Recently, the Canadian Government opened up, asking for input from the public on copyright laws, and what they think needs to be done. They’ve already talked to various industry groups, consumer groups, etc. Michael Geist has more information here: Michael Geist.

Here is the letter I sent in:

Preamble:
Copyright is exactly how it sounds. The right to copy a work for profit. When copyright was formulated, the only way to copy a work was extensive manual effort and with expensive machinery. Copyright as it was developed then does not take into account a world where limitless perfect copying can be performed. Copying a book carried a risk of typos and missed pages. Copying an e-book now, once the DRM, if there is any, is circumvented can happen endlessly, with not a single bit out of place. In the era copyright was devised, copying a work meant profit was almost invariably involved. Now, the same is not true. Copying could be innumerable reasons, like making backups, sharing a song or video a friend or family member would enjoy, or reusing parts of the work to make a new work. This is a tipping point in future’s history. What we decide now about copyright will have repercussions for the worse or better of society. Concerns about individual companies or even industries pale next to these concerns. They will inevitably die or be replaced by new companies, new industries. But our society will change and continue, possibly in unpredictable ways.

I will eventually start a company when I graduate from school. We will produce creative works, from the efforts of many employees. We do intend to profit from these. But we do not intend to sue our customers. We do not intend to control or cheat our customers. We know that downloading works, and sharing copied works act as marvelous forms of advertising, and can lead many to spend more than if they had not downloaded or shared. I speak as a representative of this putative company, as I want to protect both our interests, and those of our customers.

Thank you in advance for reading this.

1. How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?

Canada’s copyright laws have affected me many times. Generally, they are better and more robust than the copyright laws in the United States, meaning I am protected from being sued in civil court for many multiples of what I earn yearly. However, this has happened to American citizens. These citizens made no profit from copying a work. They may have shared. But they either settled out of court for a few thousand dollars, or were sued in court to the tune of several million dollars. No profit was made from the copying activity. And yet they were punished. Canadian copyright laws as they stand now protect me from this, for downloading and accessing media I have no other legal way of accessing. I have also been protected from being considered guilty merely for the use of a program which has many legal uses as well as illegal uses. Just because a gun could be used for murder doesn’t mean having one automatically makes one a murderer.

As well, under Canadian copyright laws, I have the freedom to use code called DeCSS to watch DVDs I legally purchased or rented on my non-Windows or MC OSX computer. I have benefited from the freedoms and protections of the copyright laws in Canada. Were I in the United States, I would have none of these freedoms, and none of these benefits.

To modernize copyright laws, Canada needs to return them to their original purpose: ensuring the creator or creators of a work gets appropriate recompense. Let us take the example of the music industry. Many smaller artists receive almost no return for the work they have performed, despite the profits the record labels produce. I now direct your attention to the article by Courtney Love, the widow of Kurt Cobain: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

In it, she addresses the math by which record labels defraud and rip off new, struggling, and defenseless artists. These are verifiable facts. It is a crime. Yet, because contracts were signed, it cannot be enforced. The companies benefit, while the artists suffer. This is not how copyright is supposed to work. Copyright should be not transferrable to a corporation. Copyrights should not be enforced by corporations.

It has been expressed that people want to be able to give money directly to the artists. The high prices of works,like CDs and DVDs is distasteful, especially when one finds out how little makes it to the artist. As it stands now, there is no real service or way to do so, except by buying merchandise and tickets for live concerts. Any copyright law in Canada should provide a system whereby the consumers can reward an artist directly for their work.

Another reason people copy works, is because they have no money to buy the works legally. This is especially true of students and a good percentage of Canadians. If a student had no money in the first place, there can be no logical argument that the artist lost money. And it is typically not the artist that feels they lost money, but the corporation that now owns and controls the copyright. It cannot be said that every download is lost income, as you cannot guarantee that if there was no way to illegally download the work, it would have been bought as a final recourse. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy, which should be rejected and ignored in debates of policy.

A modernized copyright system would account for all of these interests, and seek to ensure that the works of the artists are protected and paid for, where possible. As well, a modernized copyright system would account for the interests of the consumers, in that consumers have a right to do as they wish with their product(doctrine of first sale), and cannot be controlled or restricted in the name of preventing piracy. Consumers must be guaranteed freedoms. They must be guaranteed freedom from invasion of privacy, the freedom of making new works from the old, and the freedom of not being shackled to any one company.

