Jesse Brown has another great Search Engine interview on copyright, this time with Charlie Angus. Search Engine is released with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial- Share Alike 2.5 Canada License, so I can post this transcript which is released under the same license (and that won’t hurt Jesse’s feelings).

You can Listen to the podcast while you read the transcript.

[00:00] [theme music]

[00:15] Jesse Brown: Charlie Angus, as many of you know, is the NDP
Member of Parliament who’s been the sole voice of reason in Parliament
on digital issues. He’s the NDP’s copyright critic, and he’s really the
only guy who’s asking tough question, loud questions, and the right
questions when Jim Prentice tabled Bill C61 a couple of years back, and
since then he’s been the only guy in Parliament trying to shed some
light on the ongoing secret ACTA negotiations. None of this, however,
has gotten Charlie Angus a whole lot of press outside of, uh, geeky
press like this. What has gotten Charlie Angus in the papers,
nationally, in a big way, is a recent Private Member’s Bill he just
introduced that proposes to extend the blank media levy to MP3 players.
Which means that the tax we pay every time we buy a blank CD or
mini-disk as we do all the time these days, would, under Angus’s
proposal, be extended to MP3 players like iPods. The media is calling it
the iTax and Charlie Angus’s opponents, notably Heritage Minister
James Moore, have seized upon it. And Charlie Angus has been taking
something of a beating for putting forth a piece of legislation that his
critcs say could result in a 75 dollar tax fee for consumers any time they buy
anything from an MP3 player to a laptop.

[01:34] Now, the outrage over the iTax has obscured another
piece of legislation that Charlie Angus has introduced. It is a proposal
to extend the notion of Fair Dealing in Canada, a principle you’ve heard
a lot about on this program. Of course, in the States they have Fair Use
exceptions which govern the circumstances in which copyright doesn’t
apply. We have Fair Dealing here in Canada, it’s much more
restrictive, and it’s one of the chief things that copyright reform
activists have been asking for. Well, Charlie Angus has introduced a
proposal to do so. But it isn’t something we’ve heard much about. I
recently had a chance to correct that, and to get some clarity on this
so-called iTax when I interviewed Charlie Angus in person in Toronto.
Here’s how that sounded.

[02:16] [music fades]

[02:19] JB: Hi Charlie.

[02:20] Charlie Angus: Hi, how are you?

[02:22] JB: Pretty good. So explain to me the iTax.

[02:25] CA: Well, this has been a classic Canadian compromise for some
time, something that the major, you know, CRIA, major record labels have
never really liked. But, it was a recognition that, listen, people are
copying music all the time. How do we find a monetizing stream? So, back
in the nineties they decided that for every cassette people bought,
fifteen, twenty cents would go to an artists’ fund. That was included in
the CDs because people were burning lots of CDs, but nobody is using
those technologies any more. So the question is, where do we go to next
level? I actually decided to bring this motion forward not so much
because I’m interested in the technicalities of a levy or not, but
because what’s missing from the conversation on copyright is two
important issues. One is, how are we going to access works, that’s the
Fair Dealing, and how are we going to compensate artists? Up ’til now
the debate has been lock down or the libertarian digital new world where
everything should be free, but lost among those two poles is the issue
that music is being copied, art is being traded, and nobody’s getting
paid. So either we lock down and litigate, or we have to start looking
at means to compensate. So I decided I would kick the ball up the field
and see what happened.

[03:42] JB: And I guess we should frame it all with that in mind because
this is a Private Member’s Bill and it’s unlikely this is going to
become law. But this is a proposal you put forth and you say that it’s
been missing from the conversation this question of compensation but in
fact, this levy has existed, as you say, on things like blank CDs for
ten years, 180 million dollars I think is the figure that’s been
collected for artists. So this isn’t a new idea, you’re talking about
extending it away from these CDs that nobody uses any more to things
like iPods. So, what would it cost if this went through? I mean this is
what you’re proposing, so what would it cost for a 64 Gigabyte iPod
which is what they’re selling now.

[04:13] CA: Well, this is a very interesting thing. James Moore was out
with his Twitter account immediately denouncing this killer tax, we’ll
fight the tax to the death, and you know, no taxation without digital
representation, or some, some crazy talk. And they threw out this figure
of 75 dollars. What was brought before the copyright board in 2005 was
anywhere from two dollars for small MP3 player might hold five, six
hundred songs, a thousand songs, up to about 20 dollars. So that’s the
realm of what’s out there. I think, when you talk about monetizing,
finding a monetizing model that works, at the end of the day there’s
going to be that tipping point. The consumers aren’t going to pay an
extraordinary amount to access their music. But if it’s a reasonable
fee, if it’s a fee you don’t really notice on top of it, I think it goes
to the areas where we need to start looking at, so the levy already
exists, and it has been in place. It’s been part of Canadian copyright
law for some time. So I figured, well, rather than trying to invent a
new form of compensation there’s one out there, let’s get the discussion
on compensation going by saying we’re going to need to update this or
it’s going to fall by the wayside.

