Final Post - Copyright and Media in Canada

This will be my final post in this blog, but in the fall will be starting a new blog around the more positive changes we will see as a result of this debate, and who's decided to move forward, and who hasn't. But for the time being, this will be my sign off for "Music and the fight for a new industry". I will keep this blog up for future references by reseachers, and followers of this debate. For me personally it's been one of self exploration. But with all that's posted in this blog, the final result now rests with our legislators here in Canada. The media industry will be moving forward with or without Canada or Canadian content. It's important that we all see what lies ahead.

There are now only 2 choices in this debate, and it's up to the legislators to make the only profitable choice, or they will be responsible for a major downfall in Canadian Industry.

For most Canadians the debate revolves around a lot of high profile examples in the US with regards to the sharing of music, and lawsuits that followed. This debate centers on much, much more than just music. Media as a whole has become the new literature of the 21st century. The new generation is speaking in ways that combines use of traditional copy protected media, and media sites such as Youtube to create a message that is a lot more “powerful” to an audience then the use of the written word. It is our writing in the 21st century, it is our expression. The sharing of this expression is shaping our democracy. It is very important as a society we harness this expression and freedom of speech, and question the need to make criminals out of those that use this new form of writing. This is the single most important issue in this debate, and something that needs to really be taken to the front and center with our politicians.

The Conservative Government has effectively outlawed this new form of expression with Bill C-61. To express yourself through media, you now can face a $20,000 fine per copyright owner, even if it’s a video of your grandkids dancing to a song that just may be in the background and uploaded to Youtube or social networking sites. Generally songs have 3 copyrights. The performer, the label, the distributer. That’s $60,000 liable for a family video posted to Youtube with a background song without even touching the “illegal” peer to peer channels. Universal Music in the US has in the past took down an innocent family video from Youtube through the DMCA laws because the artist somehow got offended by a 1 ½ year old dancing to his tune (they can do that and sue you in Canada with Bill C-61). Google who now owns Youtube was recently ordered by a US Judge to provide records of every visitor to media giant Viacom including information on Canadian visitors, something that our own privacy commissioner warned about recently, and something Google is currently fighting. This has gone way to much over the edge, and far enough.

The conservative Government and my MP Peter Van Loan were presented with a proposal by the majority of our Canadian Musicians, and songwriters to which was utterly dismissed. Mr. Van Loan has yet to answer to his constituents on this matter instead forwarding off constituent complaints to the minister of Industry, who insist this approach to the copyright file the government has taken is fair, just and balanced. The majority of those it’s supposed to protect believe this not to be true.

The majority of our Canadian Creators and Songwriters want to legalize the use of file sharing, and the sharing of media for a number of reasons. The Number 1 reason, is that over the past decade we’ve learned you can’t stop file sharing. It’s an impossible task that will cost tax payers millions if not billions of dollars a year to try and combat it. It will not be successful. In order for something like this to be 100% fool proof you would need to live in a dictatorship, or police state. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody in the creative realm that I’ve spoken to wants this. The only ones that do are these corporations that used to have control over the media marketplace, and now have to compete with a guy sitting at an internet cafe in Zimbabwe.

The second reason, is that file sharing is helping Canadian Musicians and media. Avril Lavigne is one such artist. Ms. Lavigne was ranked at the top of the legal digital sales charts in 2007, and she is a member of the Canadian Music Creators Collation which features over 200 of Canada’s top acts that have split off from “traditional” music labels to voice their disgust over the way the major labels are handling things with fans abroad. Ms. Lavigne’s label, Nettwerk Music Group headed up by country singer Terry McBride, is advocating for the industry as a whole to stop suing fans for sharing music, and is strongly voicing opposition to the position the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) has taken on the issue of file sharing. Mr. McBride has repeatedly asked the CRIA to stop misleading the public in believing the CRIA represents the majority of Canadian interests in the music industry. The Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) touched up on this in their initial reply to the introduction of bill C-61. Going against the CRIA’s stance in with regards to file sharing stating: “Don’t stop it, monetize it!’”

