Copywrong: Harper Conservative Copyright Reform Misses The Mark...Again

Bill C32 is coming. Be afraid, be very afraid.

What's Bill C32 you ask? Why it's the new copyright reform bill from the Harper conservatives. Canada needs to modernize its copyright legislation and C32 purports to do just that. Harper's conservatives have toiled long into the night, asking for advice from U.S. special interest groups and, of course, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) along with the U.S. ambassador to Canada. I wonder too, what the U.S. ambassador knows about copyright or the needs of Canadians. Ask Harper, he knows the answer to that one.

The last time copyright reform was tried (2008), it died a merciful death because of the election. That bill was deeply flawed and garnered a response from across the country the Harper conservatives did not expect. Bill C32, though, was expected to take into account the concerns of consumers but after much discussion, deliberation, and even online public forums last summer, consumers were ignored and the Harper conservatives went forward with drafting Bill C32.

On the surface, Bill C32 looks impressive. Whereas it is presently illegal in Canada to record TV shows (seriously), Bill C32 allows for PVRs and time-shifting (time-shifting is when you record a show on Monday and watch it on Wednesday). It allows for format shifting. This is when you take the CD you just bought and rip it to your iPod. Awesome you say? Maybe not. It also allows consumers to make backup copies of CDs, DVDs, and software they own. Swell. And it allows for satire, parody, education uses, research, and library archiving. Again, swell, right?

Well, with all the new stuff we Canadians will be able to do with our music and DVDs, we should be rejoicing. Now Canada will be as modern and forward-thinking as the U.S. We sure are lucky. Yet, when the veil of misinformation is lifted, the ugly truth is revealed.

Sure, Bill C32 allows for all of the things listed above, but there is a fly in the ointment and it's known as TPMs or Technological Protection Measures. More commonly TPMs are referred to as DRM (digital rights management) or digital locks. 

Try to wrap your head around this one. Backup copies, time-shifting, format shifting, all looked after. Yes we can finally legally make backup copies of software, music, and video; yes we can watch Glee three days after it airs; yes you can rip your newly purchased CD into the portable music device of your choice. BUT (and this is a big but), if there is a digital lock it will be illegal to break the lock or to own software that will break the lock. In other words, all of the provisions allowed in Bill C32 are moot if there is a digital lock. And a lot of media (DVDs, CDs, software, etc.) have digital locks. Even some TV shows have them, they're called broadcast flags and if a show is "flagged" you can't record it.

Michael Geist, law professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, gives a succinct analysis of the consumer rights portion of Bill C32. It's worth a read. Also, major newspapers across the country have published op-eds regarding Bill C32. Two of them are here and here. There is also an excellent website called Speak Out On Copyright that has a lot of useful information. As well, Prof. Geist has started a Facebook page Fair Copyright For Canada. Please join the group.

The general consensus is that Bill C32, while "modernizing" a lot of the activities the Great Unwashed indulges in everyday, actually handcuffs consumers, researchers, librarians, and educators because of the TPM provision. It's like saying "Sure, have a cookie, it's illegal to open the cookie jar, but you can have as many cookies as you want."

Despite public outcry, there is no way the Harper conservatives are going to pass up on this one. They view this as an important step toward bringing Canada's copyright laws more in line with what is happening in other countries (read: U.S.A.). They shout their self-congratulatory claims to the heavens (as conservatives are wont to do), but in reality Bill C32 is lip service to the Canadian public and a towing of the line to American special interest groups. I didn't realize the line needed towing. I thought Canada was capable of creating copyright legislation by and for Canadians, or more accurately, I thought the Harper conservatives were capable. I guess I was wrong.

The only thing missing in this debacle, is the creation of Copyright Police.

Maybe I shouldn't give Harper any ideas.
 

History Reissued and Remastered

A couple of weeks ago, the Rolling Stones' eponymous album Exile On Main Street was re-released amid much fanfare and hype. The album is remastered by Don Was and includes up to 10 additional, never-before-released tracks and a vinyl version, depending on the "specialness" of the edition you buy.

Previously, the big reissue hype was centered on the recent Beatles box set. All of their albums received the remastering treatment, and in addition to the box set, each album is available separately in the new remastered condition. Included with the late period albums is a short documentary that can be viewed using a computer. This is not the first Beatles box set, their catalogue has been remastered and reissued before, under the auspices of being "the definitive remaster." I have the first four albums from this series and must confess they do sound pretty good. I couldn't say whether they sound better than the current reissues, I haven't heard any of the new early album remasters. And let's not forget McCartney's ultimate remix and remaster, Let It Be...Naked,  the reissue scrubbed of Phil Spector's strings and choirs and, in Paul's words, closer to the original vision. It's how the album was intended to begin with, or rather, the way Paul intended it to be heard.

