Score 1 for Cell Phone Competition, Score 0 for Copyright Laws
I’m a fan of Jim Prentice these days. That wireless spectrum auction is a game-changer that we will look back on in 20 years and say, “If that government did everything else wrong, they sure did this right.”
There’s an opportunity for the intelligent and diplomatic Mr. Prentice to make a similarly game-changing law with copyright, which could reverberate internationally where he could go down in history, globally, as a great policymaker and visionary.
Here it is.
As technology followers know, record companies and movie studios have been pushing hard for Governments around the world to crack down on “piracy” of their products.
Fair enough. If people were stealing my stuff, I’d be mad too.
I’ve been following this for years, and wrote an article in 1996 outlining the death spiral of record companies, much as it has unfolded to date. These guys seriously don’t get the new world, and just wish they could turn back the clock. It’s sad to me that they still don’t get it, 12 years later.
Let’s start with the obvious: Generally, consumers don’t want to break the law. What consumers want is the ability to watch, read or listen to their “media” on multiple platforms (their TV, computer, iPod, car stereo, cellphone, etc.).
This means a “standard media format” that is transferable without all this “Digital Rights Management” nonsense that record companies have forced vendors like iTunes to use, which, as far as I can tell, only serves to frustrate consumers, and turn them on to illegal methods of receiving a useful version of their media. Record companies are a huge part of the problem by making the “legal” download borderline unusable.
So, here is my pitch to Jim Prentice:
The record companies want a crack down on illegal downloading, pirating, whatever you might call it. Fine. Here’s the tradeoff: all media that is made available for “legal” download is made available in a “standard and transferable” format (like MP3), at least as an option. If the media companies refuse to make it available in this format, then the law does not apply for those affected media products. So, if Disney decides not to allow a standard format download of “Toy Story 2″, then the law that goes after “illegal file sharing” does not affect that product. If they decide to offer a legal, standard format for a fee, then the full force of the law will come down upon the evildoers.
Easy, right?
Record companies would howl, I’m sure, that my idea will only facilitate further “illegal file sharing”. But let’s think about it for a minute.
I have my choice of an “illegal, questionable quality, slow, possibly virus-ridden” and “free” download, or I can spend $1 and get the same file “legally, high quality, quickly, and virus-free”? Sorry gnutty buddy, but I’m going to pay the $1 – that is, I’m going to pay the $1 if I can use this file on all my media players without a big pain in my behind.
Now, they suggest, I’m going to take my legally obtained file, turn around and “share” it “illegally” on some shady file sharing network? Please. I have better things to do with my time than save some idiots $1. Initially this might happen, but give it a year or two, and these networks will go the way of the dinosaur.
If we crack down as per the current legislation, it will be unworkable (and, frankly, silly). People will continue to “share”, and unless the record companies drop DRM on their own accord, record companies will continue to bleed, and their shareholders will lose even more money.
My proposed policy change would INCREASE online music and video sales, DECREASE pirating, and create an environment where enforcement is actually FEASIBLE, while also making consumers 1000% more satisfied with their music and video downloads.
Wake up and smell the Coldplay!
The Death of Democracy in Canada
There is something quaint about politics in Canada, especially versus the United States. Ordinary people volunteer, and come together with like-minded people and work together, with tremendous passion, to win elections! It’s a beautiful thing to watch. I have a great deal of respect for these people: Liberals, Conservatives, NDPers, Greens, and everyone else. Even if I disagree with them on policy, I have to admire their passion and dedication.
When I became involved in politics, I was inspired by the other volunteers that I met far more than the politicians and the leaders.
In the years since, I’ve seen these volunteer numbers dwindle. In every party.
Why?
1. People lead busy lives, they have other more pressing concerns. This is obvious, and not entirely new. But perhaps moreso than before.
2. People think politics is irrelevant to their lives. This is especially true with young people. This has been said in past generations, but as people “grew up” they would eventually “come around”. This trend is over. The disaffected youth of the 90s have become the disaffected 30-somethings of today.
3. Politics in this country these days has gotten so dirty and partisan, that, instead of inspiring people, I think it turns most people off, or at the very least makes them feel indifferent. And in a day and age when “Mixed Martial Arts” is one of the most popular sports, the slug-fest politics has become just isn’t bloody enough to even inspire teenage boys to join in.
4. These election impropriety allegations flying around disgust people. They are disgusted at the thought they are true, they are disgusted by the allegations, and they are disgusted at the childish way the accusers take delight in the accusations. I’m feeling a bit of disgust myself these days.
This recent witch-hunt for the Conservatives by the “Ethics Committee” and Elections Canada reminds me of another era. Yes, that’s it. In a partisan quest to invent new ways to pretend to be appalled, NDP MP Pat Martin has unwittingly become Canada’s own Joseph McCarthy.
