Crossing the Line: moving from old media concentration to new media “skipping the intermediaries”

by Russell McOrmond1

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Canadian Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons License.2

Summary

This document has the following components:

Crossing the Line: speaking notes from February 8 presentation.

The materials for this inquiry talk about foreign ownership as if it were the most critical issue facing us as it relates to media and cultural sovereignty. While ownership may be an important issue for broadcast media, there is also a need to adequately evaluate new media, such as the Internet.

By far the most powerful aspect of new media is the ability to “skip intermediaries” and communicate directly between creator and audience. This is a feature quite different than broadcast media where the broadcaster always acts as an intermediary between creator and audience.

This ability to “skip the intermediaries” is great for decentralization of the media and of allowing a multiplicity of voices. It is great for creators and audiences, but it is obviously not so great for those old-media intermediaries that are being bypassed. Their relevance will diminish as new media increasingly replaces broadcast media as societies source of information and entertainment.

The largest battle in new media is the attempts by old-media intermediaries to re-intermediate new media and attempt to retain their control over the production and distribution of cultural goods and services, and retain control over the business models used within the cultural and related sectors.

Protecting the future from the past

In a 2002 keynote4, Lawrence Lessig5 suggested a refrain that if understood would explain many cultural policy policy debates:

This aspect of cultural policy has been with us since we created free societies. Each time a new technology that enhances our creative capacity comes along, the past has always tried to control it. This was the case with songwriters when the player piano and “talking machines” came along that created the recording industry, and it was the case with the Motion Picture industry wanting to control the VCR.

Jack Valenti, then president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), argued for the past in front of the United States Congress in 19826 using the following words:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

Imagine a world that had protected the past from the future, and allowed the MPAA to control the VCR and derivative technology such as the camcorder, or video editing tools which are now cheap enough to have in the home. Not only has the motion picture industry seen growth in sales due to the home theater market that the VCR sparked, but these new technologies allowed the average citizen to become creators of their own motion pictures.

This incalculable growth of human creativity would simply never have been possible had the past been allowed to control the future.

The language we hear today from the recording industry about the alleged harm to their industry from the Internet is nearly identical. We hear from them that the sky is falling and that without an immediate response from parliaments that creativity will die. Those that understand the refrain I mentioned above will know this to be as false as Jack Valenti's words, or the words of all of those who came before him that tried to harm our free society by having the past control the future.

The roll of Industry and Heritage Canada

The very different features of broadcast media and new media causes a considerable amount of policy confusion. On example can be seen in the discussion of Media and Culture issue7 for this part of the Citizens' Inquiry which suggested.

Thus far, the free traders at Industry Canada seem to think this is a good idea, while the cultural protectionists at Canadian Heritage are adamantly opposed.

Copyright policy is joint between Industry and Heritage, and the view expressed by the Council of Canadians is opposite to what people active in Copyright policy see. With copyright it is Heritage that is wanting to mimic the policies that the United States has been pushing internationally through WIPO and related trade organizations, and it is Industry Canada that has been suggesting caution.

Recently the parliamentary Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage released an Interim report on Copyright Reform8. With the exception of one recommendation relating to photography which had its own problems, each of the other 8 recommendations promoted re-intermediation. This report regulates away much the citizen enhancing features of new-media. Like the 1996 WIPO treaties that they drew inspiration from, the intent was to allow those who were the gatekeepers of culture in the past to control this new media.

Two types of past intermediary control

There are two broad categories of intermediaries: technical and business model. Technical intermediaries are those who own and/or control technologies which are used in communications. Business model intermediaries are organizations who attempt to insert themselves within economic transactions, such that the only way to make money with a given type of creativity is to go through that intermediary.

Technological intermediaries

With broadcast media the owners are fairly clear, with it is well understood that those who own a newspaper or television station have influence over the content that will be communicated over that media. This type of intermediary is part of the medium, and the ability for the average citizen to skip a television station's ownership and communicate with fellow citizens simply doesn't exist.

With new media the intermediaries are not always as obvious. When using a computer to communicate most people believe the computer is under their own control, obeying their commands. The computer is actually obeying instructions that were encoded in computer software. In this way software code can be seen as a type of law9. Society must adequately understand this new form of regulation, often coded by private interests, and how it interacts with laws passed by democratically elected governments.