[05:22] JB: OK, but just to get the brass tacks of this, uh, they are
bandying about figures like 75 dollars, and then if it is based on the
Gigabyte storage of the device, we’re talking about, we’re in an era now
where they’re making 100 dollar drives that can hold a Terabyte of data.
So if the levy is tied to the storage space we’re, we could get up there
into the hundreds for this levy. But you’re saying it’s not. You’re
saying we’re talking about a maximum 20 dollars.

[05:44] CA: This is, this is what was brought forward. And again, these
are the fights that go back to the copyright board. Um, the 75 dollar
figure is the one the Tories have been bandying about, it wasn’t in any
of the proposals previously, uh, so we were, we were looking in the area
two to 20 dollars. But again, we gotta get to the bigger issue. It’s all
well and good to say we’re going to have access, it’s all well and good
for the lobbyist to demand lockdown, but it’s not realistic. So how are
we going to find a new way forward. And I think that’t the conversation
we could have in Canada. We could actually move towards a progressive
copyright model where we’re not suing single moms for their homes. But
if we’re not suing single moms for their homes we have to find some
other sources of revenue to compensate for the music that’s being
traded.

[06:30] JB: But this isn’t an abstract converstation. We have the
example of the last ten years of the CD blank media copying levy to look
at. And how successful do you feel that has been in compensating artists
for their work as basically trying to find a way to make up for whatever
revenue is lost in lost CD sales?

[06:47] CA: Well, to be quite clear, nothing is going to make up for the
loss of the immense music that’s been trafficked. But it never was intended
in the original levy was to say, listen, a part of the stream we will
compensate for. And I think the artists have recognized and, and you know, a lot
of Canadian bands are really into the new digital models that are out
there, but I’ve been speaking to them about the levy, and they said,
listen, you know, it’s not perfect, but we’re starting count more
and more on this revenue because what else we have? We’re down to T-shirt
sales to keep going in some areas.

[07:20] JB: The CPCC has said before that artists need this to survive
and this has been one of the biggest sources of their revenue. Howard
Knopf had a look at the numbers, and he broke it down and estimated that
if every artist who got something out of this got an equal amount, the
average is something like 160 dollars a year. But of course, they don’t
all get an equal amount. It’s based on sales figures, and it’s based on
FM radio play. So you find a situation where a band like U2 might
actually do very well from this blank media levy, but a band like your
old band, who might get more play on college radio and the sales are
being done through little shops that don’t necessarily make a dent in
the soundscape, that don’t even get counted, so it’s an odd situation
where it’s entirely possible that a band like yours might have gotten 80
bucks a year, and Canadians are paying Dave Matthews every time they buy
a blank CD.

[08:09] CA: Well, I think the reality with copyright is, the people who have
hit songs have always done well. People who’ve had number one songs can
build a home with it. And the rest of us continue to struggle in grimy bars.
That’s the reality of copyright. It’s not a socialist utopian system.
But I can tell you from having tried to feed my family on copyright, and
it is pretty damn hard to feed a bunch of kids on, on copyright cheques.
You know, artists rely on a variety of streams, the SOCAN stream, radio
play, does, does the levy need to be more accountable? Perhaps, but even
when you’re talking about artists who might get fifteen hundred dollars
from that levy, that can make the difference between going back to the
studio or not going back to the studio. That’s how tenuous we are right
now for so many Canadian artists in, in the music business.

[08:58] JB: Here’s a problem that a lot of people have with this.
There’s an assumption that is made that music copying is what this is
going to be used for. I have used mini-disks for years. That’s what we
used when we went on the field to do radio work. We go through these
things like crazy. And every time I bought a mini-disk I was paying, I
don’t know, 25 or 28 cents, a lot of which went to, you know, Bono.
Canadians I think really care about this basic concept of fairness. And
in an era where devices are not so specific as that I think people just
have a basic problem with the assumption that they’re going to be using
any media to copy music when they may not be using it for that at all.