Perhaps somebody should go through his campaign books with a fine tooth comb and question every detail – without implying any misdeed, I’d fathom a guess that the accounting is not 100% perfect, and at least a few items might raise eyebrows or not pass somebody’s “smell test”. But rarely is accounting 100% perfect – even accountants will confess this. And rarely is it 100% clear – accountants won’t admit this. And the “smell test” – nothing like a little bit of subjectivity to make muddy rules a bit muddier. But I’m sure Pat Martin’s Official Agent did his best (for the cause, hooray), as does every volunteer Official Agent I’ve ever known.
5. As alluded in number 4, the interpretation, reinterpretation, misinterpretation, conflicting and unreadable rules and regulations governing elections, which were no doubt meant with good intention to encourage democratic discourse in the fairest possible way, are clearly not working. I’m sure the little old lady who started by passing out brochures for her local candidate at the shopping plaza wasn’t expecting she’d end up in some cold prison cell because she put her hand up to help with the bookkeeping for the local association.
Now let’s consider the rules about campaign spending limits. When was this concept invented? I actually have no idea, but I know it predates the popularity of the Internet. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was invented when most Canadians watched one of a few nightly newscasts pretty regularly, and we all lived in our little homogeneous “CBC and 3 other channels” universe.
PLEASE NOTE: The world has changed!
National Campaigns and local campaigns cannot be considered separately, it’s absurd in this day and age. What qualifies as local or national? If there were ever clearly defined lines, those days are long gone.
Voters vote for different reasons: most commonly because of the party, the stated policies of the party, or the leader. While the local candidate can make a difference, we all know it’s extremely rare that ever amounts to more than 5% (sometimes it’s enough to make a difference in a tight race).
So, if a local campaign promotes the national policies, party or leader in a local publication, is this local or national? If the “local” publication is the Toronto Star, is this local or national?
If the national party produces punjabi ads about a national policy and three Vancouver campaigns share the cost to run them, and one riding has half the punjabi-speaking population of the other 2 and they split the costs 40-40-20, is this national, local, improper expense transfers, or what?
Give me a break!
If the Liberal Party wants to take a bunch of money they would be wasting in Calgary and spend it to print larger ads in the Toronto Star, why should anyone care? I certainly wouldn’t.
Maybe having a “total cap” on spending for an entire party is workable, but even then, our numbers don’t even come remotely close to the U.S. numbers, so what are we trying to accomplish? Fairness? What’s fair about repressing people’s right to free speech during an election anyway?
All these rules, while well-intentioned, have only served to further turn people off of politics in this country.
6. The integrity of Elections Canada is being called into question. Are they biased? Are they favouring Liberals by not focusing on their imperfections (need we say “sponsorship scandal” again), or are they just busy bureaucrats enforcing a dog’s breakfast of rules and regulations that could be interpreted 1000 different ways? In the long run, it doesn’t matter – if people can’t trust the non-partisan elections agency to be non-partisan, we’re no better than Zimbabwe, and that’s not going to inspire anybody to be a part of politics.
Canada’s Cellphone Oligopoly
Gone are the days when cellphones were a luxury, or a tool for a few business elite. They are now a normal and essential part of life – both in business and personal affairs. Many families, like mine, have done away with fixed line phones completely, and this trend is growing. In fact, look all around the world, and you’ll see people getting more connected and benefiting from this amazing technology – EXCEPT IN CANADA.
Yes, Canada, that backwater of cellphone oblivion – nowhere near advanced as some dynamic, modern economies like Uganda and Tanzania.
First Rogers Wireless, stuck in 1989, with their refusal to come up with a pricing plan that will actually promote their new iPhone product (which, thanks to their monopoly on that protocol, and their takeover of Fido, is Apple’s only choice in Canada). Now, Bell and TELUS charging for incoming text messages, including SPAM. Imagine if we had to pay for spam email? I’d be broke!!
It’s time for cellphone executives to pull their collective heads out of their collective behinds. They’re not just hurting consumers, their dragging our country down (in a very real and serious sense, by damaging our competitiveness, productivity and technical innovation). No serious Internet company in Canada (like mine) is going to develop applications for wireless devices – why? There’s no market!
Worst of all for Canada and for cellphone shareholders, they are hurting their own bottom lines as well by limiting their market. But they don’t see it that way – clearly they don’t see a business case for Canadians using new technology en masse.
And isn’t that what this is all about? Larger corporations and Government clients have their blackberries and pay exorbitant fees for them – of course, it’s all expensed, so it’s not real money. If they offered a reasonable price to other people, they’d risk a backlash for raised rates to these lucrative clients, and what if that wasn’t offset by all the new clients coming on?
Could you imagine if the same backwards logic was used with any other technological innovation – radio, television, microwave ovens, etc. McDonald’s can have microwaves, but the rest of us, forget it!
For a better comparison, how about the always-on DSL/Cable internet. Suppose you could use it all you wanted, but as soon as you go over 6 gigabytes in a month, they start quietly charging you some ridiculous rate per kilobyte then slap you with a big fat bill a couple weeks after the end of the month!
Unlimited data plans (and, frankly, voice plans, too) are not the future – they are the “present”, at least everywhere else in the world.
This is ritual idiocy. We shouldn’t be arguing about this, time to join the 21st century!
Network