The proposal that was put forth to the government from SAC was that an extra $5 fee be attached to your month internet bill for music, and let Canadians get their music from whatever source they wanted to online. The CRIA said it “wouldn’t have any chance in hell” in succeeding, the Conservative Government ignored it. This type of proposal, while flawed in some aspects and only includes music, not software, tv, film, etc was to be the starting point in which everyone would be brought to the table to discuss a proactive response to this debate. I believe had this happened we would have been looking at something similar to the $5 fee in all media and industries effected.

I recently had a quick conversation with Gerd Leonhard in Sweden who is a very well known independent academic and researcher in the technology field and how it relates to media. He is dubbed as the “Media Futurist” since he’s quite good at looking at the data in the media industry and predicting where we are headed next. He has been very accurate in the past.

I’ve looked at the all the data coming from the media and technology industries myself, the some of the same data Mr. Leonhard has looked at as well, and the same data our Government and Mr. Van Loan was sent. Both Mr. Leonhard and my conclusions are vastly similar. The internet now needs to be treated as a medium! Just like radio and TV pay into a pool for copyright, ISP’s should be doing the same. So far in the first quarter of 2008, our major ISP’s have raked in a massive amounts of profits, and Canadians seem to be shelling out massive amounts of cash compared to other G8 countries for a broadband connection. The ISP’s should be required to pay into a pool as radio and TV do without raising broadband prices.

Television and Film are not even close to being in the red line. Data suggests that these industries are about to head into a very different advertising model. One that is currently in use right now, tested and proven effective in mainstream media but will be fine tuned for the internet in the very near future. Instead of seeing the CBC logo, for example, at the bottom right hand corner of your screen, that will be an ad bug for something like Nike or Coke. This along with a copyright pool ISP’s pay into will be more than enough to compensate for downloading off of peer to peer networks.

These idea’s have been around for many years. Why is this not being done full scale right now online? That’s due to the fight for who has control over the marketplace, and positioning within this marketplace. We are also seeing this with our major ISP’s who are slowing down peer to peer application and opening up preferred stores for media. Something the CRTC is currently looking into, and the FCC in the US has recently put a stop to this with American ISPs.

Very recently our Canadian ISP’s have formed an alliance urging the CRTC to not step in and regulate new media on the internet. Last year, the commission met in Jacksons Point, Ontario to “revisit” it’s 1999 decision not to regulate the carriers and Canadian Content on the internet, which is currently underway and being studied by the CRTC with the New Media Project Initiative. I have viewed submissions by Rogers Communications Inc to the Commission on the regulation of new media content on the internet. ISP’s are currently in a position to and want to develop targeted media to suit your needs. They do not want any regulation because this will impede their position in the market. They will be watching what you watch and do online, and come up with a “personalized” experience for the users. There’s obviously some privacy concerns to this especially without a regulatory body in place to monitor the use and collection of this information, but the main concern I have as a new media producer is that this would put the ISP’s at a competitive edge over everyone else in the new media industry. The CRTC must regulate new media carriers and providers to ensure a mutual competitive atmosphere in new media, and that consumers continue to have the choices they do today.

By throwing the above idea’s into the media industries will force a once closed market to open right up which is something those that currently have a monopoly and are using this copyright debate to position themselves in the media industries don’t want. If you open up the market, everyone gets a share and everyone is equal. By opening up an equal opportunity marketplace it will also increase the choices consumers will have with regards to media products, and quality of those products. It’s not the downloader that’s hurting these industries or artists, it’s the inability to move forward and the fight over positioning in this market by the media giants that’s caused a lot of the damage.

D-Day for all of this is quickly approaching. The tipping point will be next year. It’s either you adapt to the sharing of media on the internet, or you will no longer be competitive in your selected industry. New wireless broadband technologies will be implemented on a wider scale soon that will allow the internet user to share online like never before. 2009 is expected to be the boom year for wireless technology in Canada and around the world. Along with this boom, the data is suggesting a massive serge in the use of file sharing and media sites by 2010 globally. This is something that cannot be stopped or discouraged. If our elected officials were to actually look at the data presented to them, they would quite clearly see what lies ahead. If laws are not put into place fairly quickly to adapt to this change open up the market, all Canadian media will become uncompetitive in the global market, by 2010. If the market is opened, those in media will be entering into a new “golden” age for the media industries.

