In an effort to make my blogging look somewhat more professional, I've decided to up and move to Wordpress. It seems to be a lot more flexible in allowing me to do things like post my CV, publications lists and so on, and to track the blog's traffic. I know you can do this on blogger (somehow), but I was never able to get that up and running easily here.
So, won't you please join me at www.blaynehaggart.com for some fascinatingly wonkish discussions about copyright, politics and whatever else I can think of.
Oh, and if anyone knows a straightforward way of redirecting people to the new site when they come across links to this one, I'd love to know. I'm trying a couple of things, but it's still a work in progress.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
"Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done"
Canadians today are rightly focusing today on Jack Layton's legacy of optimism and integrity, and his inspiring, transcendent and completely heartbreaking final letter to Canadians. His letter, which I find difficult to read straight through right now, cannot be praised highly enough. Its call to justice and service, and focus on creating a better future for all Canadians, convey a forward-looking sense of what it means to be Canadian better than pretty much anything I've read in my lifetime. We could all do a lot worse than to aspire to the goals and vision of Canada toward which Layton urges us here.
We Canadians have, I think, a tendency to treat our history lightly. I hope that this letter is remembered for decades to come. Fortunately, if my Facebook feed is anything to go by, we won't be forgetting it anytime soon.
For me, what I'll remember is Layton's willingness to stake out policy positions because they were
the correct policies, even if they were unpopular. The most obvious example of this was Layton's observation that negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan were inevitable. For that, he was labelled by Conservative MPs and other right-wing critics as "Taliban Jack," essentially calling him a traitor. Everyone might be calling him "Smiling Jack Layton" today, but Google hits for "Taliban Jack" Layton outnumber those for "Smiling Jack" Layton by 2 to 1.
Of course, it turned out he was right, as the Conservative government eventually acknowledged, in actions if not in words.
I also admired how he balanced principle with pragmatism. When he was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I saw his presentation to the House of Commons Finance Committee, for which I worked as an analyst. I had read about how, as a Toronto City councillor, he would deal with anyone to advance his (concrete) policy goals, but I remember being particularly impressed at how down-to-earth, reasonable and doable his policy objectives were. They responded to a pressing need (in this case housing) that would make life demonstrably better for disadvantaged Canadians.
And he was willing to do what it took to get policies enacted. As Toronto Councillor Norm Kelly commented, "I think Jack’s strength was if he couldn’t win you over on an issue 100 per cent, he would settle for 75 or 50 to advance the issue, and he’d do it with a smile."
With that combination of commitment to social justice, willingness to compromise and understanding of what really matters to Canadians, I was very happy when Layton ran for the NDP leadership, and even happier when he won. From my outsider's perspective, he set the NDP on exactly the right course needed to be relevant to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.
In his final letter to Canadians, Layton urges all Canadians to "consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done." Layton's life was a testament to this spirit. Now that he's gone, it falls to the rest of us to continue his work, no matter the odds.
We Canadians have, I think, a tendency to treat our history lightly. I hope that this letter is remembered for decades to come. Fortunately, if my Facebook feed is anything to go by, we won't be forgetting it anytime soon.
For me, what I'll remember is Layton's willingness to stake out policy positions because they were
the correct policies, even if they were unpopular. The most obvious example of this was Layton's observation that negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan were inevitable. For that, he was labelled by Conservative MPs and other right-wing critics as "Taliban Jack," essentially calling him a traitor. Everyone might be calling him "Smiling Jack Layton" today, but Google hits for "Taliban Jack" Layton outnumber those for "Smiling Jack" Layton by 2 to 1.
Of course, it turned out he was right, as the Conservative government eventually acknowledged, in actions if not in words.
I also admired how he balanced principle with pragmatism. When he was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I saw his presentation to the House of Commons Finance Committee, for which I worked as an analyst. I had read about how, as a Toronto City councillor, he would deal with anyone to advance his (concrete) policy goals, but I remember being particularly impressed at how down-to-earth, reasonable and doable his policy objectives were. They responded to a pressing need (in this case housing) that would make life demonstrably better for disadvantaged Canadians.
And he was willing to do what it took to get policies enacted. As Toronto Councillor Norm Kelly commented, "I think Jack’s strength was if he couldn’t win you over on an issue 100 per cent, he would settle for 75 or 50 to advance the issue, and he’d do it with a smile."
With that combination of commitment to social justice, willingness to compromise and understanding of what really matters to Canadians, I was very happy when Layton ran for the NDP leadership, and even happier when he won. From my outsider's perspective, he set the NDP on exactly the right course needed to be relevant to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.
In his final letter to Canadians, Layton urges all Canadians to "consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done." Layton's life was a testament to this spirit. Now that he's gone, it falls to the rest of us to continue his work, no matter the odds.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
The Sky Isn't Falling? Dwayne Winseck Gives Us Some Much-Needed Perspective on Canada's Media Economy
I'm kind of awestruck by Dwayne Winseck's latest post, "The Growth of the Network Media Economy in Canada, 1984-2010." Maybe I'm reading the wrong people, but it has to be one of the most substantive blog posts I've ever come across. Read it for yourself, but basically Winseck has created a new dataset in order to estimate the size of the Canadian media economy. My work only focuses on a subset of that economy (copyright), but it's certainly true that Canadian communication policy seems to be driven more by anecdote and political argument than by what some might call "evidence." Winseck's findings themselves are pretty fascinating:
- Canada has the ninth-largest "media economy" on the planet.
- Far from decimatting the media economy, digital technologies have contributed to a boom in this sector.