While the software could contain rules which obey the wishes of owner of the computer, they can also be authored to deliberately ignore the owner and instead obey the wishes of someone else. With the author of the software in control of the computer, and not the owner, this software becomes an intermediary which can exert any control it wishes.

This type of intermediary is far more powerful than a broadcast era intermediary given the level of secrecy that exists around the rules being obeyed. In one case in the United States the very discussion of the rules used in electronic voting machines was claimed to be illegal10, a subversion of the accountability and transparency of the electoral process which should put the integrity of the election into question.

We all know the phrase “to err is human, to really fowl things up requires a computer”, which when applied to public policy suggests that parliaments are making extreme mistakes where computers are involved.

This remote control of a computer is the purpose of what is often called “Digital Rights Management” (DRM), one of the techniques strongly supported by Heritage with their push to ratify the 1996 re-intermediation WIPO treaties. I suspect they are supporting this powerful new intermediary because they have trusted the marketing brochures of the DRM software companies which falsely claim that it will be the copyright holder that is in control11.

It is important to remember that any tool that can be used to create and distribute a creative work can be abused to infringe the creative rights of others. There is no way for the technology to know the difference, and there are vested economic interests of incumbent intermediaries to not differentiate infringement from competition.

Any attempt to use technological means to stop copyright infringement will infringe on the creative, cultural and communications rights of law abiding citizens. The ends simply can not justify the means.

Business model intermediaries

In broadcast media there were a limited number of business models possible, with royalty collection for any commercial communication or copying of a creative work being seen as the only model possible.

With new media it is possible to “skip the intermediaries” and build much more custom business models that match a creator/audience relationship. Rather than charging a royalty for every possible use, a creator can license some uses as royalty-free and other uses as royalty-bearing, exploring ways to treat the royalty-free distribution as low-cost marketing of other commercial services.

The fastest growing part of the software marketplace is the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS12) sector. While the monopolies from the past software markets such as Microsoft are still in wide use, many competitors believe that switching to more innovative modern business models is the only way to compete in this marketplace.

In the cultural marketplace there is a growth of the Creative Commons movement which offers tools to help “skip the intermediaries” by licensing creative works differently and harness the power of the Internet. More and more works are being released in licenses which authorize people to distribute the work royalty-free on peer-to-peer networks, with the creators leveraging this extremely cheap distributed distribution mechanism in support of a variety of alternative business models.

The Business Software Alliance (BSA and CAAST)

A set of incumbent intermediaries are fighting back here as well13. Each year the Business Software Alliance (BSA), and their Canadian subsidiary the self-called Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft (CAAST) release a so-called “global piracy study”. Analysis of their statistical methodology indicates that they are including competing business models such as those use by the FLOSS sector as if it were “piracy”14. They (ab)use these statistics to encourage governments to enact policy which will favor their business model over any competitive business model. Their stated mission is to reduce so-called “software theft”, but are the strongest opposition to new business models which largely solve this problem.

Non-repertoire Collective Societies

New types of intermediaries are also emerging in the form of collective societies expanding themselves outside of their repertoires, to being a government imposed intermediary in cases where either (or neither) the copyright holder or the audience are given a choice.

Collective societies were created to allow a group of copyright holders to get together and create an agency that could provide a “one stop shopping” service to potential audiences. Only if a copyright holder joined the collective could that collective offer licenses to a given work, and only if the audience was wanting to make use of a work part of a collective's repertoire would they need to pay that collective.

Collectives such as Access Copyright (for literary works), Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC collects the levy on blank audio recording media like blank CDs) and others have been granted or are pushing for extended or statutory licenses. A good summary of the common licensing types was included in the Interim report from Heritage15:

Licensing could take one of three forms: voluntary licensing, extended licensing, or compulsory licensing.
In voluntary licensing, copyright holders and users contract directly with one another.
Extended licensing allows a copyright collective society claiming to represent a “substantial” repertoire of certain types of material to be recognized as representing the entire international repertoire of such types of material, but individual authors would have a right to “opt out” of the collective society.
Under compulsory licensing, copyright owners are legislatively required to allow use of their work according to statutory described conditions and prices.

With voluntary licensing a full spectrum of business models are supported, with freedom of choice existing for both creator and their potential audiences. With either of extended of compulsory licensing the government is picking business models, and an intermediary that is collecting money now exists which can exhibit all the harmful behavior of any other market monopoly.

