|
 Last Thursday I presented my latest research on creative consumers and peer-produced content at a conference on ‘ Protecting Digital Content Rights and Investments.’ I covered a range of issues surrounding the phenomenon of peer production in what Benkler calls the networked information economy. In short, firms wishing to adapt to creative consumers, rather than resist them, have a range of licensing options available. None are a panacea, but I offered some early thoughts on ways to better integrate and streamline licensing systems ranging from blanket collective licensing to the Creative Commons.
Day one involved a lot of discussion about the music and film industries. David Basskin of CMRRA made the most promising remarks about working with would-be licensees rather than resisting them. Wendy Noss of the CMPDA made some alarming comments about the camcording problem in Canada, though it wasn’t clear why she conflated that with DRM systems and anti-circumvention provisions. On that latter topic, CRIA still seemed intent on swimming upstream by banking on TPMs as its primary strategy for fighting online piracy. SOCAN’s Paul Spurgeon spoke about ISP liability, a hot topic given the Tariff 22 hearings slated to start at the Copyright Board next month. In his words, despite the Supreme Court’s decision denying liability, “ISPs are not off the hook."
That got the attention of Telus and others, as Jay Thomson recommended for broader fair dealing/use provisions, a notice-and-notice regime and other reforms that back up the Supreme Court’s attitude toward ‘user rights’. Earlier, Rogers’ VP Regulatory Pamela Dinsmore had also advocated for copyright reforms that clearly permit time and format shifting. On a somewhat related topic, Telus made known that isn’t a big fan of the proposed WIPO Broadcast Treaty, saying it could create a $500M annual outflow of retransmission fees to U.S. broadcasters.
There was only little a bit of talk about the under-appreciated issue of net neutrality. Dinsmore argued that that “any concern about net neutrality is purely hypothetical” and could be addressed by existing legislation. Also, my ears perked up when it was mentioned on another panel that content distributors are negotiating traffic prioritization into deals with mobile providers. This trend should definitely be on people’s radar, as mobile is the key distribution network of the future.
It was interesting to see how the tone of the conference changed on day two, when the focus went beyond music. Instead of diatribes about Canada’s shameful copyright academy and biased media, most panelists proposed solutions to meet the needs of all stakeholders in the digital environment. Almost everyone—people representing producers, writers, performers, entrepreneurs, broadcasters, telecos, lawyers, financiers and more—was quite upbeat about the prospects for the Canadian new media industries. Especially notable were all of the different types of deals being done lately, many with clauses on TPMs but all without extra anti-circumvention provisions existing in Canadian law.
Overall, the event was interesting, informative and well worth attending. Congratulations to co-chairs Casey Chisick and David Steinberg as well as Sherry Anderson and other organizers from the Canadian Institute.
|