- Between 2000 and 2008, all parts of the media economy grew, except music and newspapers.
- The picture looks bleakest for newspapers, but even here ad revenue and readership rose in 2010.
- Even the (slight) decline in the music sector may not be that significant (in a policy sense), as production and distribution costs have also declined.
This should serve as a bit of a reality check for those all-to-ready to accept that the television, music, newspaper, or book industries are teetering on the brink of calamity at the slightest whiff of troubles on the horizon, i.e. ‘cord cutting’, increased subscriptions to Netflix, or drop in advertising revenue. For two recent examples, see here and here. Just for the sake of argument, even if Netflix gets $8 per month for each of its million subscribers in Canada, that’s $96 million dollars a year in revenue, or .6 percent of the total for all segments of the television industry. Of course, that’s nice if you can get it, but it is a mere drop in the Canadian television bucket, and hardly worth revamping the rules for, as many entrenched interests would like the CRTC to do.Indeed. Winseck's work won't banish interest-driven policy reform from the halls of government, but policymakers now have one less excuse for getting it wrong.
Low Stakes in the Access Copyright Fight: $175 per author per year
DC Reid, over at Creators' Access Copyright, responds to John Degen's full-throated defence of Access Copyright (covered here and here), by reminding us what is at stake for creators in the whole Access Copyright-universities battle royale. In short, not very much. In numbers, a baseline payment of only $175 per author per year, or 10% of total revenue:
Writers get a small payment from the repertoire class. Last year the baseline was $175. That's all. This does not comprise meaningful income. 80% of writers got less than the previous year's baseline of $612, also a figure that does not comprise meaningful income.In terms of policy battles, this doesn't look like the type of hill worth fighting for. If you're a writer.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Cutting Copyright's Red Tape
One other thing: John Degen’s one-sided opinion piece (is that redundant?) inadvertently highlights the absolutely vital need for Canada’s Copyright Act to be simplified so that anybody can understand it.
As Degen points out, in the absence of a blanket licence, however arbitrarily applied, universities, professors and students have to deal with the letter of the law of the Copyright Act. That isn’t easy. I’ve talked about this with a couple of university prof friends, one of whom actually studies copyright policy, and they’re both at a loss to understand fully the guidelines that have been prepared by The Powers That Be at their particular universities.
That’s a huge problem – I’d go so far as to say that it’s the biggest problem facing copyright law today. A complicated copyright law may have made sense back when it was mainly a commercial law governing the content industries – lawyers gotta earn their pay, after all. But now that copyright law so directly affects the lives of individuals, students and teachers, it should be simple enough that anyone with a dollop of common sense can understand it – and agree with it.
After all, what copyright does isn’t that complicated: It sets the terms under which someone is allowed to cover whatever it is we decide should be covered by copyright law (books, musical performances, etc.). Its guiding principle is similarly straightforward: it has to encourage both the production of creative works and their dissemination.
The problem is, after decades of horsetrading, the principles of copyright have become tied up in a mess of red tape, and every new reform is a chance for groups to throw in a few more rules and exceptions.
It it wasn't clear before this Access Copyright debacle that Canadian copyright law was in desperate a rethink and a simplification, it is now. The Conservative government is likely going to take another kick at the copyright-reform can, sooner rather than later. Wouldn’t it be great if they used the opportunity to simplify the law so that students and teachers wouldn’t have to feel like they were risking a lawsuit every time they go to the library to study?
As Degen points out, in the absence of a blanket licence, however arbitrarily applied, universities, professors and students have to deal with the letter of the law of the Copyright Act. That isn’t easy. I’ve talked about this with a couple of university prof friends, one of whom actually studies copyright policy, and they’re both at a loss to understand fully the guidelines that have been prepared by The Powers That Be at their particular universities.
That’s a huge problem – I’d go so far as to say that it’s the biggest problem facing copyright law today. A complicated copyright law may have made sense back when it was mainly a commercial law governing the content industries – lawyers gotta earn their pay, after all. But now that copyright law so directly affects the lives of individuals, students and teachers, it should be simple enough that anyone with a dollop of common sense can understand it – and agree with it.
After all, what copyright does isn’t that complicated: It sets the terms under which someone is allowed to cover whatever it is we decide should be covered by copyright law (books, musical performances, etc.). Its guiding principle is similarly straightforward: it has to encourage both the production of creative works and their dissemination.
The problem is, after decades of horsetrading, the principles of copyright have become tied up in a mess of red tape, and every new reform is a chance for groups to throw in a few more rules and exceptions.
It it wasn't clear before this Access Copyright debacle that Canadian copyright law was in desperate a rethink and a simplification, it is now. The Conservative government is likely going to take another kick at the copyright-reform can, sooner rather than later. Wouldn’t it be great if they used the opportunity to simplify the law so that students and teachers wouldn’t have to feel like they were risking a lawsuit every time they go to the library to study?
Access Copyright: The Globe and Mail's One-Sided Story
I don’t quite know where to start with John Degen’s attack in the Globe and Mail on the decision of 26 educational institutions (and counting) to opt out of Access Copyright (which collects royalties for Canadian authors mainly from Canadian educational institutions, after taking a healthy cut for administrative purposes). It’s an opinion piece, and he’s expressing his own perspective as a writer (although he certainly doesn’t speak for all writers when he expresses his admiration for AC). But as someone who’s followed this issue for the past year, though not as in depth as some (Howard Knopf is the go-to guy for a blow-by-blow account of this unwinding debacle), I can’t say that I recognize the universities-want-to-stop-paying-writers picture that he paints.