While I agree that laws and rules need to be set into place at this time, those rules and laws should accurately reflect the changes in the marketplace and society to ensure that our Canadian Industries are not left uncompetitive in the very near future. They should not be based on bias information coming from those that are positioning themselves and competing in this marketplace. The Conservative Government should have taken the copyright file a bit more seriously, and represent our Canadian Interests in this debate. Bill C-61 is not Canadian, nor was it made in Canada by Canadians. Canadians who see what lies ahead were bluntly ignored, nor consulted in the drafting of C-61. Many of them resorted to writing letters to the minister of Industry which were left unopened on the ministers desk. Let’s hope come the fall, our elected officials make the right choice for Canadians and put forth a true proposal that will reflect the inevitable change that’s ahead and put our Canadian Talent at the forefront of this new golden age.

If you would like to help learn more about the copyright debate that’s before public. Join Fair Copyright For Canada local chapters on facebook, and write to your respected MP’s.

Jason Koblovsky

Copyright Bill - My Thoughts

Today we have seen the release of the new copyright bill. As a new media producer, it's amazing the control these monopolies have, and how much this new bill will damage Canadian content on a world wide stage. Give the consumer the right to break digital locks, but ban the programs that will do this. Anyways here's so thoughts I've expressed locally.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8460346793&topic=3942

The CMCC have weighed in:

http://www.musiccreators.ca/wp/?p=264

"The Canadian Music Creators Coalition is not impressed with the copyright reform bill announced this morning. “As we feared, this bill represents an American-style approach to copyright. It’s all locks and lawsuits,” said Safwan Javed, CMCC member and drummer for Wide Mouth Mason."

Michael Geist:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3025/125/

"The digital lock provisions are worse than the DMCA. Yes - worse. The law creates a blanket prohibition on circumvention with very limited exceptions and creates a ban against distributing the tools that can be used to circumvent. While Prentice could have adopted a more balanced approach (as New Zealand and Canada's Bill C-60 did), the effect of these provisions will be to make Canadians infringers for a host of activities that are common today including watching out-of-region-coded DVDs, copying and pasting materials from a DRM'd book, or even unlocking a cellphone."

The "other side" has been quick to praise the bill (all over the news as expected), however mass opposition is quitely brewing. As the CBC Newsworld said "It's confusing" (not unexpected) also. Looks like people are taking the time to "Read" what's in this bill before commenting on it, and how it will apply to them.

One thing is clear, the Canadian consumer is not impressed either. There's been a 2000+ member jump in the past 10 hours at FCFC Facebook National Group. Industry's next move will be to take the consumer out of the equation by stating (already has) that consumers will not be targeted (to try and win them back) which will leave it to a lot of the new media producers here in Canada to defend agaist this attack on our businesses here, but that may change depending on the position of the devide in a lot of these industries, and who's actually more powerful in Canada. Canadian made and born businesses, or American Corporations.

This quite possibly is the worst, and biggest corporate take over I have ever seen. In my oppionion Minister Prentice just sold out Canadian industry, making them unable to compete in a global market. I'll get more in detail about this over the next few days.

ACTA-Gate

On Friday wikkileaks leaked a very secret copyright deal in which the US, Canada, EU Governments and a handful of other countries are trying to negotiate without any public consultations. Mostly this is the product of the Bush Administration in the US that's in charge of the wording on this one. Apparently this “trade agreement” would give border security guards and custom agents uncontested privileges to shift through your media devices (even your nice homemade porno from your honeymoon) determining if any found media is copy infringed material. They can then fine you, and confiscate your device, even destroy it.