[09:32] CA: Well, one of the funny things that’s happened over the last
week is I never met so many digital virgins in my life. Oh, I’ve never
done that. Never me. I’ve got people telling me I don’t use my MP3
player to listen to copyrighted music, I listen to other things. It’s
like well, what, I wonder which, I’d love to find out what you’re
listening to if you’re not listening to copyrighted music. The reality
of the levy is to say, listen, it’s not about every single copy is, is
covering off the loss of a song. It’s saying here’s probably the only
place we can find a revenue stream. It’s a small revenue stream, but
everybody trades music. I trade music, my kids trade music, I buy music,
I trade copies with my kids, my friends, it’s going on. So when the last
week I’ve had everyone e-mailing me, Facebooking me, saying I’ve never
traded songs so I shouldn’t have to pay, well, sort of like, there’s a
friend artist said to me the other day, said well, I know people who don’t
have kids they still have to pay into the public education system.
Either we’re going to create a system that tries to find a means to
compensate for the music, or we’re going to go to the U.S. model, or the
European model of lockdown and litigation, and I don’t think that those
are progressive models, so I think a couple of bucks on my iPod might be a
good solution. It might, there might be a better solution out there, but
we need to start having that conversation. And we need to have it now.

[10:52] JB: Are those the only two options? I mean, that conversation,
how do musicians get paid is being had by no-one more passionately than
musicians who are finding all kinds of creative ways to get paid in this
new paradigm. I guess what I’m asking is, is this a problem that
government can fix? I mean, we’re, we’re taking about a, such a fast
moving area with technology, I think we’re only a year or two away from
a point where it’s not even going to be about solid state hard drives in
our pockets, but you know, your storage is going to be in the cloud, and
your device is going to get it through the Internet, so you know, taxing
a storage device won’t even make sense in a matter of months,
potentially.

[11:25] CA: Well, I, again, I made the decision to raise issue of the
levy because I think the bigger philosophical discussion has to happen. And
people are looking to government to make legislative changes that could
have profound implications, and I find everybody on all sides of
the copyright debate tend to speak in apocalyptic language, and
everybody on the other side is either the evil corporate enemy, or the
evil bandit thieves, some third-world booty criminal bazaar. None of
that I think at this point is helpful. I’m hoping we’re ready to have
the adult conversation on copyright and you’re right, technology is
changing a lot. If we brought copyright legislation in five years ago I
think, I know the push for politicians was to try and pretend this was
1996 and push back the clock. Clock’s not going back. Is the levy a
stop-gap measure? Probably is. But we’re not having the conversation
about how artists should be paid. I know artists who are doing
phenomenally creative stuff, Canadian artists perhaps more than any
other group of musicians in the world, I think, have taken the Internet
by force because our markets are small, because it’s so hard to travel.
I mean I’ve travelled between Winnipeg and Regina and Calgary, and know
how hard it is to maintain those markets. But that being said, it
doesn’t compensate for the loss of music when you put twenty or thirty
thousand dollars into a recording and people are making copies, you
should be able to get your share.

[12:49] JB: We may never agree on this, but the idea that when an
industry shift and things move around they’re not going to compensate
exactly. The new ways of making money are not going to immediately
compensate for what was lost. I think traditionally they’ve ususally
ultimately exceeded the old way, in terms of opportunities that technology has
brought out, what VHS brought to the movie inudstry. But in the short term
people suffer, and it seems like you’re suggesting a greater role for
government and creating a stop-gap measure to ameliorate that suffering.

[13:16] CA: People are looking to government right now to update our
copyright legislation, and people are suggesting a lockdown, they’re
suggesting searching your iPod at the airports, they’re suggesting
forcing your ISP to snoop on you so that whatever you download you get
the three strikes provision and you’re out. That’s where we’re going
unless we can begin to say, no, the role of government is to find a way
to allow access but if we’re allowing access we’re also going to have to allow
something for copyrighted works. And as you said in terms of the uh,
short term business models change, and I’m fully aware of what the
roller piano did, and how it was a threat to musicians, and how the
record player was a threat to musicians, and then radio was a threat to
the record companies, I mean we went on and on and on, and each time we
change. But we’re not in a short period, we’re in a very long dramatic
transformation of every level of industry and the reality is, and
musicians fully know this more than anyone, they’re never going to be
compensated fully for what’s going on out there. They’re not expecting
to be. But they’re saying there has to be some revenue stream so it’s
either on the levy, it’s either going to be in, in the form of something
else, or it’s giong to be in the form of the coporate, uh, lockdown, and
I don’t want to go down that road.