Fair to say, I think, that the Access Copyright-universities battle royale is nowhere near as one-sided as Degen suggests.
What’s missing? A fair accounting would have mentioned that the interim tariff that AC was seeking would have sent university budgets skyrocketing. Knopf reports that the University of British Columbia from $650,000 per year to $2 million per year. That’s a pretty good reason to reconsider using Access Copyright.
I would’ve also expected to read that Access Copyright was seeking (according to the University of Northern British Columbia) to “identify provision of links to resources and displaying resources on computer screens as ‘copies’.” Oh, and to keep the system running, UNBC says “The new tariff would also require that UNBC provides Access Copyright with unrestricted access to University secure networks, systems and records (e-mails, etc.) to conduct annual surveys of copying activities undertaken by faculty, staff, and students. This particular term is not only extremely invasive and labour intensive but UNBC also considers this unacceptable. We cannot condone this level of intrusion into our operations” (emphasis rightly added by Knopf). Again, that doesn’t make Access Copyright look too good.
(I’d also throw in my own annoyance, as a research and a writer of sorts, that Access Copyright has been allowed effectively to define what is meant by fair dealing – copying about 10% of a work, IIRC. That’s an arbitrary choice reflected nowhere in the Copyright Act.)
As for Degen’s assertion that the decision of these universities (most of Canada’s largest) to withdraw from Access Copyright “represents an unprecedented attack on academic freedom” by banning “certain uses of certain Canadian works [i.e., those covered by Access Copyright] from campus,” two points. First, the actual size of AC’s repertoire is disputed (UNBC claims it’s quite small). So how much of a loss this is remains to be seen. Second, it's not like these materials aren't already available through other licences held by universities. And we still have a fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act. I’ll leave the explanation of how that works to Michael Geist (this also links to a good FAQ on what opting out means for universities). Nothing's been banned. Throwing language like that around doesn't do your argument any favours.
The biggest problem with Degen’s opinion piece isn’t really his fault. Obviously this is a high-stakes, emotionally charged issue that highlights the upheaval that digital technologies are causing in the publishing industry. As far as I can tell, the Globe and Mail has done little-to-no reporting on an issue that has the potential to add millions of dollars to already-stretched university budgets, increase tuition and disrupt the way that many Canadian writers get paid.
But instead of providing readers with reportage that can allow them to situate Degen (and Knopf, and Geist, and me), they just throw Degen’s opinion out there. That’s a highly irresponsible act of policy bomb throwing from Canada’s supposed paper of record.
Fair to say, I think, that the Access Copyright-universities battle royale is nowhere near as one-sided as Degen suggests.
What’s missing? A fair accounting would have mentioned that the interim tariff that AC was seeking would have sent university budgets skyrocketing. Knopf reports that the University of British Columbia from $650,000 per year to $2 million per year. That’s a pretty good reason to reconsider using Access Copyright.
I would’ve also expected to read that Access Copyright was seeking (according to the University of Northern British Columbia) to “identify provision of links to resources and displaying resources on computer screens as ‘copies’.” Oh, and to keep the system running, UNBC says “The new tariff would also require that UNBC provides Access Copyright with unrestricted access to University secure networks, systems and records (e-mails, etc.) to conduct annual surveys of copying activities undertaken by faculty, staff, and students. This particular term is not only extremely invasive and labour intensive but UNBC also considers this unacceptable. We cannot condone this level of intrusion into our operations” (emphasis rightly added by Knopf). Again, that doesn’t make Access Copyright look too good.
(I’d also throw in my own annoyance, as a research and a writer of sorts, that Access Copyright has been allowed effectively to define what is meant by fair dealing – copying about 10% of a work, IIRC. That’s an arbitrary choice reflected nowhere in the Copyright Act.)
As for Degen’s assertion that the decision of these universities (most of Canada’s largest) to withdraw from Access Copyright “represents an unprecedented attack on academic freedom” by banning “certain uses of certain Canadian works [i.e., those covered by Access Copyright] from campus,” two points. First, the actual size of AC’s repertoire is disputed (UNBC claims it’s quite small). So how much of a loss this is remains to be seen. Second, it's not like these materials aren't already available through other licences held by universities. And we still have a fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act. I’ll leave the explanation of how that works to Michael Geist (this also links to a good FAQ on what opting out means for universities). Nothing's been banned. Throwing language like that around doesn't do your argument any favours.
The biggest problem with Degen’s opinion piece isn’t really his fault. Obviously this is a high-stakes, emotionally charged issue that highlights the upheaval that digital technologies are causing in the publishing industry. As far as I can tell, the Globe and Mail has done little-to-no reporting on an issue that has the potential to add millions of dollars to already-stretched university budgets, increase tuition and disrupt the way that many Canadian writers get paid.
But instead of providing readers with reportage that can allow them to situate Degen (and Knopf, and Geist, and me), they just throw Degen’s opinion out there. That’s a highly irresponsible act of policy bomb throwing from Canada’s supposed paper of record.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Google and the evil that lobbyists do?
I'm looking forward to reading Robert Levine's Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, although I'll probably wait until our library here at ANU orders it. At $28.95 for a digital download (only $5 less than the hardcover), no one will be able to accuse Levine or his publisher of looking for a free ride. They have, however, priced themselves out of my market (too-high prices, ironically, being one of the main causes of unauthorized downloads, according to the definitive survey on the subject).
