Creators of works in a digital medium are concerned about the unauthorized
use of their works on the Information Highway and feel there are currently no effective
means by which to ensure fair remuneration.
What mechanisms (legislative, policy, technological) could beintroduced to address the
problem? How can use of works be tracked for the purpose of remuneration?
Legislation
Civil and criminal sanctions would be more effective with technologies to track copies and identify copyright holders.The will to develop and pursue such technologies is governed to someextent by the possibility of economic return.
Where a large software company is confronted by infringement of their copyrights, it is of value to seek out and report criminalinfringement to authorities despite the absence of any direct financial benefit to the company. The software provider may be attempting to protect potential sales of 750,000 units. Departments can be created to protect copyright.
In the case of smaller suppliers of digital works, the potential market may be more modest. The difficulty of obtaining damages discourages active attempts to follow up on infringement.
Statutory damages have been effective in the U.S. in discouraging infringement. Small scale creators are more likely to assert their rights when damages will be recovered upon demonstration of infringement rather than as a result of drawn out proceedings attempting to establish the profits of the infringer. The small scale creator is reluctant to spend time in a court as a witness in a criminal prosecution where there is no possibility of economic benefit. The result has been a tendency for the applied arts community to avoid legal action and hope that as few people as possible recognize what little power the creator has to protect their economic rights.
Introduction of statutory damages will create demand and development of copyright tracking
software. Statutory damages will protect creators and increase public awareness of the value
of created works. Statutory damages do not require lengthy litigation.
Policy
Deregulation/Laissez-faire: This would certainly have negative impact on smaller Canadian companies and their ability to develop new, innovative growth technologies. Where copyright is deregulated the natural progression is the withholding ofmaterial which may have significant economic benefit. Not only dowe create a "have" and "have-not" society, we would develop a "know" and "know-not" culture. The interchange of valuable information is discouraged by deregulation.
Codes and Standards: The SubCommittee points out the possible danger of adoption of a lowest common denominator standard. In fact the ultimate adoption of standards is necessary to implement an Information Highway that has on-ramps for everyone. Currently the Information Highway is an ever changing mosaic requiring specialized tools and knowledge for access. The development of commercial radio required agreement on bandwidth, technique and method.
Education: Where supported by appropriate legislation, education must be a principal objective. Without public awareness of the intrinsic value of creation, we are doomed to a non-productive cycle of ever more powerful encryption systems defeated by innovative technologic infringers.
Without education we can anticipate a slow and disorderly retreat from the concept of copyright. Consider audio-tape and the slow introduction of digital tape systems which has resulted from copyright concerns.
Technology
Encryption: Encryption has a place however creators and users clearly agree that any practical encryption system will be breakable by a determined thief. We have no wish to see the Information Highway littered with obstacles and speed-bumps.
Finger-printing: For digital images this would be roughly analogous to a limited edition numbered print. The author might authorize 1000 copies of a digital work and each original purchaser would be identified. Infringing copies could therefore be traced to source. As the SubCommittee points out, this method has limited application to an Information Highway. The advantage is clear proof of infringement.
Tagging: CAPIC supports the appearance of copyright notices whereever practical. Fear of detection and appropriate penalties are required.
Embedded Pass-Key: CAPIC supports industry standards as the best way to open the Information Highway to all. If digital formats are standardised it becomes possible to implement certain industry standard controls.
There is no technological reason why all software which has the ability to modify or edit industry standard digital files could not leave an internal record of activity, supported by a password. This has particular application to digital images.
Specifically an image file, could be opened, viewed and even edited using the editing software. However in order to print, export or save the image or any portion, the editor must have knowledge of the original password and creates his/her own password for the modified version. The software saves the passwords and identity of all manipulators of the image.
Cheaper is Better: Clearly this applies only to high-volume sales on an industrial economy model. There will be a limited number of info-products (principally software programs) which benefit from this approach. In an info-economy, cheaper is your money's worth.
Recommendation CAPIC approves of the general recommendations of the
SubCommittee regarding Administration.
The Government should move to include Statutory Damages for mostforms of infringement at
the earliest opportunity.
The Government can assist in the creation of standards and codes which result in the
Information Highway becoming easily accessible to commercial and privatecreators and increase public awareness of the value
of created works. Statutory damages do not require lengthy litigation.
Can the enforcement of rights impede or prevent reasonable accessby users to protected works on the Information Highway? Will copyright become an unreasonable burden? If so, in what circumstances?