Conclusions

We need to be very careful in how we handle this area of policy. The commercial interests of the incumbent intermediaries can not be allowed to be used to enact new government policy which will have considerable unintended consequences. These unintended consequences can have far more harmful impacts on society than even the worst scenarios of the problems such as copyright infringement that we are supposedly enacting these laws to reduce.

Unlike the case of other monopolies we are not talking about harm only to a commercial marketplace or to consumer prices, but harm to our ability to create and communicate ideas with fellow citizens. Mistakes in this area of policy have implications on our ability to protect human rights: directly with creator, cultural and communications rights, and indirectly with most other rights16.

We need to always have this refrain in our minds:


Additional handouts for commissioners



Answers to questions about this presentation

Q: How does this topic relate to Canada-U.S. Relations?

Internationally when Intellectual Property is discussed there is a divide between what the U.S. position is and the position of many other countries. The United States is in a trade deficit situation with most types of goods and services, with trade surpluses in areas such as arms and “intangibles”. Most of the trade surplus in intangibles relates to licensing fees for Intellectual Property, making it quite rational that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Unites States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would be very aggressively seeking to impose policy on trade partners which allow the USA to maintain this trade surplus.

While many Canadians see the USA as Canada's largest trade partner, the US is better understood as our largest economic competitor. This trade surplus for the Unites States is a growing trade deficit for Canada. In a competitive marketplace we need to adopt policies which, if they can not explicitly favor Canadian innovation and creativity, should at least support it. Most of the innovation and cultural industry incumbents are based in the United States, so a policy that protects incumbents from disruptive innovation is a policy that favors US interests.

In the early 1990's the United States launched a National Information Infrastructure (NII) initiative. As part of this initiative there was a Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, which released a report in 199523 (often referred to as the"Lehman report").

Rather than seeking ways to regulate this new media to support a full spectrum of development, distribution and business models, they instead created recommendations that would make this new media "safe" for the old-media incumbents. This is a direct opposition to a market based approach that would have enabled new-media innovators and creators to possibly disrupt established business processes with better processes.

The USA took this extreme vision to WIPO, and in 1996 a watered down set of treaties based on the U.S. recommendations were signed by many countries. It is my understanding that it is quite common for a country to sign a treaty without such a signature creating any obligation to ratify if it is determined that the treaty is not in the interests of the country.

The USA implemented their vision in their 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)24 which came into force in 2000. The chill on innovation and creativity has been considerable, especially with the USA arresting foreign innovators. There are a growing number of innovators, myself included, which started a boycott of any travel to the United States due to this law. I submitted activities to Industry Canada as part of the 2001 consultation25 that, if carried out by an American Citizen or within the US, would have been in violation of the DMCA.

Since 1996, WIPO has seen far more balanced debate. As a counter proposal to the "Lehman report" a number of developing nations have come forward with a "development agenda".

On October 4, 2004, the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization agreed to adopt a proposal offered by Argentina and Brazil, the "Proposal for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO" (sometimes referred to as "Item 12" because of its placement listing on the meeting's agenda). This proposal was strongly supported by developing countries, as well as by a large contingent of civil society. Prior to the General Assembly meeting, hundreds of nonprofits, scientists, academics and other individuals had signed the "Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO," which calls on WIPO to focus more on the needs of developing countries, and to view IP as one of many tools for development - not as an end in itself.26

As with attempts to have a meeting within WIPO on Collaborative Development Models27, the United States (USTR/USPTO) is aggressively opposed to any type of balanced reform of WIPO that takes it away from the vision of an organization promoting the interests of a small number of US corporations.

Within Canada there are far too many politicians that believe that the 1996 WIPO treaties represent some sort of “international standard” and that we must rush to ratify. When one looks at what countries have ratified, and under what type of pressure from the US, it is obvious why many consider these countries to be the “Coalition of the Billing”. Canada should feel as free to have a response different than that of the USA to cultural policy and the Internet as Canada has a different response to what has been happening in Iraq and elsewhere.

Q: Who would be harmed if Canada ratified the 1996 WIPO treaties?

It is easier to answer this question in reverse, which is who will benefit. If the WIPO treaties are fully successful, they will have protected the incumbent media corporations and “software manufacturing” vendors from any new competition. This means that any of the democratizing possibilities of the Internet will have been stifled, and we will have entered a many-channel broadcast universe where the concept of “interactive” is reduced to consumers being able to buy items advertised by broadcasters from their set-top boxes.