In particular, I hope he goes into a lot of detail on Google's attempts to influence public policy, as Chris Castle's favourable review of Levine's book seems to suggest:
First off, all interest groups lobby for their preferred policies. The most direct way to lobby for your policies in Washington is to hire lobbyists to provide Congresspeople with money and research that supports your cause. On Capitol Hill, the content industries are widely acknowledged as the reigning champs at influencing policy. They've been very successful at wielding arguments (and money) to support their position. As for Google, they're still new at this game (the company isn't even 10 years old), but learning fast. In the second quarter of 2011, Google spent US$2.06 million on lobbyists. That's a lot, but the Recording Industry of America, in the first quarter of 2011, spent pretty much the same: US$2.1 million.
Second, lobbying involves battling to frame the debate, and everybody does it. Against academics like Lawrence Lessig and lobby groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you have well-established groups like the Motion Picture Association of America. Google's relationship with academics (imagine!) like Lessig and agitators (which I say with respect; agitators drive debates) like the EFF is dictated largely by their position as upstarts. They're trying to promote a view different from accepted Washington orthodoxy. Right now, the dominant view of copyright on Capitol Hill is very favourable to the cultural industries; the EFF/Lessig/Google Axis of Infringement faces an uphill battle. For example, the U.S. position in talks like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is very pro-stronger copyright and cultural industries.
So, sure, Google is flexing its economic muscles, but it's not like they're going up against underfunded ingenues. And it's certainly not like they're running the show.
When I see Google's attempts to influence the copyright debate in Washington and elsewhere, I see an upstart group attempting to break past several entrenched lobbies to promote its point of view. When I look at copyright policymaking, I see a process that continues to be dominated by cultural industries that have been "fight[ing] back" against technological change since the Clinton White House issued its National Information Infrastructure White Paper on Intellectual Property in 1995. In short, I see politics as usual.
And copyright is nothing if not political.
A few other thoughts:
In particular, I hope he goes into a lot of detail on Google's attempts to influence public policy, as Chris Castle's favourable review of Levine's book seems to suggest:
One of the truly significant themes in the book is how Levine has laid out in one place all the different ways that Google influences public policy around the world. This is done through his discussion of the execuprofs, groups like the EFF and Google’s massive contributions to Creative Commons, as well as a history of the YouTube case. I mean the Viacom case against Google–sorry. (Saying “the YouTube case” alone is like saying “my brother is in the Army, maybe you know him.”)As someone whose whole dissertation essentially came down to studying what groups influence copyright policy in North America and how they do it, this really caught my eye. I'd certainly agree that Google is lobbying for their point of view, but I find it hard to get that worked up about it, especially once we put Google's actions in perspective.
First off, all interest groups lobby for their preferred policies. The most direct way to lobby for your policies in Washington is to hire lobbyists to provide Congresspeople with money and research that supports your cause. On Capitol Hill, the content industries are widely acknowledged as the reigning champs at influencing policy. They've been very successful at wielding arguments (and money) to support their position. As for Google, they're still new at this game (the company isn't even 10 years old), but learning fast. In the second quarter of 2011, Google spent US$2.06 million on lobbyists. That's a lot, but the Recording Industry of America, in the first quarter of 2011, spent pretty much the same: US$2.1 million.
Second, lobbying involves battling to frame the debate, and everybody does it. Against academics like Lawrence Lessig and lobby groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you have well-established groups like the Motion Picture Association of America. Google's relationship with academics (imagine!) like Lessig and agitators (which I say with respect; agitators drive debates) like the EFF is dictated largely by their position as upstarts. They're trying to promote a view different from accepted Washington orthodoxy. Right now, the dominant view of copyright on Capitol Hill is very favourable to the cultural industries; the EFF/Lessig/Google Axis of Infringement faces an uphill battle. For example, the U.S. position in talks like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is very pro-stronger copyright and cultural industries.
So, sure, Google is flexing its economic muscles, but it's not like they're going up against underfunded ingenues. And it's certainly not like they're running the show.
When I see Google's attempts to influence the copyright debate in Washington and elsewhere, I see an upstart group attempting to break past several entrenched lobbies to promote its point of view. When I look at copyright policymaking, I see a process that continues to be dominated by cultural industries that have been "fight[ing] back" against technological change since the Clinton White House issued its National Information Infrastructure White Paper on Intellectual Property in 1995. In short, I see politics as usual.
And copyright is nothing if not political.
A few other thoughts:
- I'll be very curious to see how Levine recommends that the culture business (by which he seems to mean the companies that publish and distribute books, music, etc., and not the creators themselves) "fight back." I think pretty much everyone would agree that what they've been doing for the past 15 or so years hasn't been very successful in terms of staving off economic contraction.
- I also hope his book includes a discussion about how copyright (and all forms of cultural regulation) and technology favours certain types of creation over others (see, Beastie Boys, Paul's Boutique). In other words, that different types of cultural products get produced under different regimes is a fact of life.
- In his Guardian column touting his book, Levine doesn't seem to differentiate between the cultural industries and actual creators. The cultural industries are a means to the end of helping creators publish and distribute their works, and while historically economies have scale have made them necessary for creators to get their stuff out there, the two sides often have conflicting interests. Similarly, the objective of copyright historically has been to promote the creation and dissemination of creative works, not to support a particular industrial model.
- Does anybody know why Levine seems to have changed the title of his book from Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back? Calling someone a parasite (especially since many of these "parasites" are the culture industries' customers) is a pretty sure way to preempt a civil conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Thursday, August 25, 2011
The grass is greener...