This is of upmost importance to a lot of DJ’s in my end of the industry that travel the globe performing with burned CD’s, and expensive equipment and software used to play gigs. How are they going to tell if you purchased the music, the music was given to you by the composer, or if you downloaded it. You have no legal recourse or argument you can make to contest the decisions made by these “public servants” under this agreement, and you may one day find yourself heading to a gig without music, or your equipment. It’s best that you get a hold of your public representative about how you feel about this.

Our Ottawa Citizen has provided a bit more in depth coverage on this story, running it as “Front Page” news this past weekend. Michael Geist also provides additional coverage and links to this story as well.

Weekly Buzz Volume #4

Copyright Bill Expected Within Weeks!

Reports have been circulating that the new copyright bill is to be expected within weeks prior to the Parliamentary summer break. Will it be a balanced approach which will cradle and help develop new media productions and new distribution channels? Will it be a Canadian made solution for Canadian Industries? Or will it be a complete US style DMCA which inhibits new media production, online distribution and puts horns and pitch forks in the hands of creators in the eyes of the internet community and it's users?

Whatever the case may be, laws that are not developed towards the “reality” of the changes we have seen and are continuing especially in the music industry, these laws will generally be ineffective. There is enough research and evidence presented that can hold up in our Canadian courts that the whole dynamic of copyright and reasoning thereof has changed. One would expect that our Government leaders recognize this change and present a solution towards enhancing, not inhibiting, innovation through the laws which is the overall reasoning behind copyright in the first place. The protection for new media producers to produce in a new digital paradigm where new rules and regulations must be drawn out in a very fair and balanced way, must NOT include models based on a copyright realm from a different era that doesn’t exist today.

Content Creators must understand that if the right balance is not reached and our court systems have to decide the fate of our laws, that this could throw everyone back into limbo and all progress made by both sides of this debate will disappear. This will end up being a very costly mistake. A mistake that in these economic times these industries cannot afford.

As Zeljka Kozul-Wright once put it:

“Owing to diffusion of technical change, it is far cheaper, as it reduces the costs of intermediation and allows consumers greater choice over listening patterns; facilitating the growth of demand-driven patterns of consumption thereby enabling greater consumer participation, and more interactive modes of consumption.”

Those that have refused to follow technical change (within media) are about to find out how costly legislative change will become at a time that legislative change is not needed to ensure growth in this industry, and not welcomed in this economic state. We are currently on the boundaries of healing in this industry, and are enjoying the return of the consumer to the market in the digital realm. The last thing this industry will need is to be set back 10 years, and have to deal with yet another decade long consumer revolt because our legislative body is too busy rolling out the red carpet for lobbyists who are falsifying facts, and protecting monopolies. I guess we’re about to find out.

For my interests as well as my peers in the new media industry, I hope, no, I pray our Government brings an understanding of the changes in my industry, and has in fact brought a very real and balanced Canadian approach to copyright reform.

Weekly Buzz Volume #3

The Bell Debacle Update:


The CAIP (Canadian Association of Internet Providers) submitted its answer to Bell Canada on the need for throttling Bells networks and wholesale providers on Thursday. It was an answer that I found quite entertaining and very informative as a whole, and does provide a lot of background as to what problems DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) has, including hinting that this technology implemented by Bell and other ISP’s such as Rogers may infact be against our privacy laws here in Canada. From the CAIP’s recent submission to the CRTC:

68. By way of response, CAIP notes that Bell has admitted in its Answer that it is using Deep Packet Inspection (‘DPI”) to shape its competitors’ traffic. While Bell may assert that this technology is only used to examine packet “headers”, the literature on DPI does not support these assertions. For example, the description of DPI contained on the “dPacket.org” web-site defines DPI as follows:

Deep Packet Inspection” (DPI) is a computer networking term that refers to devices and technologies that inspect and take action based on the contents of the packet (commonly called the “payload”) rather than just the packet header. The following analogy helps clarify the role of DPI:

A packet is analogous to a physical postal mail message. The address on the outside of the envelope is analogous to the “packet header” and the information inside the envelope is analogous to the “payload.” DPI is analogous to taking action on that mail message not only based on the address on the envelope, but also making considerations based on the contents of the envelope.