Last year’s bill C-61 sought to make me a criminal for watching DVDs on Linux. Last year’s bill C-61 sought to make me a criminal for talking about how to circumvent a DRM measure that prevented a product from working. Last year’s bill C-61 sought to make many activities now considered normal illegal and punishable for amounts far greater than companies would lose. Last year’s bill C-61 was wrong, and unconscionable.

1. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?

It depends on what you believe Canadian values and interests are. Canadian values and interests seem to lie in freedom and equality. They seem to lie in the interests of finding something that works for everyone, with less regard for the financial well-being of corporations than they demand. Canadian values and interests lie in human rights and civil rights and consumer rights.

Whatever system of copyright we end up with needs to ensure consumers are free to move their purchase items, even digital, to any format they wish. Consumers cannot be restricted to using only one kind of mp3 player for music bought from a store. Consumers cannot be restricted from making backups to ensure the safety of what they have purchased.

1. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?

I believe that Canada needs to ensure artists are paid properly by the music industry. Public accounting needs to be done, and substantial fines need to be levied against companies that profited from any media sales while the creators received no money. I believe that Canada should create a fund to encourage and sponsor new, Canadian artists to develop their works, and be able to sell them via any media they choose. I believe that Canada should legislate specific protections of consumer rights in regards to DRM. No consumer should be prevented from working around and deactivating DRM if that DRM prevented proper technical performance of the work. No consumer should be made a criminal for activities many do. No consumer should be restricted in making backups into any format they choose.

The rights to create mashups should be protected, as new creative works will come out of those activities. The public begins to learn formerlly difficult skills like video editing, music composition, film direction, and so on, which can do nothing but benefit us all. Any system of copyright we develop should encourage people’s desires to create, rather than legislate consumption. Yes companies will be hurt by these actions. No, we do not have a responsibility to defend their profits or business model. It is capitalism. They must be left alone, and they must adapt or die. Buggy whip manufacturers could not realistically sue auto manufacturers, could they for causing buggies to no longer be used? No. So why do we allow this to happen now?

1. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?

Give the people control of what they make. Ensure the artists make their fair share rather than being ripped off by predatory corporations. Ensure and guarantee the freedoms of the consumer. Let the people learn and create. Where there is no profit made, civil suits should not be able to apply punitive damages, or even a fine beyond the loss of one single purchase. Recently a woman was sued for 2.9 million dollars USD, for downloading 28 songs. This is more per song than the Canadian government gives to the family of dead soldiers. Which loss is more real and more important?

1. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?

Everything I’ve said above. Give people the freedom. Restrict the corporation’s rights to restrict the public’s freedoms. Defend the artists and ensure they receive their fair share. Doing so will encourage artists to come to Canada to produce, as we will be able to defend and support them. This can only improve our culture, with new viewpoints and creations.

Yours sincerely,

Tyler Laing

I’m just pleased they’re actually listening to the citizens now!

So I used the term “holistic” in reference to how I choose my diet and food. In this case, “holistic” means, according to Princeton, “emphasizing the organic or functional relation between parts and the whole”. What I mean is that I consider all of my various needs, like health, vitamins, satiation, happiness, effort, etc. I try to eat low-fat, whole-wheat as a rule, and have lots of veggies and fruits, and only one serving of meat a day. But because I used the term “holistic”, I now get some wacko naturopathic and homeopathic store following me. (Link here, which I’m not putting a href around: http://twitter.com/WellWire) I feel… oddly skeeved. This is a real problem, in two areas.

The first area is that the person just randomly started following me, completely ignoring the context of my use of the word, or who I am. They ignored the fact that I had never professed a single belief in homeopathy, or naturopathy or any such category of ‘woo’. I even mock the History Channel for such stuff. But of course, to sell these products, the guy using the word “holistic” is your exact target!

The other area is that they took no time to cultivate a relationship. Too many people just follow, and expect to be followed back. This is reminiscent of “reciprocal linking” back in the early days of Google. Webmasters expected that if they linked to you, you should link to them. It was just an obvious attempt at gaming the system, which is happening on Twitter as well. They didn’t send me a message. They didn’t say ‘Hi’, they didn’t… anything. Just clicked follow and moved on. What a way to sell! Make your customer feel like they’re just another notch on the bedpost. Its simply bad sales. You have to make the customer feel valued. Even just a few minutes the first couple of days would earn you a loyal customer.