In an effort to make my blogging look somewhat more professional, I've decided to up and move to Wordpress. It seems to be a lot more flexible in allowing me to do things like post my CV, publications lists and so on, and to track the blog's traffic. I know you can do this on blogger (somehow), but I was never able to get that up and running easily here.
So, won't you please join me at www.blaynehaggart.com for some fascinatingly wonkish discussions about copyright, politics and whatever else I can think of.
Oh, and if anyone knows a straightforward way of redirecting people to the new site when they come across links to this one, I'd love to know. I'm trying a couple of things, but it's still a work in progress.
So, won't you please join me at www.blaynehaggart.com for some fascinatingly wonkish discussions about copyright, politics and whatever else I can think of.
Oh, and if anyone knows a straightforward way of redirecting people to the new site when they come across links to this one, I'd love to know. I'm trying a couple of things, but it's still a work in progress.
Monday, August 22, 2011
"Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done"
Canadians today are rightly focusing today on Jack Layton's legacy of optimism and integrity, and his inspiring, transcendent and completely heartbreaking final letter to Canadians. His letter, which I find difficult to read straight through right now, cannot be praised highly enough. Its call to justice and service, and focus on creating a better future for all Canadians, convey a forward-looking sense of what it means to be Canadian better than pretty much anything I've read in my lifetime. We could all do a lot worse than to aspire to the goals and vision of Canada toward which Layton urges us here.
We Canadians have, I think, a tendency to treat our history lightly. I hope that this letter is remembered for decades to come. Fortunately, if my Facebook feed is anything to go by, we won't be forgetting it anytime soon.
For me, what I'll remember is Layton's willingness to stake out policy positions because they were
the correct policies, even if they were unpopular. The most obvious example of this was Layton's observation that negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan were inevitable. For that, he was labelled by Conservative MPs and other right-wing critics as "Taliban Jack," essentially calling him a traitor. Everyone might be calling him "Smiling Jack Layton" today, but Google hits for "Taliban Jack" Layton outnumber those for "Smiling Jack" Layton by 2 to 1.
Of course, it turned out he was right, as the Conservative government eventually acknowledged, in actions if not in words.
I also admired how he balanced principle with pragmatism. When he was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I saw his presentation to the House of Commons Finance Committee, for which I worked as an analyst. I had read about how, as a Toronto City councillor, he would deal with anyone to advance his (concrete) policy goals, but I remember being particularly impressed at how down-to-earth, reasonable and doable his policy objectives were. They responded to a pressing need (in this case housing) that would make life demonstrably better for disadvantaged Canadians.
And he was willing to do what it took to get policies enacted. As Toronto Councillor Norm Kelly commented, "I think Jack’s strength was if he couldn’t win you over on an issue 100 per cent, he would settle for 75 or 50 to advance the issue, and he’d do it with a smile."
With that combination of commitment to social justice, willingness to compromise and understanding of what really matters to Canadians, I was very happy when Layton ran for the NDP leadership, and even happier when he won. From my outsider's perspective, he set the NDP on exactly the right course needed to be relevant to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.
In his final letter to Canadians, Layton urges all Canadians to "consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done." Layton's life was a testament to this spirit. Now that he's gone, it falls to the rest of us to continue his work, no matter the odds.
We Canadians have, I think, a tendency to treat our history lightly. I hope that this letter is remembered for decades to come. Fortunately, if my Facebook feed is anything to go by, we won't be forgetting it anytime soon.
For me, what I'll remember is Layton's willingness to stake out policy positions because they were
the correct policies, even if they were unpopular. The most obvious example of this was Layton's observation that negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan were inevitable. For that, he was labelled by Conservative MPs and other right-wing critics as "Taliban Jack," essentially calling him a traitor. Everyone might be calling him "Smiling Jack Layton" today, but Google hits for "Taliban Jack" Layton outnumber those for "Smiling Jack" Layton by 2 to 1.
Of course, it turned out he was right, as the Conservative government eventually acknowledged, in actions if not in words.
I also admired how he balanced principle with pragmatism. When he was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I saw his presentation to the House of Commons Finance Committee, for which I worked as an analyst. I had read about how, as a Toronto City councillor, he would deal with anyone to advance his (concrete) policy goals, but I remember being particularly impressed at how down-to-earth, reasonable and doable his policy objectives were. They responded to a pressing need (in this case housing) that would make life demonstrably better for disadvantaged Canadians.
And he was willing to do what it took to get policies enacted. As Toronto Councillor Norm Kelly commented, "I think Jack’s strength was if he couldn’t win you over on an issue 100 per cent, he would settle for 75 or 50 to advance the issue, and he’d do it with a smile."
With that combination of commitment to social justice, willingness to compromise and understanding of what really matters to Canadians, I was very happy when Layton ran for the NDP leadership, and even happier when he won. From my outsider's perspective, he set the NDP on exactly the right course needed to be relevant to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.
In his final letter to Canadians, Layton urges all Canadians to "consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done." Layton's life was a testament to this spirit. Now that he's gone, it falls to the rest of us to continue his work, no matter the odds.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
The Sky Isn't Falling? Dwayne Winseck Gives Us Some Much-Needed Perspective on Canada's Media Economy
I'm kind of awestruck by Dwayne Winseck's latest post, "The Growth of the Network Media Economy in Canada, 1984-2010." Maybe I'm reading the wrong people, but it has to be one of the most substantive blog posts I've ever come across. Read it for yourself, but basically Winseck has created a new dataset in order to estimate the size of the Canadian media economy. My work only focuses on a subset of that economy (copyright), but it's certainly true that Canadian communication policy seems to be driven more by anecdote and political argument than by what some might call "evidence." Winseck's findings themselves are pretty fascinating:
- Canada has the ninth-largest "media economy" on the planet.