69. CAIP notes that dPacket.org identifies itself as a “non-profit corporation founded for education and scientific purposes to foster and support community interest and progress in deep packet inspection and processing (DPI/DPP).” CAIP further notes that one of the founding “Gold Sponsors” of dPacket.org is Ellacoya, the company that manufactures Bell’s DPI equipment.

70. Even Ellacoya’s descriptions of its DPI equipment do not support Bell’s assertion that it is only examining packet headers and not the payloads of the packets themselves. According to Ellacoya, “[U]nlike most policy-based network devices, the Ellacoya switch can identify traffic based on application signatures in addition to standard TCP/IP header information.” Ellacoya’s product literature also states explicitly that its DPI technology allows a service provider “to identify the application being used” by a particular end-user, but “does not identify the specific files being shared

71. In essence, what this means is that Bell is examining packet headers and inspecting packet payloads in order to determine what type of content is being sent by or delivered to the customers of competitors. Although Bell is quick to point out that it does not examine the actual contents of the packet payloads, it is clear from these descriptions of Bell’s traffic shaping practices that Bell can identify, inter alia, the type of data being transferred, the ISP upon whose network the data is being transferred, an end-user’s intention to acquire certain types of Internet content and the IP address and, hence, the identity of the end-user customer who is sending/receiving the data.

72. As indicated in CAIP’s 3 April 2008 Application, the collection and use of such information by Bell, which in this case would have clearly been done without the prior
consent of the end-user customers so affected, violates the privacy of such individuals.

This could end up a major issue with customers and ISP’s. This basically opens the door now for civil action against these ISP’s for implementing this technology, which is something the CAIP foresees in happening should the CRTC not grant an immediate cease and desist order on the throttling practises as Bell. These points made by the CAIP could very well pave the way to other lawsuits with other ISP’s that use DPI technology, like Rogers for instance, who have NO legal standing on the use of DPI, nor have informed their customers about the use of DPI in their contracts.

This is now in the hands of the CRTC and we have no expected date on when a decision is due.

It’s amazing how us as customers get nailed by these big corporations when it comes to not abiding by our end of contracts made (very swiftly I might add with little or no legal recourse), but as soon as these corporations break their abiding contracts with consumers, the politians, and the publicly funded regulators who are supposed to be protecting the public from this do NOTHING!!

As noted in an earlier blog, the CRTC does not handle “consumer” complains on ISP’s. We desperately need a complaints commission to on the digital end to handle consumer complaints with the ISP’s and are able to act accordingly should ISP’s break their end of the contract with consumers. I urge those following this to write into the Minister of Industry Jim Prentice along with their local politicians, to get a telecom complaints commission set up to handle “consumer complaints” that has the power legally to act on them if necessary.


Public Forum on Copyright Against "Fair" Copyright Debate?

The Who’s Who of the copyright debate is gathering today for a Public Policy Forum around copyright without a key speaker. Howard Knopf a Canadian Copyright lawyer and respected blogger was initially on the list of speakers, but got a slap in the face from this “Public Forum” last week when they uninvited Knopf from the speakers list. Most of the speakers on this list are the ones fighting for stronger copyright policy from Canada, however the sole responsibily to make sure consumers are heard in this forum lies with Dr. Micheal Geist. I have every confidence that Dr. Geist will do very well on this aspect, however feel that someone who’s dealt with the copyright debate before our Justice System on a day to day basis has a strong knowdlege of where our laws are now should have been welcomed and accepted by this forum. Dr. Geist is excellent when it come to the political side of this debate, and feel that Knopf would have added that extra support since he deals with the practical side it on a day to day basis. The fact Knopf was uninvited may question in many academic circles the validity and credibility of this forum since all sides are clearly NOT represented.