The harm to creativity will likely have been far greater than if the incumbents had got their way in the 1980's and the motion picture industry was able to control the development of the VCR and derivative technology. There has been so many positive things written about the potential of the Internet, all of which assumed that this new media would be able to develop independent of any control by the monopolies from the old media.

This is not an issue about creators vs. users, as new media offers considerable benefit over old-media to both creators and their audiences. While some superstars that were made successful by the old media may believe protecting established monopolies to be a good thing, this is a view that is opposed to the promotion of creativity generally.

In my 2003 submission to the Canadian parliament on their section 9228 review of the copyright act I spoke of the need to be aware of the protection of human rights when reforming copyright. Far too many people claim that protection of creators' rights is limited to protecting the material and moral rights of past creativity, ignoring the need to protect a creators right to build on past creativity and to publicly communicate their works.

The authority that I draw upon in my thinking about copyright policy are two articles from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNUDHR)29, specifically article 19 and article 27.


Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Article 27.

  1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.


We must never allow the copyright holders of past creativity to substitute article 27(2) as being the only right relevant to creators and creativity.

Q: You mentioned that your views may be different than those of Sheila Copps?

When I found out who the commissioners were for the Ottawa session, I was interested to see the dynamic between Sheila Copps and Senator Laurier LaPierre.

I recently read “A Charter for the Cultural Citizen Online”30 , the report of the Canadian Culture Online National Advisory Board where Mr. LaPierre was chair31. This report specifically resisted being entrapped by “how things used to be”, a very progressive way of looking at the Internet as a great opportunity for Canadian creativity. I was told that Mr. LaPierre had considerable influence on this report, and that it was his visionary thinking I was reading.

Sheila Copps was the Minister of Canadian Heritage when I became more intimately involved in this area of policy in the summer of 200132 . Our community quickly learned that she was the driving force in Canada behind the policies which we opposed.

While trying since the summer of 2001 to meet with the Minister, I meet Ms. Copps for the first time at the Minister's Forum33 on Copyright on April 4th, 2003. This was a forum where the Copyright Policy Branch of Heritage invited 30 creators involved in copyright to a forum that was taped for CPAC.

Prior to the taping, Minister Copps circulated a reception and spoke to different people. We spoke very briefly about what I am involved in with collaborative development models, and our different needs under copyright. She quickly dismissed what I had to say claiming I was “giving away my rights”, and that while that was my right that this should not affect her claim that we needed to strengthen and broaden copyright. This was a view almost verbatim to what we see from the United States, a view quit different from Mr. LaPierre. Ms. Copps was very trapped by “how things used to be” and was seeking to protect that past from the future.

When Ms. Copps was fighting a nomination battle in her Hamilton riding in the beginning of 2004, I wrote an article offering my perspective of her as a copyright reformer34. It contrasted her policy position with those of Hamilton hometown hero Bob Young (owner of the Hamilton Tigercats). Bob Young made his money through his company RedHat35, a company that could not have existed if Ms. Copps vision had already been implemented.

Q: Why is there so much animosity in discussions of copyright, especially between those on “the left”

As part of my work I have tried to connect with other creators36. In these conversations it became clear we share many common goals. We all wish to allow Canadian creators to create, and to be able to get paid for our creativity. We agree on basic questions of the public interest such as the protection of moral and material rights for creators, a healthy growing public domain, freedom of expression and protection from censorship. We want all Canadians to become creators if they so chose, and to be able to be successful without artificial barriers.

Where we have very strong disagreements is how to accomplish these goals, especially when we each see the proposals from the other as harming these shared goals.

In the seventies one of the critical issues for Canadian writers was a lack of Canadian publishers. Writers got together and helped facilitate the creation of these publishers. They were fighting against primarily foreign publishers that did not have an interest in supporting Canadian writers. They were trying to “skip an intermediary”, providing a method for Canadian writers to publish books.

Many more supportive organizations were built, including the Writers Union and what is now called Access Copyright (formerly CANCOPY). These were all intended to support Canadian writers, and I would agree that overall they were accomplishing their goal in the past.