But luckily, my posts mocking WellWire, and using the word Holistic, got me removed as someone they follow.

But whats new?

For kicks, I decided to watch the History Channel’s special “Nostradamus: 2012″, which examines Nostradamus’ predictions, and how they relate to the year 2012. And hoo boy, was it filled with quackery and bad science. This isn’t unusual for the History Channel, alternating between marvelous fact-based examinations of our history, and… shows like this, usually dealing one of three subjects: UFOs and ancient cultures, strange disappearances and events, and prophecies.

While I am all for an examination of prophecies and predictions made in the past, I think it is utterly foolish to suppose there is anything but metaphorical truth in them. They should be examined as windows into the psyche and culture in which they were made, demonstrations of the values of the people that made them. In terms of an archaeological and anthropological perspective, prophecies of doom are beautiful windows into how the people of the time thought. Or in the case of Nostradamus, illustrative of various subtle political issues researchers may not otherwise be aware of. (Nostradamus made his prophecies tough to decipher to avoid accusations of witchcraft, a very lethal accusation in his era.)

But lets take a look at the special itself, and why it really has no fact-based relevance.

They go over some quick facts, like the Mayan calendar and the galactic alignment. Yes, the point at which the Mayan calendar stops counting is the same time of the galactic alignment. But the reason for this, is because the Mayans were phenomenal astronomers. They were able to calculate the precise amount of time since the last galactic alignment, and used that as their calendar. They based the starting point of their calendar on a easily provable astronomical event. They set their calendar to “roll over”, like in an odometer reaching 999,999 km, at the next galactic alignment. The problem here is that some people decided that the Mayan calendar “ends” at this point, and thus it is quite momentous. Possibly even a prophecy. The show features lots of specious logic like, “Well, they could have made a longer calendar, so choose this data to end on, it must have some importance!” We’re humans. We find patterns in lots of things where there is no pattern. We’re easily fooled, and mix up correlation and causation. The facts are simple: the Mayans were brilliant astronomers, they tied their calendar to the last galactic alignment, and their calendar “rolls over” on the next galactic alignment. Without more facts, one cannot suppose more meaning into the Mayan calendar than is there. I, for one, have not seen any dire warnings encoded by the Mayans. No prophecies. In the absence of evidence, one cannot suppose a greater meaning to the way their calendar works Nothing of the like, but you are free to correct me if I’m wrong!

From there, they go off into… well, utter speculation. They show various prophecies from different cultures, drawings by Nostradamus, his predictions, and try to draw some very dire warnings. The problem, however, is that there is no basis for the conclusions made. Its all unfounded speculation, filled with calls to ancient wisdom, what if they’re right, and spooky coincidences. Again, this is not science. This is not fact. This sort of thing does not belong on the History Channel.

While prophecies, and spooky coincidences, and ancient wisdom all make for good and fun fiction, they make bad science.

But the clearest descriptor of the issues with the special can be found in this little quote from one of the “scientists” (really a literature doctorate… not a scientists but a scholar – a big difference!), “with a new spirituality-based science[...]“.

Yeah. He said it. Spirituality-based science. Thats like saying cold-based heat, or communist-inspired capitalism, or peace-based war. They are inherent contradictions. Spirituality, religion, whatever, even atheism, has no place in science. Do you know why? Because they are not science. Anything thats not science has no business being mixed with science. Unfounded speculation, and fear mongering are not science. Wishful thinking, praying, and divine visions are not science.

There was also lots of talk about a galactic super wave, that will strike the earth during the galactic alignment. There is no proof of any such wave happening, even in the past. They make reference to the die-off after the last ice-age, and the “scientist” speaking at the time just assumes with no proof that this is due to a galactic super death wave. (Actually that sounds like a good death metal band name: “Galactic Super Death Wave”…) There is no backup to this theory, no geological evidence. There is a die-off after the last glaciation event (wikipedia is persnickety about calling it a glaciation event rather than an ice-age), but there is no explanation for this die-off, with many theories still being considered that explain the die-off. This kind of speculation and assuming just makes the History Channel look bad, as… its the very area they deal in!

But again, its not the lowest point for the History Channel… but it is still very disappointing.