With the growing misuse, and misrepresentation of the data copyright lobbyists (which have been “invited” to this forum) are using to make their point with regards stronger policy, the public, governments and industries rely on the academics of the this debate now. Over the past several months, we’ve seen the global community start to slide away from stronger policies pushed by the lobbyists, as more and more questions are raised with regards to the data presented to governments, and the factious need to trump fundamental freedoms over copyright. The argument for stronger polices are not compatible towards the digital reality on these industries not following the consumer to a digital platform, and the logistical nightmare it has caused with some of these industries still trying to cling to the old analog platform. These industries must at some point need to realize and explore opportunities to monetize digital mediums, rather than fighting them. Being a part of the entertainment industry and the internet community the answer is quite simple, but I will have to let my peers and counterparts figure that out on their own. I think a major restructuring of sales and marketing staff is needed in a lot of these industries in order to really understand and compete in today’s marketplace.

Knopf is a well respected expert in his field, and his comments will be very much missed by those attending this forum, however his presentation that he was going to make at this forum is now available in his blog.

Weekly Buzz Volume #2

On a Positive Note:

One of my favourite digital music stores (http://www.beatport.com/) is now offering RSS feed subscriptions to specific artists. Although you are only notified of the releases, this is a step in the right direction. In an earlier blog, I explained the need for paid RSS subscriptions in the digital realm. For a monthly subscription fee, a music lover “should” be able to subscribe to RSS feeds like you do with channels on digital TV. Music stores could offer up subscriptions based on theme, genre, artist etc, and this be automatically delivered to the consumer. We’re not there yet, but it’s nice to see some experimenting with RSS feeds in the digital distribution channels.


The Bell Canada Situation:

Bell Canada submitted documents into the CRTC with regards to defending its position on P2P Bit Torrent throttling across the board and to those Internet Providers that lease lines from Bell. In its submissions Bell had stated that P2P traffic accounts for 33% of its overall bandwidth use. The submission also noted that a few users of the P2P applications tend to leave them open all the time, and some have multiple P2P applications open all the time on multiple computers on the same connection.

What I don’t completely understand is why Bell isn’t throttling those individual accounts, and instead taking the throttling issue to the point where it is today. Is it really necessary to use DPI techology in the first place? 33% of overall bandwidth use is not even close to really making the point they “need” to throttle P2P applications. I think this will become clear as this issue progresses along with the next submission to the CRTC by the CAIP due out on Monday.

DPI technology as I understand, works great in inspecting packets and identifying them as P2P, but as soon as you throw in certian types of encryption protocols into the those packets which most Bit Torrent programs use now, the DPI technology can have a problem with identifying the packets as those coming from P2P. The solution at least on Rogers and Bells end to this is to slow ALL encrypted traffic to a halt. Because of this flaw with DPI, businesses who rely on encryption protocols such as Hospitals, Doctors, Lawyers, Banks, even network admins are affected dramatically. I do a lot of remote admin support. I use an encrypted connection (I have too) in order to make sure that the connection is safe on my clients end. When Rogers implemented the DPI technology last year to my connection at home, these programs became useless. I could no longer support any remote admin work with my clients, because ALL the encrypted traffic was slowed down. To my knowledge, this is still the case with DPI. An Interesting read on this here at the TekSavvy Forums on DSL Reports on this issue.

On another note, Primus Communications offered up its point of view this week as well to the CRTC calling for immediate relief to those asking for it, along with its support of the CAIP to have Bell immediately stop the throttling of P2P applications. Primus did bring up a good point in its submission:

12. Consistent with the rationale behind Commission’s categorization of GAS service in Decision 98-173, Bell Canada’s unilateral decision to throttle GAS service and stand by that decision in the face of industry protest demonstrates its market power in the wholesale high-speed Internet access market. Clearly, then, the Commission cannot rely on market forces alone to address the competitive impacts and alleged violations of the Act by Bell Canada.

Bell Canada has responded to the Primus Submission stating that:

1. Bell Canada (Bell or the Company) is in receipt of a letter dated 15 April 2008 from Primus Telecommunications Inc. (Primus) submitted as an Answer to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers' (CAIPs') application of 3 April 2008 against Bell Canada's network management practices with regard to Bell's wholesale Internet services. Bell Canada submits that the Primus letter is out of process, and thus should not form part of the record for CAIP's interim relief request.