[14:30] JB: I guess one concern I have is that, uh, like you’ve said a
couple of times, the bigger question is what we’re going to do with
copyright on a larger scale in this county. And I think there are some
problems with the fairness of this levy, and I hope they don’t obscure
whatever, uh, argument for common sense is being made in that larger
question. Let’s, let’s, let’s talk about that larger question, let’s
talk about Fair Dealing itself. We cover all aspects of copyright reform
on this show. The parody exception is of particular interest to me, and
just bring listeners up to speed on this, Fair Use in the United States,
of course, allows for exceptions to copyright when you’re making fun of
stuff. And Jon Stewart can play clips of what’s happening in the Senate
if he’s making fun of it. We have an exception under Fair Dealing in
Canada for news coverage and criticism. We don’t have one for parody,
for satire. Is that covered in this new approach to Fair Dealing that
you’re proposing?

[15:22] CA: Well, the uh, the changes actually sort of broaden it so
that there’s the principle of Fair Dealing because that, it’s been
recognized by the Supreme Court, as the user has a right to Fair Dealing
but right now it’s on a case by case basis. You have to prove it every
time. We actually have in the Copyright Act of Canada 1997 that they
made it legal to write on an easel with a marker if you were in a
classroom. And it’s actually says that.

[15:49] JB: And they say we’re lax on copyright, that has to be written
down.

[15:51] CA: I, I think we show how just, uh, retentive we are on them.
Again, the Fair Dealing motion, I wasn’t too concerned about exactly how
the wording was going to be. I looked around for what good models were
out there, and it’s general to allow for criticism, to allow for
research, to allow for parody, because tying it with the levy is to
say, listen, on the last few rounds of copyright you guys have missed
out key elements, so here we are, I’m putting it out, here’s the flag,
everyone can start shooting at it now. But we need to have the Fair
Dealing discussion at the same time we’re talking about compensation.

[16:22] JB: Let’s talk about Minister Moore and Minister Clement. You’re
the NDP’s copyright critic, so it’s your job to critise the
Conservative’s approach to copyright. There is a conception, and, you
know, I feel that these guys get it more than the last guy. And that
we’re better off with Moore and Clement than we were were with Prentice.
Do you agree?

[16:46] CA: Well, I mean, Jim Prentice is from my home town, so I have to always
say something nice about him, but, um, Bill C61 was a dog’s breakfast of
trying to find rules and exemptions and it was all again making the
digital lock sacrosanct so you could not under any circumstance break a
digital lock. I find that the Tories live in a nuance-free zone. They’re
either really tough on crime, or their new thing is they’re tax
fighters. So it depends on what hat they’re wearing. So the last time
they were wearing the hat it was tough on crime. We’ve got to stop these
kids from breaking in and stealing little old ladies’ cassettes.
[laughs] Digital product. What I find funny with Clement and Moore this
last week, um, in terms of the response to me, was I found it was a
little juvenile. I mean, here I am in the fourth party putting out a
Private Member’s Bill that everybody knows isn’t going to be debated,
and there’s Jimmy with his tweet saying death to taxes, we’ll fight
taxes, and uh, and I was thinking this is amazing in a way, uh, he
probably inadvertently went further than the Pirate Party in Sweden has
ever gone in that copyright is a tax that has to be fought to the
death. So I don’t know if he thought that through, but it’s uh, again
I’m encouraging Tony and James to have a, let’s put down the Tory
rhetoric and war machine for a second and discuss the issue.

[18:06] JB: I don’t mean to keep harping on this, but didn’t you hand
them that one? I mean, that’s a crowd pleaser every time, you know. That
they’re the guys that are trying to stop the, the NDP from taxing your
iPod. In all of your criticism of them up to date you’ve got to be the
guy arguing common sense and appealing in that basic level to kind of,
you know, Joe Public, and, and, you know, you kind of gave them like a
freebie, I think there’s a reason why they seized upon that bill of
yours.

[18:28] CA: Well, I actually think it was dumbing it down to an even
lower level than we’ve been in the past, where I mean, I’ve always
spoken about the need to represent the public interest. But when the
Conservatives are saying, listen, we already have governement programs
for artists, so we’re not going to, we hate taxes. Are they saying that
because we have the Canada Council means you can do whatever you want,
downloading whatever you, you think. I mean, that’s, that’s a very
libertarian argument that the Conservatives on the other hand with their
tough on crime approach wouldn’t support. And so sure, they want to get
the one up on me, but it’s not the level of debate we need on this.
We’ve got to get serious about this. I’d like to sit down with Tony
Clement, sat down with him a number of times, talked about copyright,
but I want to know that at the end of the day they’re looking at the big
picture and I’m never convinced with these guys that they are, but I’m
always optimistic that somebody after all these years is going to see
common sense and figure we’ve got to start moving forward instead of
trying to go back.