In the 1990's we saw the birth of the Internet and other digital media, and the nature of the battles changed. The new issue was not whether the publishers or other existing intermediaries were Canadian or not, but whether old-media style editorial control was to be imposed, and who was imposing it. With the power of computer software the ability of an intermediary to control the activities of a creator or other citizen is considerable, especially when this software is “closed source” meaning that the rules it enforced were not accountable or transparent.

The innovation we saw on the Internet, whether it be Email or the Web, happened without requiring permission. It also happened using open standards and mostly FLOSS software. Had permission been required of either the telecommunications companies or the existing broadcast content industry, it should be obvious that this permission would not have been granted. Clearly many activities on the Internet are in competition with a large number of established old-media interests.

Unfortunately those organizations that were formed by creators to protect their interests in the 70's and 80's see new media as a threat for the business models that they helped to promote. Access Copyright is not seen as representing creators, but representing one narrow business model used by writers. While it is quite unfortunate, battle lines have now been drawn between younger creators who support the full spectrum of possibilities offered by new media, and older generation creators who oppose any disruption of their legacy business models and distribution mechanisms.

I support a full spectrum of development models, distribution models and business models. If a creator wishes to use a traditional development model (possibly one author), distribution model (traditional book publishing industry) and business model (royalties paid per book sold), I support their right to do so. For my own creativity I favor new development models (commons-based peer production37), distributing via the Internet (using Peer-to-peer file-sharing when file or audience size is large). I charge a one-time fee for value-add requested by customers, or some other business model that does not require counting/monitoring (or suing) users such as charging royalty fees.

Where the most animosity can be seen is when incumbent creators, or more often intermediary business associations or collective societies, claim that any competing methods do not exist or are “theft”. They suggest that one-to-many centrally controlled broadcast-style methods are the only way to distribute cultural goods, and that the Internet should be reconfigured (via changes in the law) to only allow this method of distribution. They suggest the only business model is collecting royalties on each use, going to far as to claim that copyright is simply a right of remuneration. They have promoted changes to the law to replace copyright with a right of remuneration, making any alternative business models impossible to implement.

While our community has been quite willing to try to work with incumbent creators, these creators have generally been hard to convince to be open minded and allow the co-existence of a full spectrum of expressions of creative rights.

One of the most powerful tools we are using to try to break free from the incumbents is the concept of “some rights reserved” from Creative Commons, Free/Libre and Open Source Software, and others. Where in the 1970's writers were trying to create Canadian publishers to protect their ability to have Canadian voices heard through the monopoly publishing industry of the day, the modern equivalent are those who are trying to use innovative licensing models. Neil Leyton of Fading Ways Music38 is working both in Canada and in Europe to build an International Creative Commons label movement to try to protect musicians rights from what he sees to be the greatest threat, the incumbent major labels and the excessive control of their industry associations.

1Russell McOrmond is a self-employed Open Systems/Standards/Software Internet Consultant. http://flora.ca/ (Accessed January 31, 2005). He not only believes that "code is law", but also that "law is code" and spends much of his time "hacking" this type of code.

2Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Canada http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/ (Accessed Feb 21, 2005)

3My announcement of the event is at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/4410 (Accessed February 21, 2005)

4Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig Keynote from OSCON 2002 http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/2641 (Accessed February 5, 2005)

5Lawrence Lessig is a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. http://www.lessig.org/bio/short/ (Accessed February 5, 2005).

6Hearings before the subcommittee on courts, civil liberties, and the administration of justice of the committee on the judiciary, house of representatives, ninety-seventh congress, second session: Home recording of copyrighted works. http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm (Accesses February 5, 2005)

7Media and Culture http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=coc_token&step=2&catid=352&iscat=1 (Accessed January 31, 2005)

8Links and a summary of this report http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/550 (Accessed January 31, 2005)

9For longer articles on the concept of “code as law”.
Short SpeedGeek: http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/code-is-law-speedgeek.html (Accessed January 31, 2005)
Longer article: http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/code-is-law.html (Accessed January 31, 2005)

10Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc. http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/ (Accessed January 31, 2005)

11I gave more detail on who is in control in “I, copyright cop! Who controls the digital security guards?” http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/copyright-cops.html (Accessed January 31, 2005)
There has been ongoing discussion of this issue in the Digital Copyright Canada forum, including discussions of the market failure that will exist even in situations with ineffective DRM running on non-DRM platforms (Generic computers running non-DRM operating systems) http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/4345 (Accessed January 31, 2005)

