[discuss] Technology policy update + How many people does CLUE represent?

[Russell McOrmond]

Interesting week for telecommunications policy, whether you are
following Usage Based Billing (#UBB) or wireless competition with the
WIND/Globalive decision.

Hopefully the government will quickly table legislation to deal with
the competition issues behind these two issues. In the case of UBB my
problem (and I suspect many CLUE members) is not with UBB per-se, but
with the government-granted monopoly provider of the "last mile"
connections to our homes being able to impose a business model on
competitors. In the case of the Globalive decision, I suspect the
technical community can separate the need for appropriate regulation in
this sector from ownership issues, given it seems antiquated to worry
about the nationality of executives in this century.

I wrote about both these issues in more detail at http://BillC32.ca/5281


My focus as policy coordinator remains with Copyright given Bill C-32
is currently having hearings, and is a place where there is actual
legislation to discuss. I have been attending (and live tweeting
http://twitter.com/russellmcormond) most of the meetings since they
started, and posting my thoughts after each http://BillC32.ca/com .



A group of backers of collective societies released a Joint statement
http://c32jointstatement.ca/ on Thursday claiming that it was "Supported
by nearly 90 organizations representing more than 600,000 creators and
copyright owners". I know for a fact that they haven't polled their
members as many of us are in contact with (or overlap with) people who
are members of these groups who they claim to speak on behalf of.

This begs the question: How many people can CLUE claim to represent?

Using their logic, since CLUE is the Canadian Association for Open
Source, we can list any developer or user of Open Source as supporters.
Given any computer user has some Open Source on their computer
(whether they are aware of it or not), or they use online sites built
upon Open Source (Google, Amazon, nearly all of .gc.ca, whatever), we
can claim nearly all Canadians. No need to poll any of them: their use
of any Open Source can be defined to mean agreement to CLUE's policy
statements http://Cluecan.ca/policy



All joking aside, since I don't think it is useful to try to beat
them at their game by using their rules, what would people consider to
be a more realistic number of Canadians that CLUE represents.


At http://cluecan.ca/policy/copyright I document that CLUE's
executive endorsed both the "Petition for Users Rights (in Copyright)"
and the "Petition to protect Information Technology property rights" as
organised by the Digital Copyright Canada forum. http://digital-copyright.ca

The Petition for Users Rights has seen nearly 3K signatures, and the
Petition for IT property rights has seen almost 400 signatures. These
are people who personally endorsed very specific policy positions, so is
much stronger than the joint statement where we only really know less
than 100 people (The often overlapping executives of the 90
associations) were in some sort of agreement.

Other thoughts? Can we increase these numbers? Do we set up some
way for Canadians to specifically endorse our policy statements, or do
we just continue to use the existing petitions?





Additional notes:

If you are not sure what I mean by "backers of collective societies"
when discussing the joint statement, I can fill in some details.

Copyright is a series of activities which need permission from the
copyright holder. There are two broad types of exceptions from that
requirement for permission: those that require payment (called
compulsory licensing) and those that don't require payment (called Fair
Use in the USA, and a much limited form called Fair Dealings in Canada).

Far more activities require permission in Canada than in the USA, and
of those that don't need permission far more need payment in Canada than
the USA. The claim that Canadian copyright law is "weaker" than US law
is simply incorrect.

The joint statement was largely in opposition to fair dealings
reform, and the idea that Copyright should have any uses which don't
need payment.

Notice I said payment, as these same groups are strong supporters of
compulsory licenses (AKA: levies, or what the Conservatives call the
iPod tax in the case of music) where payment flows into collective
societies, and then a portion flows to copyright holders in an
unaccountable and largely non-transparent way. The joint statement
lists collective societies as a solution for any situation where
permission is complex/etc.


Collective societies should be seen as similar to banks. They
provide a valuable financial service to those who choose their services,
one that many people couldn't live without. They should never be
allowed to claim to represent politically or otherwise the diverse
interests of those who chose their services. The idea of mandating that
someone use a specific service or specific brand of service should be
seen as an extreme situation, and never thought of lightly -- with
expanding current compulsory licensing and adding new ones being what
the primaries behind the joint statement have been asking for.