- Far from decimatting the media economy, digital technologies have contributed to a boom in this sector.
- Between 2000 and 2008, all parts of the media economy grew, except music and newspapers.
- The picture looks bleakest for newspapers, but even here ad revenue and readership rose in 2010.
- Even the (slight) decline in the music sector may not be that significant (in a policy sense), as production and distribution costs have also declined.
This should serve as a bit of a reality check for those all-to-ready to accept that the television, music, newspaper, or book industries are teetering on the brink of calamity at the slightest whiff of troubles on the horizon, i.e. ‘cord cutting’, increased subscriptions to Netflix, or drop in advertising revenue. For two recent examples, see here and here. Just for the sake of argument, even if Netflix gets $8 per month for each of its million subscribers in Canada, that’s $96 million dollars a year in revenue, or .6 percent of the total for all segments of the television industry. Of course, that’s nice if you can get it, but it is a mere drop in the Canadian television bucket, and hardly worth revamping the rules for, as many entrenched interests would like the CRTC to do.Indeed. Winseck's work won't banish interest-driven policy reform from the halls of government, but policymakers now have one less excuse for getting it wrong.
Low Stakes in the Access Copyright Fight: $175 per author per year
DC Reid, over at Creators' Access Copyright, responds to John Degen's full-throated defence of Access Copyright (covered here and here), by reminding us what is at stake for creators in the whole Access Copyright-universities battle royale. In short, not very much. In numbers, a baseline payment of only $175 per author per year, or 10% of total revenue:
Writers get a small payment from the repertoire class. Last year the baseline was $175. That's all. This does not comprise meaningful income. 80% of writers got less than the previous year's baseline of $612, also a figure that does not comprise meaningful income.In terms of policy battles, this doesn't look like the type of hill worth fighting for. If you're a writer.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Cutting Copyright's Red Tape
One other thing: John Degen’s one-sided opinion piece (is that redundant?) inadvertently highlights the absolutely vital need for Canada’s Copyright Act to be simplified so that anybody can understand it.
As Degen points out, in the absence of a blanket licence, however arbitrarily applied, universities, professors and students have to deal with the letter of the law of the Copyright Act. That isn’t easy. I’ve talked about this with a couple of university prof friends, one of whom actually studies copyright policy, and they’re both at a loss to understand fully the guidelines that have been prepared by The Powers That Be at their particular universities.
That’s a huge problem – I’d go so far as to say that it’s the biggest problem facing copyright law today. A complicated copyright law may have made sense back when it was mainly a commercial law governing the content industries – lawyers gotta earn their pay, after all. But now that copyright law so directly affects the lives of individuals, students and teachers, it should be simple enough that anyone with a dollop of common sense can understand it – and agree with it.
After all, what copyright does isn’t that complicated: It sets the terms under which someone is allowed to cover whatever it is we decide should be covered by copyright law (books, musical performances, etc.). Its guiding principle is similarly straightforward: it has to encourage both the production of creative works and their dissemination.
The problem is, after decades of horsetrading, the principles of copyright have become tied up in a mess of red tape, and every new reform is a chance for groups to throw in a few more rules and exceptions.
It it wasn't clear before this Access Copyright debacle that Canadian copyright law was in desperate a rethink and a simplification, it is now. The Conservative government is likely going to take another kick at the copyright-reform can, sooner rather than later. Wouldn’t it be great if they used the opportunity to simplify the law so that students and teachers wouldn’t have to feel like they were risking a lawsuit every time they go to the library to study?
As Degen points out, in the absence of a blanket licence, however arbitrarily applied, universities, professors and students have to deal with the letter of the law of the Copyright Act. That isn’t easy. I’ve talked about this with a couple of university prof friends, one of whom actually studies copyright policy, and they’re both at a loss to understand fully the guidelines that have been prepared by The Powers That Be at their particular universities.
That’s a huge problem – I’d go so far as to say that it’s the biggest problem facing copyright law today. A complicated copyright law may have made sense back when it was mainly a commercial law governing the content industries – lawyers gotta earn their pay, after all. But now that copyright law so directly affects the lives of individuals, students and teachers, it should be simple enough that anyone with a dollop of common sense can understand it – and agree with it.
After all, what copyright does isn’t that complicated: It sets the terms under which someone is allowed to cover whatever it is we decide should be covered by copyright law (books, musical performances, etc.). Its guiding principle is similarly straightforward: it has to encourage both the production of creative works and their dissemination.
The problem is, after decades of horsetrading, the principles of copyright have become tied up in a mess of red tape, and every new reform is a chance for groups to throw in a few more rules and exceptions.
It it wasn't clear before this Access Copyright debacle that Canadian copyright law was in desperate a rethink and a simplification, it is now. The Conservative government is likely going to take another kick at the copyright-reform can, sooner rather than later. Wouldn’t it be great if they used the opportunity to simplify the law so that students and teachers wouldn’t have to feel like they were risking a lawsuit every time they go to the library to study?
Access Copyright: The Globe and Mail's One-Sided Story
I don’t quite know where to start with John Degen’s attack in the Globe and Mail on the decision of 26 educational institutions (and counting) to opt out of Access Copyright (which collects royalties for Canadian authors mainly from Canadian educational institutions, after taking a healthy cut for administrative purposes). It’s an opinion piece, and he’s expressing his own perspective as a writer (although he certainly doesn’t speak for all writers when he expresses his admiration for AC). But as someone who’s followed this issue for the past year, though not as in depth as some (Howard Knopf is the go-to guy for a blow-by-blow account of this unwinding debacle), I can’t say that I recognize the universities-want-to-stop-paying-writers picture that he paints.