[19:30] JB: Do they get it, at least? I mean, it seemed like Minister
Prentice when he was in charge of this didn’t have a basic understanding
of the technology itself. And Moore has, has made a big show of putting
an iPod on his web page and he tweets and, uh, he seems to be
advertising the fact that they are much more digitally literate than
their precedessor. Do you get that sense?

[19:48] CA: Well, I mean they’re, they’re certainly putting on a big
show. I mean, James is the iPod minister, he’s the guy who can say
everything he knows about the world in 140 characters. So that’s, that
apparently makes you on Parliament Hill really hot and smart. But at the
same time we have the government over in Seoul negotiating on ACTA,
provisions that would completely undermine Canada’s right to establish
new copyrights. So what is it, boys? Are you guys out there with your
10,000 songs on your iPods fighting for digital rights and death to
taxes, or are you over in the ACTA negotiations, supporting some very
regressive moves that could really undermine the depth, development
digital economy. I’d like them to come clean with this, and say where they’re
going in terms of digital planning and where they’re going to go with
legislation.

[20:34] JB: Is it possible they don’t even know? Is it possible that
while they were trying to kind of push forward the ball on copyright and
take these consultations into a new bill, that the whole question got
swiped from them by ACTA and, I guess, handed over to Peter van Loan?

[20:47] CA: I think very my, my real concern is that there are two plays
going on, as you point out. One is they, they realize that bill C61
they were way off base, nobody bought into Bill C61. It was DOA the day
it was announced. So they went and they did this slap-dash tour across
Canada and they heard people are active, people are passionate,
everybody’s involved in copyright. So they’ve been working on how to
make these provisions. My sense is they’re probably going to cool down a
bit on the digital locks. Uh, there may be something in there for Fair
Dealing. I don’t know what they’re going to do in terms of notice and
notice, or notice and takedown. But, the PMO has another agenda as well,
which is, we have to look very close to their U.S. allies, and the U.S.
trade lobby puts enormous pressure on countries. Especially Canada,
because they see us as the fifty-first state, to fall in line with the
DMCA style legislation. So, I feel there is a bit of a schizophrenic
movement, and I don’t think the Conservatives are really sure yet where
they’re going to come down. The bill’s supposed to come down this,
before summer, but I’ve heard that so many times that I’ll, I’ll believe
it when I see it.

[21:50] JB: And, where do you think ACTA is going? I mean, just this
week the entire document was leaked, it’s funny how they’re trying to
lock down the world’s digital usage and they can’t lock down their own
legislation. Are the fears about this justified? Is this going to be
something Canada signs and if Canada signs it, is it going to get
ratified into law?

[21:09] CA: I’m very disturbed about ACTA because I feel if you’re going
to negotiate international treaties like WIPO you have to have the NGOs
there, you have to have transparency. How many rounds of ACTA have we
gone through and they’ve tried to keep it from being transparent?
Whenever you’re hiding something, whenever you’re doing it behind closed
doors, that tells you, the public, that they’re people who are goes
behind closed doors means do not want to be seen. And I think it’s the
U.S. entertainment lobby is driving this, they’re trying to get as far
as they can before they get smoked out. I love what the European
activists called it, the, the vampire solution, that is, we start to shine
light on them until wither up and they all have to crawl back to their
corporate holes. But there are a number of very disturbing potential
provisions in ACTA and it would have profound implications for Canada’s
training abilities if the Europeans sign on to something, the Americans
sign on to something, and we’re trying to chart our own way. They can
put enormous pressure on us at that point. That being said, I think ACTA
has hit a few serious holes and, um, I feel the more the public get
involved, the more ACTA is either going to have to change or it’s going to be
made irrelevant.

[23:18] JB: Charlie Angus, thank you for finding the time to talk to me
today.

[23:21] CA: Thanks a lot for having me on.

[23:22] [theme music]

[23:25] JB: Search Engine is produced by me, and a community of
listeners who are fully aware of what the roller piano did. E-mail me
with freelance pitches and story tips at jesse@jessebrown.ca. The show’s
blog is at tvo.org/searchengine and I’m on Twitter @jessebrown. This
show is released with a Creative Commons license so you don’t need a
parody exemption to make fun of it, but you will be hurting my feelings.
Quick note about the video podcast I keep promising you. It’s done!
It’s been done for a while. I think it’s our best one yet. But there are
some editorial complications and I’m doing everything I can to get it
online as soon as I can. The next audio podcast will be up first thing
Tuesday morning.