Should the Commission open this up in a public hearing, there will be in a whole world of trouble for Bell since they just don’t have an adequate defence from a technical stand point, and I think a lot of us tech savvy (no pun intended), new media producers, and advocacy types are watching this like a hawk, and would love to appear before the commission to provide our point of view on this subject, along with a lot of other professionals outside the telecom industries that have to contend with a less secure connection due to DPI implementation. Some of us concerned are also experts in the field of network management, application development, and Canadian New Media development and deployment. It’s clear the Bell lacks the expertise in these area’s from its submissions or is banking on the less than Tech Savvy CRTC's understanding of DPI, and pray that the other ISP’s have enough qualified staff in place to re-butt the utter technical nonsense Bell has spewed out!

The Fall Out PR War:

I’ve been watching quite a few mainstream blogs on the issue with Bell, and what some people have been saying. There have been a few that have sided with Bell on their stance. One of the things that I need to say to these people is; not all of us that use P2P are pirates, or hooligans. That’s a bit of a problem with regards to what the regular media often reports on, and one of the main reasons the music industry is in such bad shape right now.

The P2P channels are used by many new media producers, and software developers as a medium now. Even some artists and developers have made hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting on P2P channels, and it’s utter ignorance of the issues at hand at this point in the conversation to suggest otherwise, or that P2P is responsible from clogging up bandwidth. Reports have been done on this over the years, and it’s http or web traffic that consumes most of the bandwidth.

P2P is often looked back on in a negative way (thanks to the music industry and their mistakes) since it’s continently used as a escape goat by those that don’t completely understand the digital realm, or are used to promoting a certain way, rather than actually moving forward and representing in this new realm, and medium. I guarantee that YouTube sucks way more bandwidth up then P2P, and YouTube has as much of a history of illegal sharing of media as the P2P channels do. It’s a preference over one medium to another. This fight with Bell is about control over the market by a media and telecos giant over what you look at online, and where you get your media from. This has nothing to do with bandwidth.

If you read the submission by Peter Kovacs of Rogers Communications Inc to the CRTC's New Media Project Initiative, it clearly states the direction these telecom companies want to take. That submission can be found here. It's quite clear these ISP's are moving in to secure a monopoly on their preferred medium, by slowing down traffic to a medium they don't want to contend with.

Those who are now exploring how to monetize the P2P and follow the consumer to this medium are being inhibited by big media and teleco’s companies. A lot of new media producers have come to realise the positive impact of the P2P medium, and as soon as they try and capitalize on its power as a medium, the ones in control over the connections have to it step in and stop it. This is something that those in the media don’t need right now, and if Bell gets its way through the CRTC, it’s going to set back the tide of technological evolution in digital media, and end up costing Canadians massive amounts of money in the court systems and insight another more visible rebellion with consumers and ISP’s.

I know of no one that uses P2P on multiple computers and has these applications running 24/7. On top of this, it’s clear that Bell hasn’t utilized nor upgraded to a huge amount of unused bandwidth the government laid in the mid 90’s that remains unused for the most part! The motives for Bell throttling P2P applications can then not be a technical issue, and must be looked on carefully by the CRTC.

Here’s the CRTC on my “consumer” complaint on this issue:

“The CRTC regulates the internet access services that large telecommunication companies such as Bell, Telus and Rogers provide to independent internet service providers. Your service provider is in the best position to evaluate whether it believes its provider or a competitor is involved in inappropriate behaviour, and if so, it can provide the Commission with evidence of any alleged wrongdoing and file a competitive dispute with the Commission. The CRTC cannot deal with customer complaints made on behalf of their internet service provider.