Collective societies are excessively politically powerful in Canada
and have convinced many of the executives of creator groups that what is
good for collectives is good for them. They have created a rhetoric
where exceptions to copyright in the form of compulsory licenses are
good, but exceptions to copyright in the form of fair dealings is bad --
even abusing words such as theft and expropriation in many cases.



For more reading see:
Analyzing when copyright levies are a good idea, and when they are a
very bad idea. http://BillC32.ca/4515

Bill C-32 FAQ question: Should the Private Copying Regime be expanded to
all works covered by the copyright act?
http://billc32.ca/faq#allcpc

[Bob Jonkman]

Hi Russell: The UBB decision(s) are not about the last mile, but the
Gateway Access Service. This is the backhaul channel between the DSLAM
at the local exchange office and the peering exchange, which Bell was
mandated to make available to third-party providers.

ISPs that provide their own backhaul (eg. Yak [1] or Eyesurf [2] which
use Fibretech for the backhaul) are not affected by the UBB tariffs,
even though they still use the Bell last mile wiring.

The whole thing looks something like this for Bell's backhaul:

You -> DSL Modem -> Bell last mile copper -> DSLAM -> Gateway Access
Service -> Peering Point -> Independent ISP -> Internet backbone

whereas Yak and Eyesurf's connectivity is like

You -> DSL Modem -> Bell last mile copper -> DSLAM -> Fibretech ->
Peering Point -> Yak/Eyesurf -> Internet backbone

However, I agree with you that the last mile monopolies by Bell and the
cablecos are problematic, and that regulation over this will cause
future grief.

Anon I shall read your material with greater depth, so as to actually be
able to answer your questions :-)


--Bob.

[1] http://yak.ca/high-speed-internet
[2] http://www.eyesurf.net/


Bob Jonkman<***@sobac.com> http://sobac.com/sobac/
SOBAC Microcomputer Services Voice: [phone]
6 James Street, Elmira ON Canada N3B 1L5 Cel: [phone]
Software --- Office& Business Automation --- Consulting