[24:10] [music fades]

[24:16] [end]

Standardized Telephone Number formats work even on old phones!

There are many different address books and directories online, and there are almost just as many different ways they store telephone numbers. I guess most people don’t realize that there are actually standards for representing phone numbers. A little bit of standardization would go a long way towards interoperability.

The standard for phone number formatting is set by the International Telecommunication Union in [E.123] and [E.164] (see the references below). The standards documents are available for a fee from the ITU. A summary is available in the Google (UseNet) discussion group, titled Need ITU-T E.123 summary.

In short, a North American telephone number should look like:

+C-AAA-PPP-NNNN;ext=xxxx

• “+” shows where the dialing prefix goes. This is one of either the International Direct Dialing (IDD) prefix (for Canada this is “011″ for overseas dialing) or the National Direct Dialing (NDD) prefix (“1″ for calls within North America, omitted for toll-free calls),
• “C” is the Country Code (North America’s CC is “1″, and it is omitted for dialing within North America),
• “AAA” is the area code (always required for dialing in Kitchener, Toronto, and other jurisdictions),
• “PPP” is the Exchange (or Private Branch Exchange “PBX”; look in the phone book to see which exchanges are supported),
• “NNNN” is the local portion of the number,
• “;ext=” optionally identifies the next portion as an extension and “xxxx” are the digits for that extension. This syntax is usable in URIs and e-mail.

Note that the sequence “AAA-PPP-NNNN” is called a “local number” and “+C-AAA-PPP-NNNN” is called a “global number”. The “-” (hyphen) is a visual separator, as are “.” (period) , “(” (left bracket) and “)” (right bracket), which dialing applications should ignore.

I’m mostly interested in making phone number formats in e-mail addressbooks compliant with e-mail standards. The document that covers this is the IETF’s RFC3191, Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail . The requirement is that GSTN (Global Switched Telephone Network) numbers use the global-number syntax (“+C-AAA-PPP-NNNN”).

Global-number GSTN numbers can be used for other purposes as well, such as Web page URIs. See RFC3966, The tel URI for Telephone Numbers. This document re-iterates that:

5.1.4.

Global Numbers Globally unique numbers are identified by the leading “+” character. Global numbers MUST be composed with the country (CC) and national (NSN) numbers as specified in E.123 [E.123] and E.164 [E.164]. Globally unique numbers are unambiguous everywhere in the world and SHOULD be used.

5.1.5.

Local Numbers Local numbers are unique only within a certain geographical area or a certain part of the telephone network, e.g., a private branch exchange (PBX), a state or province, a particular local exchange carrier, or a particular country. URIs with local phone numbers should only appear in environments where all local entities can successfully set up the call by passing the number to the dialling software. Digits needed for accessing an outside line, for example, are not included in local numbers. Local numbers SHOULD NOT be used unless there is no way to represent the number as a global number.

Local numbers SHOULD NOT be used for several reasons. Local numbers require that the originator and recipient are configured appropriately so that they can insert and recognize the correct context descriptors. Since there is no algorithm to pick the same descriptor independently, labelling numbers with their context increases the chances of misconfiguration so that valid identifiers are rejected by mistake. The algorithm to select descriptors was chosen so that accidental collisions would be rare, but they cannot be ruled out.</p

If you work at a company that does work with organizations and staff members outside of the context of your area code (ie. internationally) be sure to standardize your directory on global-number syntax.

–Bob.

References:

• [E.123] ITU-T Recommendation E.123: Telephone Network and ISDN
  Operation, Numbering, Routing and Mobile Service: Notation
  for National and International Telephone Numbers. 1993.
  http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=items&lang=e&parent=T-REC-E.123-200102-I

   

• A summary of [E.123] is available:
  http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.std.internat/msg/24fc32228689a620?dmode=source

   

• [E.164] ITU-T Recommendation E.164/I.331 (05/97): The International
  Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan. 1997.
  http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=items&lang=e&parent=T-REC-E.164-200502-I

   

• A summary of [E.164] is available:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.164

   

• International Telecommunications Union -
  Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
  Phillips Business Information Inc.
  1201 Seven Locks Road, Suite 300
  Potomac, MD 20854

  or call: +1-800-666-4266

   

• See also: INTERNATIONAL DIALING CODES
  http://countrycode.org/

   

• RFC3191: Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3191.txt

   

• RFC3192: Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3192.txt

   

• RFC2846: GSTN Address Element Extensions in E-mail Services
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2846.txt

   

• RFC3601: Text String Notation for Dial Sequences and Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN) / E.164 Addresses
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3601.txt

Image: Telephone Dial by Leo Reynolds, used under Creative Commons v2.0 BY-NC-SA.