Reasonable Access does not mean free or unrestricted. We have reasonable access to food. We go to a store, examine, select, pay and ultimately consume. The grower must earn a reasonable return on the food produced or cease production and/or lower quality.
To suggest that copyright is an "unreasonable burden" would be the first step towards creation of a second grade nation of info-grazers and Internet surfers, an audience to be entertained by the producers who yield income from their copyright on worthy products.
Copyright is the central concept of an info-economy. Information and the expression of ideas are the products. Economic rewards flow from ownership of these products. A country with strong, modern copyright legislation in place will tend to attract the creators and creation of marketable products. The supplier countries will be those which treat copyright as a sacred and fundamental right.
In fact, a failure to enforce copyright would result in reluctance by creators to make their works available. No creator will risk losing the opportunity to earn a reward from the creation of valuable and innovative works. Development of new media products would be retarded by weak protection. Strong copyright law coupled with potential economic reward results in action by copyright holders to develop superior products and encourage access to and use of those products.
In Scandinavia, a respect and exaltation for the work of designers has resulted in an extremely competitive and successful industry which has created economic benefits for the populationas a whole. A similar Canadian veneration for the expression of ideas (ie. copyright) will make Canada a major success in the global info- economy.
New media will create strong demand for content which will be supplied by creators of multimedia components such as photographs, illustrations, film clips and text. Each creator from illustrator to multimedia compiler must be provided with economic return for their works.
In the special case of "publicly owned" information such as legislation, judicial orders, economic information and the like, CAPIC encourages the Government to make this material freely and conveniently available.
Recommendation Strong, efficient and equal copyright protection for all
creators is fundamental to the growth of info-economies. Canadian legislation must be
technology neutral in its valuation ofcopyright works.
What are the administrative alternatives for the clearance of rights for the use of works on the Information Highway,particularly in respect of multimedia works?
We agree that creators of multimedia or compilation works may experience difficulty in locating copyright holders. This occurs as a large proportion of work is reproduced without identifying copyright holders. The cost of clearing rights results from the difficulty in locating copyright holders and demands by multimedia producers that copyright holders release all rights including future reproduction in technologies yet to be developed.
Many creators are keen to undertake licensing for multimedia on a royalty basis. Copyright holders would share both the risk and rewards with multimedia producers. The current reluctance of creators to grant permission for digital reproduction is indicative of the inadequacy of existing legislation in dealing with unauthorized use. This is particularly apparent in the handling of visual images which are essential to multimedia production.
Sharing of revenues on a royalty basis will encourage cooperative development of new products and services. A current impediment to royalty participation is the lack of standard methods of measuring access or "hits" to information available through digital information services.
Copyright collectives provide a potential vehicle for clearance of works in the future however this will only be a workable solution if the multimedia producer is able to identify the appropriate collective and the copyright holder. This would be impossible in today's environment. Copyright collectives unfortunately tend to be industry specific. A still image extracted from a video production might only be found at the collective dealing with video producers.
The creation of a voluntary rights identification centre is closer to the ideal. Ultimately works will become seamless. Such a centre must serve as the identification centre for ALL forms of works where an author is seeking multimedia reproduction. A multimedia producer must be certain that a completed agreement executed through the voluntary rights centre addresses all the elements and copyright holders associated with a work so cleared. Voluntary registration should not be required in order to acquire protection under copyright law.
There is no public interest to be served by a compulsory license scheme. In fact a compulsory license scheme would be inappropriate to most creative works. Generic drug legislation works because objective standards can be applied. The difference between the work of a Margaret Atwood and a pornographic writer can not be so objectively defined yet the difference in value is transparent. Fixed royalties would tend to result in under compensation of the creators of better quality works.
In the end, we can be sure that an electronic clearing house will come into being whether administered as a government arm or as a commercial venture. However the clearinghouse can only be effective where persons seeking rights clearance are able to identify the work which needs to be cleared.
This necessitates the inclusion of copyright holders identities in every possible context. This is in keeping with the fundamental principle that the ownership of intellectual property is the basis of an infophs, illustrations, film clips and text. Each creator from illustrator to multimedia compiler must be provided with economic rsigned to streamline clearance and protection of rights to use works in reproductions or compilations of any kind.
Copyright amendments should encourage licensing in return for royalty payments to copyright holders supplying works for inclusion in new media products.
A requirement to associate a copyright holder's name with all reproductions in any form will facilitate rights clearance for the Information Highway.
Compulsory licensing would not result in equitable treatment of creators.