Post by Russell McOrmond
Interesting week for telecommunications policy, whether you are
following Usage Based Billing (#UBB) or wireless competition with the
WIND/Globalive decision.
Hopefully the government will quickly table legislation to deal with the
competition issues behind these two issues. In the case of UBB my
problem (and I suspect many CLUE members) is not with UBB per-se, but
with the government-granted monopoly provider of the "last mile"
connections to our homes being able to impose a business model on
competitors. In the case of the Globalive decision, I suspect the
technical community can separate the need for appropriate regulation in
this sector from ownership issues, given it seems antiquated to worry
about the nationality of executives in this century.
I wrote about both these issues in more detail at http://BillC32.ca/5281
My focus as policy coordinator remains with Copyright given Bill C-32 is
currently having hearings, and is a place where there is actual
legislation to discuss. I have been attending (and live tweeting
http://twitter.com/russellmcormond) most of the meetings since they
started, and posting my thoughts after each http://BillC32.ca/com .
A group of backers of collective societies released a Joint statement
http://c32jointstatement.ca/ on Thursday claiming that it was "Supported
by nearly 90 organizations representing more than 600,000 creators and
copyright owners". I know for a fact that they haven't polled their
members as many of us are in contact with (or overlap with) people who
are members of these groups who they claim to speak on behalf of.
This begs the question: How many people can CLUE claim to represent?
Using their logic, since CLUE is the Canadian Association for Open
Source, we can list any developer or user of Open Source as supporters.
Given any computer user has some Open Source on their computer (whether
they are aware of it or not), or they use online sites built upon Open
Source (Google, Amazon, nearly all of .gc.ca, whatever), we can claim
nearly all Canadians. No need to poll any of them: their use of any Open
Source can be defined to mean agreement to CLUE's policy statements
http://Cluecan.ca/policy
All joking aside, since I don't think it is useful to try to beat them
at their game by using their rules, what would people consider to be a
more realistic number of Canadians that CLUE represents.
At http://cluecan.ca/policy/copyright I document that CLUE's executive
endorsed both the "Petition for Users Rights (in Copyright)" and the
"Petition to protect Information Technology property rights" as
organised by the Digital Copyright Canada forum.
http://digital-copyright.ca
The Petition for Users Rights has seen nearly 3K signatures, and the
Petition for IT property rights has seen almost 400 signatures. These
are people who personally endorsed very specific policy positions, so is
much stronger than the joint statement where we only really know less
than 100 people (The often overlapping executives of the 90
associations) were in some sort of agreement.
Other thoughts? Can we increase these numbers? Do we set up some way for
Canadians to specifically endorse our policy statements, or do we just
continue to use the existing petitions?
If you are not sure what I mean by "backers of collective societies"
when discussing the joint statement, I can fill in some details.
Copyright is a series of activities which need permission from the
copyright holder. There are two broad types of exceptions from that
requirement for permission: those that require payment (called
compulsory licensing) and those that don't require payment (called Fair
Use in the USA, and a much limited form called Fair Dealings in Canada).
Far more activities require permission in Canada than in the USA, and of
those that don't need permission far more need payment in Canada than
the USA. The claim that Canadian copyright law is "weaker" than US law
is simply incorrect.
The joint statement was largely in opposition to fair dealings reform,
and the idea that Copyright should have any uses which don't need payment.
Notice I said payment, as these same groups are strong supporters of
compulsory licenses (AKA: levies, or what the Conservatives call the
iPod tax in the case of music) where payment flows into collective
societies, and then a portion flows to copyright holders in an
unaccountable and largely non-transparent way. The joint statement lists
collective societies as a solution for any situation where permission is
complex/etc.
Collective societies should be seen as similar to banks. They provide a
valuable financial service to those who choose their services, one that
many people couldn't live without. They should never be allowed to claim
to represent politically or otherwise the diverse interests of those who
chose their services. The idea of mandating that someone use a specific
service or specific brand of service should be seen as an extreme
situation, and never thought of lightly -- with expanding current
compulsory licensing and adding new ones being what the primaries behind
the joint statement have been asking for.
Collective societies are excessively politically powerful in Canada and
have convinced many of the executives of creator groups that what is
good for collectives is good for them. They have created a rhetoric
where exceptions to copyright in the form of compulsory licenses are
good, but exceptions to copyright in the form of fair dealings is bad --
even abusing words such as theft and expropriation in many cases.
Analyzing when copyright levies are a good idea, and when they are a
very bad idea. http://BillC32.ca/4515
Bill C-32 FAQ question: Should the Private Copying Regime be expanded to
all works covered by the copyright act?
http://billc32.ca/faq#allcpc

[Russell McOrmond]

Hi Russell: ?The UBB decision(s) are not about the last mile, but the
Gateway Access Service.

All agreed, but for the purposes of discussing this with less
technical people, or when it wasn't the focus of the letter, some
shortcuts are needed. Most people are unaware that there are two
parts of the network, leave alone questions of facilities based vs.
GAS. They think this is about allowing UBB at all, which is separate.
I'm not against UBB per-se, just against it being imposed on me by
someone other than my ISP, and in an anti-competitive way.

You'll likely also know that facilities based only works in some
CO's, and Bell is claiming that they don't have the infrastructure to
allow competing facilities based services everywhere. They can't
have it both ways, and the push-back against allowing any competitors
at all is a major problem. They are always looking for loopholes in
the regulation -- recognizing the CRTC doesn't seem equipped to deal
with the issues.


...But back to Copyright and C-32, the focus of my letter.

Any thoughts? Do you have connections with a local LUG that might
endorse our policy summary and coordinate getting more signatures to
the petitions?

We need to counter the executives of organizations who are trying to
push legislation that is very harmful to us, and who love to claim
they represent far more people than they actually do.