Bad Headline: GWAVA Releases Version 3.1 of its Novell GroupWise Disaster

Newspaper editors have it easy — whatever they write, the printers print. On the Internet it’s not that easy. On the Internet, Atom/RSS feeds of articles mean that editors can’t control the presentation on the reader’s computer. That makes it all the more important to craft headlines so that they can’t be misconstrued, or at least so that they can be truncated safely.

The headline I read was GWAVA Releases Version 3.1 of its Novell GroupWise Disaster, which doesn’t sound like an appealing product worth buying. GWAVA’s full headline was GWAVA Releases Version 3.1 of its Novell GroupWise Disaster Recovery Product. Sadly, even the headline on GWAVA’s web site is mangled, running the main headline into the secondary headline:

Even full headlines have problems of their own

Sharpen this pencil, I double-dog dare ya!

Pencil manufacturers should take note also: As the Too Cool To Do Drugs pencil is sharpened, the message transforms to Cool To Do Drugs, the semi-Hamlettian To Do Drugs, eventually to just Do Drugs and finally the non-judgmental declaration Drugs. Just the kind of thing that will go over well at school.

–Bob.

The black hole that sucks up Internet Addresses

BoingBoing points me to a Security Fix article by Brian Krebs called A year later: A look back at McColo on the after-effects of Real-time Blacklists (RBLs) that targeted formerly undesirable IP addresses:

The Internet community typically shuns networks known to harbor spammers and organizations that host malicious software and other nastiness, usually by including their numeric Internet addresses on “blocklists”. Many organizations configure their e-mail servers to reject messages from addresses included on one or more of these blocklists. A heavily blocklisted network quickly becomes unattractive to legitimate businesses, since any e-mail sent out of that network will most likely be refused by the intended recipients.

“The problem is once an address block gets so polluted and absorbed into all these blocklists, it’s difficult to get off all of them because there is no central blocking authority,” said Paul Ferguson, an advanced threat researcher at Trend Micro.

(“Blocklist” is a less pejorative term for “Blacklist”)

The problem is not with the (formerly) malicious site, nor with the keepers of the blacklists, or even the lack of a central blocking authority. The problem is with e-mail server admins or firewall admins who let some unpaid, unaccountable blacklist censor their incoming mail or access to Web pages.

A blacklist should be just one of the criteria used to weight the probability that an incoming e-mail message is spam, or that an http stream contains malware. When I use a blacklist I’ll take into account the blacklist’s opinion of an IP source, but I don’t want a blacklist deciding what I can or can’t receive.

It’s far more reliable to actually examine the content stream for spam or malware instead of relying on a third-party’s opinion of an IP address. Yes, this increases the transaction cost for managing spam and malware, but as these blacklist IP address areas increase there’s an ever greater chance of false positives.

Are you using blacklists? Still think they’re a good idea? Wait until your blacklist gets compromised. An attacker takes control of a blacklist, but doesn’t interfere with its regular operations. Instead, it selectively adds and removes addresses. What better way to impose a DoS attack than maliciously subscribing your target to a well-known blacklist? In fact, for the long con I can see an attacker setting up a blacklist site, and spending a year or two building a reputation. As long as system admins rely completely on that blacklist to block certain IP addresses, those system admins are vulnerable to the whims of the blacklist operator.

I also wrote about the role of blacklists in Blocking Port 25 Considered Harmful, just under a year ago.

–Bob.

(Flickr image “Black Hole” by he who shall used under creative commons license)

Ripe for Deep Packet Inspection

Far more interesting than the data presented by Sandvine is the fact that Sandvine has any data to present at all. How did they get this stuff? Did they buy it from Bell and Rogers? Does their throttling equipment phone home? I don’t recall giving them permission to use my data.

They claim they’re not looking at data content. Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not. But they’ve inspected deeply enough to know that we use more streaming applications than P2P, and more Bittorrent than Gnutella. As any data analyst knows, traffic analysis of data patterns gives as much information as the data itself. Why are they allowed to gather any of this data at all? None of their business what I use on my computer.

I’m sure Sandvine is making a hefty buck selling this report, or at least using it as evidence to sell more of their DPI equipment. They’re profiting from the the data that I didn’t give them permission to use. I think the Privacy Commissioner may want to look into this.

–Bob.

