, or we should not. At present there is a strong bias to call all sharing "stealing", and many people don't question the notion that we just shouldn't do it. After all, we all know that stealing is wrong. So we have some laws against it, that don't do much, and there is call for even more, that would supposedly fix the problem. But, is all sharing actually stealing? How could we share WITHOUT stealing? These are the real questions we need to be asking. Especially because it will be impossible to stop, right or wrong, desirable or not.
Right now, companies that distribute media are saying that all sharing is stealing, even sharing with yourself. They claim the absolute exclusive rights to duplicate and distribute information in any way. The truth is though, we now own our own copiers, printers, and sharing tools. We already pay for the network (internet) that we need to send each other almost anything. We now do for ourselves what we used to hire them to do for us. We often do a better job, on our own terms, at our own true price. And as technology advances, we become ever more empowered, and even the lines between duplicating and distributing media vanish. Why should we be forced to hire companies? What gives them the exclusive moral right to handle all information? In the past, their protection was just, because they performed critical and irreplaceable functions in our society that the public certainly could not do. But times have changed, and we must not easily surrender our public right to use our own tools as we see fit to handle information. If we choose to reduce the protection of distribution rights, then we might create a more level playing field, where all information services must compete fairly in an open market that includes us, both individually and collectively. Duplicating and distributing information could be a free and open market. Finding ways to ensure that people who create information get paid, is the real dilemma that we face.
So, here is the sinister part:
Let's say we accept that "we shouldn't" share media, there must be laws against it, with punishments, damages etc.. All normal so far. But if there is a law, then it MUST be enforceable. This is where things get ugly. The big worry these days is the internet, especially Peer-2-Peer file sharing. Yup, we little guys are freely giving stuff to each other. And supposedly there ought to be a law , because supposedly "it's stealing". It is true that people are not getting paid. Very real theft is happening. Artists and many other hard working people are getting put out of work.
And the only way to stop it is to CENSOR, REGULATE, AND INSPECT THE ENTIRE INTERNET.
That's right, inspect and censor EVERY LAST BYTE of data that flows across the internet, especially from our personal computers, to stop "copyright violation". We should only be allowed to use approved protocols, ie. ones that do not allow any "piracy" to happen. We should pay the billions of dollars it would cost to install massive computer hardware, called Deep Packet Inspection equipment, at all access points to the internet. The purpose is not to eliminate network congestion (see the current controversy with Bell Canada). The real purpose will be to monitor and regulate all internet traffic to enforce copyright law. The big corporate dream is to outlaw any content on the internet that they do not control, own, and sell, and that we do not pay them for.
It is very important to understand that at present, there is almost no way to monitor or control the internet. It is 99% wild and free. While some ISP's are installing DPI equipment, it's use and existence is highly controversial, both on privacy grounds, and for lack of effectiveness at the excused purpose of reducing network congestion. It is arguable that the money should just be spent building a bigger faster internet. There is also evidence that those ISP's who push for DPI and other control mechanisms, also may want to enter the media business. In any case the ethics, motives, and reasons are all very much in dispute, and the situation is rapidly evolving. Research "network neutrality" if you are curious. But by and large, your anonymity and freedom on the internet are protected by due process, subpoena and evidence requirements, and a functional lack of any monitoring, except under the most extraordinary and urgent legal circumstances. This is a very good thing, because there are many who abuse any means they can to violate our privacy online. Indeed, online privacy and personal protection is another large topic with laws and balances and disputes and challenges. It is intimately connected with the future of copyright law.
While C-61 does not directly call for a unilateral changes to the internet, it makes sharing so illegal that this sinister next step would be unavoidable. Don't think for one second that copyright reform could never justify such draconian measures. Content owners and ISP's (merging as we speak) will not stand idle while they have laws granting their protection, and those laws are failing. It will not be their own legal protection that they call into question, or their assumed absolute moral rights. It will be stronger means to enforce those laws that they demand, at any cost to our legal rights of privacy and freedom.
Enforcement will start with the streamlining of IP owners ability to investigate and pursue any infringing activity. They (any company that happens to claim some infringement, no proof required) will gain the automatic and unquestioned ability to find out who you are, and eventually to record your online activities, to help them prove your crime. It will be a slippery slope of dwindling privacy marked by escalating abuse of the public. The failed effectiveness and rampant abuses will then justify far worse measures, like strict enforcement of allowable protocols, strict licencing to operate web sites, full monitoring and regulatory approval of all content. If you think this seems alarmist, I offer this example: current industry proposals include language that puts all burden for proof of ownership on the consumer, if you can't prove you own it, then you are presumed guilty of theft by law. I for one cannot rest while this kind of fascism breeds unchallenged. The huge costs and complexity of enforcement will ultimately reduce the value of the internet, and destroy the ability for broad public participation. This is no less than the destruction of our freedom.
That's how the music, movie, and TV industries want to monetize and monopolize the internet. They don't want any competition for TV and their obsolete plastic disks. They want to set all the terms, make all the rules, and ALL THE MONEY. Along the way, we would also happen to have built the most perfect tool for total political control and censorship. I do not accuse our government of direct intent to this goal, but if such a tool exists, then it will fall into the wrong hands. The temptation would be inevitable, and such tools must NEVER exist in the first place, or they will be abused at our expense. And history shows that the public too often pay with our very lives.
