Broadcastthis’s Weblog

Yes, another disclaimer….

*I’m not suggesting that artists shouldn’t get paid for their work, I’m suggesting that the current framing of the debate is short-sighted, lacking in a wider understanding of the current situation, and is just plain “bad business”.*

O, ACTRA wherefore art thou artistic sensibilities?

Despite the vast amount of information available on the proposed changes to the Canadian Copyright Act, (aka – The Canadian DMCA), I never cease to be surprised at the lack of understanding that artists have with regards to the new rules coming down the pipe for content creation (meaning: “art”).

A few months ago, I wrote a long open letter to ACTRA (a union to which I belong as a performer), and questioned the union’s position which overwhelmingly supports changes to the Copyright Act that they believe will enrich the finances of their membership. I wholeheartedly disagree with ACTRA…in fact…I believe that the proposed changes will become a major detriment to artists trying to create content while protecting only those at the top (read: broadcasters, big business and their lobby groups as well as internet service providers).

In the letter, I addressed the “Myths and Facts” page that ACTRA has posted on their website. The so-called “fact sheet” is riddled with errors and (if I didn’t know any better), outright lies which give me a sinking feeling in my stomach that leaves me wondering why my union is giving the broadcasters a “mulligan”.

ACTRA went on strike over “new media”…so, why are they now practically handing new media over to those we struck against?!

I’m sincerely confused by ACTRA’s stance. I’m confused even *after* speaking with ACTRA’s Director of Policy, Kim Hume, for the better part of an hour on the subject. In our conversation following my letter, we (Ms. Hume and I), respectfully agreed to disagree, but I have to say that some of my greater concerns (privacy issues, DRM, TPM technologies etc.), were not met with any real understanding of the implications that are buried deep within the proposed changes to the legislation. Rather, my concerns were met with, “we’re a labour union that represents artists” and “we need to protect our membership and get them the money that they deserve for their work in new media”.

I also received a letter from ACTRA president, Richard Hardacre, thanking me for my “activism”. (I’m not an activist….I’m an *actor*)

It should be noted that all of this occurred *before* the proposed changes were made public. As soon as the changes to Bill C-61 were public knowledge, I made a bee-line over to the ACTRA website and (though not surprised at all), was thoroughly dismayed by Stephen Waddell’s (Exec. Director of ACTRA), statement that “vocal opponents of this Bill will characterize it as mimicking what’s already been done in the U.S., but that’s oversimplifying things.”

Oversimplifying?!

Forgive me in advance Mr. Waddell, but…those of us who are against the changes have more than a “simple” understanding of the Act. And…let it be said (by a dues paying member of your union, no less…), that any knowledge on the state of copyright in Canada does *not* come from our union propaganda. In fact, my suggestions for the formation of a “new media committee” or even something as “simple” as a discussion on the matter with the membership at large have been ignored.

Waddell’s statement can be considered as “correct” in that it doesn’t just mimic the U.S. version of this law….it goes further.

While ACTRA maintains that they are *not* in the pocket of big business, it’s hard to accept the idea that we can be (as a union), members of a lobby group with big business and still represent the interests of artists. To put a finer point on it: how can a union represent interests that aren’t heard? Again, forgive me, but…it makes me wonder who is advising the executive at ACTRA on these matters. How can ACTRA continue to bash our collective heads against the brick wall of government (censorship, arts funding) and keep coming up empty-handed, AND THEN – hand copyright and intellectual property control over to the very people that don’t want to pay us anything for our work.

Can we actually believe (as members), that once Broadcasters own the copyright and intellectual property rights of a program and the digital locks on the product, that they will then give us a fair piece of the pie?…..talk about “tilting at windmills”…

On with the show…

Alright, enough with the rant….

How ACTRA is helping to kill the “mixed tape”…

1. Under the proposed legislation, making a mixed tape and giving it to a friend is a crime. “Who cares?”, says you. “It’s always been illegal. No-one will ever *actually* be punished for committing the crime”. Well…the biggest difference between “then” and “now”, is that your old cassette player wasn’t hooked up to a broadband high-speed internet connection. You can’t even give someone your old iPod with songs on it. Legally, you’ll have to erase the contents. (Remember that iTunes or Windows Media Player is connected to the internet and *everything*, absolutely *everything* that you do on your computer is “open source” information to those with deep enough pockets to harvest your info.)
2. Let’s say that you buy a song for $0.99 on iTunes. It’s “protected” with DRM (Digital Rights Management) or TPM (Technological Protection Measure) technology. If the technology that exists in your song file prevents you from changing the format (say…from an mp4 to mp3 or a .wav format), – or – it limits the amount of copies you can make (say…you can only burn it onto a CD once or twice) and you circumvent the technological measures in order to illegally change the format or copy it more than you’re allowed to…well, then…you can be sued up to $20,000 (depending on how famous and cranky the artist is that you’ve “gypped”). Again, you say – “Who cares? No-one will *actually* come after me for that”. I say, “The government enacts laws in order to exercise them”.
3. Further to the point on TPM’s, ACTRA has made a grave error in suggesting to its membership that a user’s privacy cannot be violated simply by putting a CD or DVD into your player. This is so wrong, that it doesn’t *just* oversimplify the matter…it’s misinformation by definition. ( I hesitate to call it disinformation, but now that I’ve brought the matter to the attention of the Director of Policy, they can’t exactly say that “they didn’t know”…). ACTRA states on their website:

“The proposed changes to the Copyright Act have nothing to do with privacy. Some people have falsely stated that TPMs will violate your privacy. That is not true. The vast majority of TPMs do not collect personal information and cannot violate your privacy. For example, your DVD player uses TPMs. Your DVD player is not collecting personal information or violating your privacy.” (emphasis original)

Well…if you have even a cursory knowledge of the proposed legislation *and* have read ACTRA’s “Myths and Truths about the Proposed Changes to Canada’s Copyright Act”, you’ll see that ACTRA has actually been proven wrong on just about every “fact” that they’ve put forward. (If you’re an ACTRA member and this doesn’t concern you…I submit that you, a) are apathetic about your industry and probably stopped reading this post long ago or, b) still don’t understand the implications of what’s going on here…).

The idea that your DVD player (or CD or media player), is *not* collecting your personal information or violating your privacy underscores the frightening fact that ACTRA either has no idea of what they’re talking about, OR, they’re willfully disseminating misinformation. Granted, your DVD is not violating your privacy if you’re putting it into a DVD player that is hard-wired to a TV. BUT – if you watch movies on your laptop, or (again), organize your new media on your computer, your information is *most definitely* being collected.

In 2005, something called the “Sony/BMG Rootkit Scandal” shed some much needed light on the otherwise little-known practice of companies using “spyware” to collect your personal information. In the case of Sony BMG, a “root-kit” would be installed on your computer (without your knowledge) if you had bought a CD containing the technology (Celine Dion, Neil Diamond, Trey Anastasio, for example), and this “root-kit” would be virtually unseen on your computer and would send personal info (i.e. – what you listen to, when you listen to it….if it’s legal or not).

Now…not to keep oversimplifying things, but…

CONTINUED… Part Two: ACTRA Fumbles on Film