Okay, so that was a long week of bug fixing. There were three major bugs, and I fixed all of them over this week. I did run into one more bug, which was a crash after the movie looped. Because this bug showed up unreliably if ever while being debugged, which led to some fun issues! Fun in retrospect. I have to say, I’ve learned a lot this summer, in only seven weeks of development. I did eventually figure out the issue… after about seven hours of fussing with code. What it was, was the way I turned off sound when the movie was ended was the culprit. The way I was doing this, was by sending empty buffers to the sound subsystem. However, apparently when I try to play a new buffer, while some sound is already playing, the sound subsystem(sdl_mixer in this case) would call the callback registered… which would try to play another empty buffer… this causes some severe crashes. So I just needed to put in a check if sound was already playing, and skip if this is so.

There’s a few more bugs I’ve found, like sometimes the video plays really quickly after being unpaused. I’ll work on those over the next week, and bring the vlc and dummy backends up to compatibility. Then I can start adding new features if I deem its ready to do so. Then after this week, and the next, I will be taking a semi-vacation, seeing family and friends, and probably working on code when I’m bored. So there’ll be some progress then. I’ll make this up by working a week later into August than projected. Well… I was already planning to work longer than the 12 weeks I’m supposed to do, just to get the code ready for general use by the end of the summer. Plus, I don’t have much else to do during that time, so I may as well code!

So quick overview:

• Fix the bugs that show up now, and there’s nothing I can do about the X11 bug I ran into…
• Update VLC and dummy backends to match the movie interface, make them more stable
• Add ffmpeg backend.
• Begin adding new features
• Testing of new features
• Make other backends match
• Port code to windows

That is the 2 mile high plan for the next…5-7 weeks of development.

So, week six. I devoted this entire week to exhaustive testing and bug fixing. Its just good software development to take some time, and test and fix bugs. No new features, nothing. I also took the time in the process to refactor a section of code I felt was extremely hacky and brittle. The benefit is that I ended up creating a couple of special-purpose functions which can be reused in multiple areas in the code for the future, possibly. As I found small bugs or issues, like deadlocks, I fixed them. There were a few that remained by Friday:

• Unpausing doesn’t work right. The video would jerk and stutter after unpausing.
• Audio and Video would drift out of sync within about 8 minutes on my test video.
• Sound would not restart on a replay

As of today(Monday), I fixed the sound restart issue, thanks to Rene’s advice, and the unpausing issue. Ironically enough, the unpausing issue was an extremely simple fix. The sound restart issue required me to simply play sound buffers of no sound while the sound was stopped. For the audio and video drift issue, I know why its happening, which is because I unlinked video timing from being synced to the audio. I knew I would have to fix this eventually, but it was an issue for later on. I implemented a first kind of draft solution today, which caused the video+audio to jerk and stutter. Very strange.

Once I have these issues fixed, and a lot of the slightly jury-rigged code from various attempts to fix or examine the various issues, I’ll begin adding new features.
I will add for the Beta release:

• Subtitle support. This way you can have your in-game video with subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing. Trust me on this, its necessary. I’m hard of hearing myself, and I’m seeing more and more games that don’t have subtitles as an option.
• Rect assignation support. You can assign a rect, along with the surface of choice, to dictate which portion of the video image will be written to the surface you give.
• Seeking support. Now, you should be able to seek to (somewhat depending on the format) arbritary points in the video file
• Fix a couple of minor issues, like delayed resizing of the image
• Begin working on a sound api, for developers that choose to redirect the sound samples to the sound system of their choice.
• Adding more backends(like mplayer), and updating the backends we currently have to work better and faster
• With the mplayer backend, the plan is to have the video streamed as frames over pipes, so the smart programmer can do…whatever they want with those.
• Try to clean up the code, make it more readable, add a lot more updated documentation, including flow-charts!
• And other features as requested by the community members. If there’s a feature you want, email me at either zeroth AT oddco.ca or trinioler AT gmail.com. They both go to the same mailbox.

And checking with the schedule I gave the mentors, it appears I’m actually a week ahead of schedule! Granted, I’ve had to change my plans and ideas for the module as I learned more, but thats how the world works. I will predict Beta release in 3-4 weeks, including this week, which will give me time to update and fix bugs in all the other backends, as well as testing and bug fixing, after the beta release. In addition, after that I will begin the work of making the code work and compile on Windows and with Python 3.