Fair to say, I think, that the Access Copyright-universities battle royale is nowhere near as one-sided as Degen suggests.
What’s missing? A fair accounting would have mentioned that the interim tariff that AC was seeking would have sent university budgets skyrocketing. Knopf reports that the University of British Columbia from $650,000 per year to $2 million per year. That’s a pretty good reason to reconsider using Access Copyright.
I would’ve also expected to read that Access Copyright was seeking (according to the University of Northern British Columbia) to “identify provision of links to resources and displaying resources on computer screens as ‘copies’.” Oh, and to keep the system running, UNBC says “The new tariff would also require that UNBC provides Access Copyright with unrestricted access to University secure networks, systems and records (e-mails, etc.) to conduct annual surveys of copying activities undertaken by faculty, staff, and students. This particular term is not only extremely invasive and labour intensive but UNBC also considers this unacceptable. We cannot condone this level of intrusion into our operations” (emphasis rightly added by Knopf). Again, that doesn’t make Access Copyright look too good.
(I’d also throw in my own annoyance, as a research and a writer of sorts, that Access Copyright has been allowed effectively to define what is meant by fair dealing – copying about 10% of a work, IIRC. That’s an arbitrary choice reflected nowhere in the Copyright Act.)
As for Degen’s assertion that the decision of these universities (most of Canada’s largest) to withdraw from Access Copyright “represents an unprecedented attack on academic freedom” by banning “certain uses of certain Canadian works [i.e., those covered by Access Copyright] from campus,” two points. First, the actual size of AC’s repertoire is disputed (UNBC claims it’s quite small). So how much of a loss this is remains to be seen. Second, it's not like these materials aren't already available through other licences held by universities. And we still have a fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act. I’ll leave the explanation of how that works to Michael Geist (this also links to a good FAQ on what opting out means for universities). Nothing's been banned. Throwing language like that around doesn't do your argument any favours.
The biggest problem with Degen’s opinion piece isn’t really his fault. Obviously this is a high-stakes, emotionally charged issue that highlights the upheaval that digital technologies are causing in the publishing industry. As far as I can tell, the Globe and Mail has done little-to-no reporting on an issue that has the potential to add millions of dollars to already-stretched university budgets, increase tuition and disrupt the way that many Canadian writers get paid.
But instead of providing readers with reportage that can allow them to situate Degen (and Knopf, and Geist, and me), they just throw Degen’s opinion out there. That’s a highly irresponsible act of policy bomb throwing from Canada’s supposed paper of record.
Fair to say, I think, that the Access Copyright-universities battle royale is nowhere near as one-sided as Degen suggests.
What’s missing? A fair accounting would have mentioned that the interim tariff that AC was seeking would have sent university budgets skyrocketing. Knopf reports that the University of British Columbia from $650,000 per year to $2 million per year. That’s a pretty good reason to reconsider using Access Copyright.
I would’ve also expected to read that Access Copyright was seeking (according to the University of Northern British Columbia) to “identify provision of links to resources and displaying resources on computer screens as ‘copies’.” Oh, and to keep the system running, UNBC says “The new tariff would also require that UNBC provides Access Copyright with unrestricted access to University secure networks, systems and records (e-mails, etc.) to conduct annual surveys of copying activities undertaken by faculty, staff, and students. This particular term is not only extremely invasive and labour intensive but UNBC also considers this unacceptable. We cannot condone this level of intrusion into our operations” (emphasis rightly added by Knopf). Again, that doesn’t make Access Copyright look too good.
(I’d also throw in my own annoyance, as a research and a writer of sorts, that Access Copyright has been allowed effectively to define what is meant by fair dealing – copying about 10% of a work, IIRC. That’s an arbitrary choice reflected nowhere in the Copyright Act.)
As for Degen’s assertion that the decision of these universities (most of Canada’s largest) to withdraw from Access Copyright “represents an unprecedented attack on academic freedom” by banning “certain uses of certain Canadian works [i.e., those covered by Access Copyright] from campus,” two points. First, the actual size of AC’s repertoire is disputed (UNBC claims it’s quite small). So how much of a loss this is remains to be seen. Second, it's not like these materials aren't already available through other licences held by universities. And we still have a fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act. I’ll leave the explanation of how that works to Michael Geist (this also links to a good FAQ on what opting out means for universities). Nothing's been banned. Throwing language like that around doesn't do your argument any favours.
The biggest problem with Degen’s opinion piece isn’t really his fault. Obviously this is a high-stakes, emotionally charged issue that highlights the upheaval that digital technologies are causing in the publishing industry. As far as I can tell, the Globe and Mail has done little-to-no reporting on an issue that has the potential to add millions of dollars to already-stretched university budgets, increase tuition and disrupt the way that many Canadian writers get paid.
But instead of providing readers with reportage that can allow them to situate Degen (and Knopf, and Geist, and me), they just throw Degen’s opinion out there. That’s a highly irresponsible act of policy bomb throwing from Canada’s supposed paper of record.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Google and the evil that lobbyists do?
I'm looking forward to reading Robert Levine's Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, although I'll probably wait until our library here at ANU orders it. At $28.95 for a digital download (only $5 less than the hardcover), no one will be able to accuse Levine or his publisher of looking for a free ride. They have, however, priced themselves out of my market (too-high prices, ironically, being one of the main causes of unauthorized downloads, according to the definitive survey on the subject).