As an aside here, Beatles history geeks will recall Paul's anger over the decision to use Spector on Let It Be. This was during the breakup period of the Beatles and Paul was somewhat estranged from the rest of the group. John, George, and Ringo unilaterally decided to call in Spector without Paul's knowledge or permission. Spector then added strings and choirs to three songs including "The Long and Winding Road,"  a McCartney composition. Paul was not thrilled to put it mildly and after thirty years, rectified the situation by returning to the studio and remixing Let It Be stripping off any semblance of Spector.

Before the Beatles there was the Band. Their box set released in 2005 was heralded as the definitive collection too and like the Stones' Exile, contains previously unreleased tracks, plus a big fancy booklet with pictures.

How historically valuable are these reissues? Considering the albums already exist, it's not like an unknown Rembrandt being discovered. Certainly the B sides and previously unreleased tracks are historically valuable. Many times these uncover the compositional process, as they can be demo versions or first attempts of a song. The Beatles' Anthology, while not being a remaster reissue, contains several alternate takes of their hits. In the case of Exile, Jagger added new melodies and lyrics to some existing bed tracks, sort of finishing the songs forty years after the fact, throwing the compositional timeline into disarray.

The music is not changed when albums are remastered. Generally it's the overall sound of the album that is tweaked.  Exile On Main Street  is an exception, but the "spirit" of the album was retained with the new lyrics and melodies that Jagger added. So what it comes down to is a fix of the technology. It's changing analogue to digital. It's repainting over old colours. The sounds are made current for today's audio reproduction devices. The big audiophile stereo systems of the past have been replaced by digital home theatre audio with Dolby this and THX that and a sub-woofer and, of course, the teensy little earbuds, but I digress.

Imperfections in the analogue recordings show up to a greater degree once the sounds are digitized, so in essence, an album's sound is cleaned up when it is remastered. There is more definition between instruments, although one could argue that we don't hear that way in the real world. Performance sound is not as clinical as a digital recording. In a live setting, the instruments blend to give a complete audio experience and even if the album was originally recorded live in the studio (the band plays like it's on stage rather than recording each instrument individually), if the digital reissue has been remixed, it is not the same recording as the original vinyl mix. 

Remasters, remixes, and reissues are financially attractive for the record companies and the artists. They have already made money once off the recordings and the reissue gives them the opportunity to make money off the same recordings again. If you throw greatest hits albums into the mix, the labels can profit several times off the same set of songs. Over and over.

I'm geeky enough that remasters are interesting to me. I have audiophile vinyl records that, at the time, were touted as being the definitive way the records should be heard. Definitive as far as the current technology goes that is. The reissues today are no different. It's a modernizing of the sound taking advantage of the fact that people don't like to listen to "old sounding" records. If we did, 78s would be the rage too. But, generally the Great Unwashed could not tell the difference between a good vinyl record and a remastered digital one. The digital one would sound louder, that's all. And most people (geeks aside) are content with whatever version of an album they have. Are the reissues valuable? In a manner of speaking, yes. Vinyl will last longer, but the reissues help bring the music to a new audience and they can be useful for archival purposes.

So, for the music geeks out there, reissues, remasters, etc. satisfy the musical Jones. And if it's your favourite band, even better.

A Fractured Music Business Fairy Tale

Once upon a time a vinyl record album cost about eight dollars. Once upon a time a vinyl 45 cost one dollar (for two songs). Then technology changed and we were told the new format was better, it may be expensive to begin with but eventually prices will come down. That technology was the digital compact disc or CD. Suddenly vinyl records disappeared and became collector's items. Suddenly turntables and cassette decks vanished. Overnight entire collections of music became obsolete.

The new technology had taken over and we were forced to do three things: 1) replace the vinyl records with CDs; 2) buy new hardware to listen to the CDs; 3) pay the inflated price for CDs because the labels thought the public forgot that they promised to lower the price once the CD became popular.

Then the technology changed again much to the dismay of the record labels. The music business was becoming more democratized. Computers and the Internet changed the rules. The labels panicked. There was much hand-wringing and many predictions of doom. The sky was falling. Chicken Little was running around with no head.

Eventually the labels realized the potential of the new technology and the Apple store was born. The people rejoiced and bought one song. The record labels were suspicious, but the money changed their minds. But it was a Pyrrhic victory. Sales of the old new technology plummeted.

The labels had the answer. Remember, we forgot they promised to lower the prices of CDs to vinyl album prices once the CD caught on. Remember, the labels know we forgot. Plus, they claimed we should be happy with CDs, after all there are more songs on a CD than on a vinyl record, ergo that is justification for the inflated cost. But we were not happy. We complained about crappy music. We continued to buy one song.

And now, in a vain attempt to recapture what was lost, the record labels are testing, for a short period of time, selling CDs for ten dollars or less. In other words, vinyl album price. But we should not rejoice. We should feel sorry for them. After all, they are losing buckets of money and this price slashing is their version of a drowning man reaching for a life preserver.

It's a pity he can't swim.

It's a pity the labels didn't keep their promise.