12Defining FLOSS http://www.flora.ca/floss.shtml (Accessed January 31, 2005)

13I discussed this type of business model intermediary in “Content industries on slippery slope with demand for blank media levy” (Canadian New Media, Feb 7, 2003) http://www.flora.ca/cnm20030207.shtml (Accessed January 31, 2005)

14CAAST misinformation - how do they count? http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=272 (Accessed February 5, 2005)
Summary: CAAST counts the number of computers sold and does a wishful-thinking estimate of how much of a demand there should be for their software. They then subtract the actual sales of their software, and define the difference as infringement. CAAST can not be trusted to estimate the demand for competing software any more than a candidate from one political party can publicly estimate the demand for votes for their opponents.

15Interim report on Copyright reform, “E. The use of Internet material for educational purposes” http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/Documents/37/3/parlbus/commbus/house/reports/herirp01/07-rap-e.htm#TOCLink_07_24 (Accessed January 31, 2005)

16The United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (Accessed January 31, 2005) lists many different rights. Copyright policy directly impacts articles 19 (communications rights) and 27 (cultural and creators' rights). With the ability of intermediaries to exercise editorial control, even regulating who may publish at all, this will have implications for property rights (part of ownership includes the right to control for lawful purposes), privacy rights, democratic rights, educational rights, etc...

17Red Hat History http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/timeline.html (Accessed February 5, 2005)

18Bob Young's site on Lulu.com http://www.lulu.com/Machine (Accessed February 5, 2005)

19Board of Directors for the Center for the Public Domain http://www.centerpd.org/bod.htm (Accessed February 5, 2005)

20Hamilton Tiger-Cats http://www.ticats.ca/ (February 5, 2005)

21Creative Commons Canada http://www.creativecommons.ca (Accessed Feb 5, 2005)

22Petition for Users' Rights http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ (accessed Feb 7, 2005)

23Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/ (Accessed February 21, 2004)

24The Electronic Frontier Foundation keeps information on the unintended consequences of this act http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/ (Accessed February 21, 2005)

252001 copyright reform: CMPDA reply http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001-cmpda-reply.shtml (Accessed February 21, 2005). The act of watching a DVD movie on Free/Libre and Open Source Software software that by its nature can not be authorized by the DVD-CCA is a violation of the USA DMCA. This submission formed the basis of a larger submission to the Competition Bureau in 2003 http://www.flora.ca/competition2003/ (Accessed February 21, 2005)

26The introductory page from the Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech) on the Future of WIPO http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipo.html (Accessed February 21, 2005)

27Request for WIPO Meeting on Collaborative Development Models http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/openwipo.html (Accessed February 21, 2005)

28Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in regards to its section 92 copyright act review and report. http://www.flora.ca/copyright2003/ (Accessed February 21, 2005)

29United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (Accessed February 21, 2005)

30 A Charter for the Cultural Citizen Online : Canadian Culture Online http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pcce-ccop/pubs/CanadianCulture/index_e.cfm (Accessed February 21, 2005)

312004 members of the Canadian Culture Online National Advisory Board http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pcce-ccop/nab/members_e.cfm (Accessed February 21, 2004)

32I became involved to respond to the threat that Canada may implement the USA's DMCA in Canada. This was how the potential ratification of the 1996 WIPO treaties was being referenced, with few knowing what WIPO was but most technology or Internet practitioners being fully aware of the harm of the DMCA. I started a forum called Canada-DMCA-opponents, which was the precursor to the Digital Copyright Canada forum. The first message was posted on August 2, 2001 http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/1 (Accessed February 21, 2005)

33Information on the Heritage Minister's Forum on Copyright from April 4th, 2003, can be found at http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/forum/index_e.cfm (accessed February 21, 2005)

34Perspective of a digital copyright reformer on Sheila Copps, MP. http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/copps-ndp.html (Accessed February 21, 2005)

35Red Hat History http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/timeline.html (Accessed February 21, 2005)

36Creators Connecting http://www.flora.ca/creators/ (Accessed February 21, 2005)

37The term "commons-based peer production" was first introduced by Yochai Benkler in his paper “Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm”. http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html (Accessed Febuary 21, 2005)

38Fading Ways Music is an independent music label, primarily operating out of Toronto, Canada, but also with offices and street teams in Europe http://www.fadingwaysmusic.com/ (Accessed February 21, 2005)