Copyright reform on the horizon in Canada

To a certain degree I can see the point, and I can easily see how it would persuade someone like my or Tamara's parents. Tom and Jim both talked about how the problem may affect them to a certain degree (Blue Rodeo has sold fewer records of late, but I also haven't heard them on the radio for example), but how it's really hurting new artists. Like Hawksley Workman for example. Now, I have no idea who Hawksley Workman is, or at least I did not until Jim Cuddy mentioned him in the press conference. So I went to his web site, and damn near gave up because a. it requires horizontal scrolling b. flash 6 makes for a confusing interface c. RealAudio streaming media d. broken video link. Fortunately I was able to get the real audio working on Chinook, and decided I didn't much care for the music. I did only hear 40 seconds of one song though, so maybe I'm being too quick to judge. But he can rest assured that I won't use Gnutella or Kazaa or whatever to download his album, even though that would have been a lot easier than navigating his website.

Hmmm, where was I going with this? Oh yeah, convincing people that downloading is bad. I guess the level of bad depends on how much control people should have over their creations. Should people be allowed to exercise control over anything they produce? Should you have to ask permission from someone to repeat an interesting phrase you heard? It would be pretty tough, I repeat stuff I've heard all the time, and usually I can't remember where I heard it.

There was an interesting article called The Long Tail on Wired. It discusses how online retailers such as Amazon or iTunes make most of their profits not from the big popular items, but rather from their ability to sell small numbers of obscure products. Without the need for warehouses and brick and mortar stores in every city, if becomes possible to see the back catalog from every has-been musician and musty old author that ever put pen to paper. This is especially easy to do when the delivery is purely digital.

So, I wonder, how would this affect the current music industry, if it were allowed to (i.e. not Orwellianized and regulated into the ground)? Consider a world where it is possible to set up a decent quality recording studio on a relatively small budget (oh wait, the future is now). Many people who are into indie acts like a slightly low-fi polish, so such equipment might be enough. People can now record in their own homes, and distribute the results online. Like mp3.com you say? The site that sucked and then died? There are more interesting solutions, such as iRate radio (iRate? Why is he so angry?) or blogs like music (for robots). This is decentralized, collaborative filtering. People recommending stuff they like to other people.

Of course, there are always ways to subvert any system. See stealth marketing on usenet (who uses usenet anymore? other than me?). Still, I would prefer advertisers adapt to changing times, rather than attempt to make it illegal for listeners or viewers to change the channel or fast forward when a commercial comes on.

Back to the music industry. Now that everyone who is interested in making music can afford (right?) a home recording studio and can make some mp3s, and there is some sort of collaborative filtering in place, you have a long tail of music that becomes more accessible. Is it now possible for acts to connect with their far-flung fans, in addition to those who come to shows in their home towns? Is it possible to encourage those far-flung fans to send you money, perhaps by selling access to a web-cast or exclusive content of some kind? Sure, any exclusive content you make is going to get bootlegged, no doubt about that. But are there enough people around (the world) who are willing to pay (the cynical penny-pincher might call these people "suckers") for your web-cast concert such that it is worth the time and effort? Are any potential new fans gained through bootlegs worth it? Is the content good enough that the fans who paid don't feel they got ripped off?

This is the long tail of the modern music industry. Will there still be big, popular acts which sell out back to back Saddledome shows? Sure. Will they make as much money? Maybe not. But perhaps more starving artists, those with enough talent for at least some people to appreciate, will be able to make enough to raise themselves above the poverty line by gaining access to a significant set of geographically dispersed set of long tail fans.

People have a natural tendency to resist change, especially when it takes them away from what is safe and comfortable. It is not a new fight. Sheet music, recording drums and discs, radio, and cassettes have all been disruptive technology at one point, in that they have upset the establishment in some way.

When considering new laws and regulations designed to assuage the fears of the change 'o phobic, it's very important to consider as many of the unintended consequences, edge cases, and devilish details as possible. Things will always slip through, but hopefully careful reading of bills will keep those down to the honest mistakes. Should the wants (needs?) of the most vocal (few) be allowed to trump the needs and rights of the common person (many)?

Anyway, the point of this ramble is to record some thoughts on the state of intangible property. I don't think that Canadian copyright law, as it stands is archaic. When Tom Cochrane said we were like a 3rd world country with respect to copyright law, I wondered how exactly he came to that conclusion. I haven't made up my mind about anything really, and there are a lot of unanswered questions. Maybe after I get some more research done I can think about this some more.