The CRTC has received a formal complaint by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) against Bell Canada requesting that the CRTC order Bell Canada to stop "throttling" the access services Bell Canada provides to CAIP’s members in order to provide high speed internet service to their customers. If you are interested in following the outcome of this application you may do so at the following link:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8622/c51_200805153.htm ”

My response:

“I think it’s time the publically funded CRTC start listening to the people that pay for these services (the consumer). The CRTC must revisit it’s decision with regards to the way it regulates, to protect the integrity and validity of the principles on which this commission was formed and who it serves to protect. Anything less, and I guarantee the validity of this commission will be called into question in due time by the public it serves.

It’s time that the CRTC gets its head out of the sand, and start dealing with the telecommunications in the digital world. Fax machines are no longer the technology of choice which was the case when this commission last revisited regulation. I would expect some decisions from this commission in the coming months to protect consumers in the digital world. Many of these companies (ie. Bell and Rogers) are not abiding by contractual agreements made with the consumer, and agencies set up to handle consumer complaints outside the CRTC are powerless! The CRTC thus MUST and WILL be involved. This e-mail has been forwarded off to my local representatives, and ministers who are in charge of your funding and direction.”

I would seriously hope the CRTC has consumers in mind when looking at this issue. I have a very strong feeling that should the CRTC not act accordingly and stop BOTH Bell and Rogers from this type of action, consumers will be furious at both the CRTC and our Government.

Too be continued....

Weekly Buzz Volume #1

I'll be throwing up some things that I'm currently following, on a more weekly basis. DEMONIOD IS BACK and in full swing!

1. After being shut down by the CRIA here in Canada, the popular torrent site is now back online:

http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-is-back-080411/

2. Copyright Collectives got a tough reality check in the EU last week. EU members are opposed to and struck down laws that would cut internet access off for repeat "copyright infringers", putting forward human rights over copyright concerns, and also furthering the general understanding of the inability of the entertainment industry to move forth with new business models:

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/04/11/analysis:-three-strikes-strikes-out-end-isp-policing%3F

I strongly think this may end the discussion on making ISP's responsible for "copyright infringement" cases, which the music industry is strongly calling for. More wasted money and time went into this by the music and entertainment lobbyists, it ain't going to happen guys. I called the outcome of this action a few months back when it was introduced. I think it's time to look at ways on making money, and following the consumer, rather then spending insane amounts of money on lobby efforts, which over the past 10 years have done NOTHING for the individual artist except put them in a position of hardship, and turned away fans from content.

3. Bell Canada and Sympatico! Bell is facing 2 major Internet blunders. Last week about 50 Internet Providers that lease lines from Bell filed a complaint into the CRTC with regards to Bell slowing down internet speeds on file sharing networks. A government owned broadcasting company The CBC recently released a legal download via bittorrent last month in an attempt to follow the consumer to new distribution networks, and learn a bit on how to monetize P2P channels. Many Internet Users in Canada had trouble accessing this publically funded torrent file due to ISP’s slowing down the P2P networks. Bell in particular. The CBC is hosting a "no holds barred" conversation with Bell's Chief of Regulatory Affairs, and are taking your questions this week. Should be very interesting:

http://arstechnica.com/staff/nate.ars/2008/04/11/the-cbc-wants-you-to-grill-bell-canada

Comcast (An Internet Provider) in the USA also slowed down P2P channels, however decided to stop this practise after the FCC threatened to hold regulatory hearings on this subject, after a number of complaints and successful lawsuits against Comcast for implementing this technology. Let's hope the same happens here in Canada.

It's also noted that only 5% of users use P2P on Canada's most popular network, which calls into question losses claimed by the CRIA with regards to illegally downloaded music, and the levies we currently have in place to "compensate" this industry for losses due to P2P (I had to put that one in there).

Sympatico also last week was named the worst network in Canada for viruses/spam and 'malicious activity', by the makers of Norton Antivirus (Symantec):

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/412694

Damn I thought it was http://myspace.com/ ;) I guess I was wrong. Sympatico Members, learn how to use something called “Anti Virus”. Here’s a link to a free anti virus program:

http://free.grisoft.com/doc/download-free-anti-virus/us/frt/0

JK