In particular, I hope he goes into a lot of detail on Google's attempts to influence public policy, as Chris Castle's favourable review of Levine's book seems to suggest:
First off, all interest groups lobby for their preferred policies. The most direct way to lobby for your policies in Washington is to hire lobbyists to provide Congresspeople with money and research that supports your cause. On Capitol Hill, the content industries are widely acknowledged as the reigning champs at influencing policy. They've been very successful at wielding arguments (and money) to support their position. As for Google, they're still new at this game (the company isn't even 10 years old), but learning fast. In the second quarter of 2011, Google spent US$2.06 million on lobbyists. That's a lot, but the Recording Industry of America, in the first quarter of 2011, spent pretty much the same: US$2.1 million.
Second, lobbying involves battling to frame the debate, and everybody does it. Against academics like Lawrence Lessig and lobby groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you have well-established groups like the Motion Picture Association of America. Google's relationship with academics (imagine!) like Lessig and agitators (which I say with respect; agitators drive debates) like the EFF is dictated largely by their position as upstarts. They're trying to promote a view different from accepted Washington orthodoxy. Right now, the dominant view of copyright on Capitol Hill is very favourable to the cultural industries; the EFF/Lessig/Google Axis of Infringement faces an uphill battle. For example, the U.S. position in talks like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is very pro-stronger copyright and cultural industries.
So, sure, Google is flexing its economic muscles, but it's not like they're going up against underfunded ingenues. And it's certainly not like they're running the show.
When I see Google's attempts to influence the copyright debate in Washington and elsewhere, I see an upstart group attempting to break past several entrenched lobbies to promote its point of view. When I look at copyright policymaking, I see a process that continues to be dominated by cultural industries that have been "fight[ing] back" against technological change since the Clinton White House issued its National Information Infrastructure White Paper on Intellectual Property in 1995. In short, I see politics as usual.
And copyright is nothing if not political.
A few other thoughts:
In particular, I hope he goes into a lot of detail on Google's attempts to influence public policy, as Chris Castle's favourable review of Levine's book seems to suggest:
One of the truly significant themes in the book is how Levine has laid out in one place all the different ways that Google influences public policy around the world. This is done through his discussion of the execuprofs, groups like the EFF and Google’s massive contributions to Creative Commons, as well as a history of the YouTube case. I mean the Viacom case against Google–sorry. (Saying “the YouTube case” alone is like saying “my brother is in the Army, maybe you know him.”)As someone whose whole dissertation essentially came down to studying what groups influence copyright policy in North America and how they do it, this really caught my eye. I'd certainly agree that Google is lobbying for their point of view, but I find it hard to get that worked up about it, especially once we put Google's actions in perspective.
First off, all interest groups lobby for their preferred policies. The most direct way to lobby for your policies in Washington is to hire lobbyists to provide Congresspeople with money and research that supports your cause. On Capitol Hill, the content industries are widely acknowledged as the reigning champs at influencing policy. They've been very successful at wielding arguments (and money) to support their position. As for Google, they're still new at this game (the company isn't even 10 years old), but learning fast. In the second quarter of 2011, Google spent US$2.06 million on lobbyists. That's a lot, but the Recording Industry of America, in the first quarter of 2011, spent pretty much the same: US$2.1 million.
Second, lobbying involves battling to frame the debate, and everybody does it. Against academics like Lawrence Lessig and lobby groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you have well-established groups like the Motion Picture Association of America. Google's relationship with academics (imagine!) like Lessig and agitators (which I say with respect; agitators drive debates) like the EFF is dictated largely by their position as upstarts. They're trying to promote a view different from accepted Washington orthodoxy. Right now, the dominant view of copyright on Capitol Hill is very favourable to the cultural industries; the EFF/Lessig/Google Axis of Infringement faces an uphill battle. For example, the U.S. position in talks like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is very pro-stronger copyright and cultural industries.
So, sure, Google is flexing its economic muscles, but it's not like they're going up against underfunded ingenues. And it's certainly not like they're running the show.
When I see Google's attempts to influence the copyright debate in Washington and elsewhere, I see an upstart group attempting to break past several entrenched lobbies to promote its point of view. When I look at copyright policymaking, I see a process that continues to be dominated by cultural industries that have been "fight[ing] back" against technological change since the Clinton White House issued its National Information Infrastructure White Paper on Intellectual Property in 1995. In short, I see politics as usual.
And copyright is nothing if not political.
A few other thoughts:
- I'll be very curious to see how Levine recommends that the culture business (by which he seems to mean the companies that publish and distribute books, music, etc., and not the creators themselves) "fight back." I think pretty much everyone would agree that what they've been doing for the past 15 or so years hasn't been very successful in terms of staving off economic contraction.
- I also hope his book includes a discussion about how copyright (and all forms of cultural regulation) and technology favours certain types of creation over others (see, Beastie Boys, Paul's Boutique). In other words, that different types of cultural products get produced under different regimes is a fact of life.
- In his Guardian column touting his book, Levine doesn't seem to differentiate between the cultural industries and actual creators. The cultural industries are a means to the end of helping creators publish and distribute their works, and while historically economies have scale have made them necessary for creators to get their stuff out there, the two sides often have conflicting interests. Similarly, the objective of copyright historically has been to promote the creation and dissemination of creative works, not to support a particular industrial model.
- Does anybody know why Levine seems to have changed the title of his book from Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back? Calling someone a parasite (especially since many of these "parasites" are the culture industries' customers) is a pretty sure way to preempt a civil conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)