Search Engine Episode 15 logo

Thanx to the generous licensing terms on Jesse Brown‘s awesome podcast Search Engine, I’m allowed to remix his shows. I have chosen to mix it from audio to text — I present to you Episode 15: The Neutral Throttle? An interview with CRTC Chairman Konrad von Finckenstein, The Transcript.

To listen to the show as you’re reading along get the podcast (from the Search Engine Blog, MP3, 5.8 MBytes).

Naturally, this transcript is released under the same Creative Commons license as the podcast: Transcript of Search Engine #15 by Bob Jonkman, based on work by Jesse Brown is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License

If you should find any errors in the transcript please let me know or leave a comment.

Update 1 November 2009: Added anchor links for times, the better to provide citation links when you write your blog post dissecting the interview

Crossing the Floor

This blog is not for reading at its new location… Here!

In politics, this would be called “crossing the floor” — not only did this blog move to a new domain name, but the underlying software has changed from Blogger to WordPress. There’s a political statement if ever there was one.

The move isn’t done yet. There may be some superficial colour and layout changes, some slightly more substantial tweaking of sidebars and widgets, and possibly a very substantial URL change (I’d really like to get rid of “blogs” in http://bob.jonkman.ca/blogs/2009/10/16/welcome-back/, but keep the sign-in page at http://jonkman.ca/blogs/. Technical advice for crafting Apache rewrite code is welcome, and will be duly credited.

Now that it’s on the Jonkman Family web site, I hope there are other Jonkman family members who start their own blogs here too. You’ll need an e-mail address in the @jonkman.ca domain, but those addresses are available for the asking.

–Bob.

(image from Nizzlebop’s Gallery, labelled for re-use by Google Image Search)

Hello Bob Jonkman,

I’ve read most of your input about U.B.B. and found it surprising that you, a software developer of all people, would oppose the U.B.B. ruling.

I’ve read your blog: [link]

While reading, I’ve stumbled upon this:

“I favour shorter copyright terms, no criminalisation for
non-commercial infringement, no criminalisation of circumvention of technical protection measures, and no media levies.”

Now, as a software developer, someone who uses copyright and programs protections, to what extent that you favour the above sentence?

My reply:

Hi Robert: As a software developer I am especially concerned with Usage Based Billing. I need to access online documentation, I use forums, blogs, and mailing lists to interact with other developers and clients, I run servers both for production and to test Web applications. But what will affect me most is downloading programs, software tools, and complete CD and DVD images with operating system distributions. All this activity puts me well beyond Bell’s proposed limit of 60 GBytes per month. Connection fees will nearly double for me under UBB, and I get nothing for it.

The statement on copyright, that I favour shorter terms and no technical protection measures are completely consistent with my position as a developer. In the first place, I need to use materials that are either freely available, or purchased from commercial sources. Bad licenses that use copyright law to restrict my use of material that I’ve legally purchased are harmful to me. For example, I want to write an addressbook program for a smart phone. But the vendor has restricted my ability to read the phone’s memory, and claims it is infringing that vendor’s copyright for me to reverse engineer the phone. This is harmful to me (I can’t do the work), it is harmful to my client (who can’t get the software he needs), and it is actually harmful to the phone vendor (because neither I or my client will ever buy that phone again).

Reduced copyright and fewer technical protection measures are also good for me, because more people will be able to make use of my software, leading to more work for me. Note that I never use “programs protections” for my software — it’s just not good for business. And while my software is copyrighted, I still grant licenses under GPL to make copies, requiring only that those who use my code give me attribution, and that their code uses the same license.

I don’t sell software, by the way. People pay me to write software. The software that gets written either belongs to the client (“work for hire”, so the client has the copyright), or I retain copyright and release the code under GPL.

Some of the submissions are now posted online. Alarmingly, many of the submissions I read online are not on the site. Hopefully the immense backlog has merely delayed the Copyright Consultation folks, and they’ll appear soon.

[Added 8 October 2009: It seems my copyright submission was posted on the Copyright Consultations web site on 2 October 2009]

Even if you didn’t make a submission, you can still write to your MP and the Honourable Minister of Canadian Heritage, James Moore and the Honourable Minister of Industry, Tony Clement to let them know your views.

You can contact me too. Post a comment, or send me e-mail.

–Bob.

Submissions have to be submitted by Sunday,13 September — that’s tomorrow as I write this.

I declare this text to be in the public domain — feel free to cut, copy, paste, use, re-use, recycle, reduce, or expand as you see fit, no attribution necessary. Just get your submission in!

–Bob.

Author: Bob Jonkman
E-mail: bjonkman@sobac.com

To:
info@copyrightconsultation.gc.ca

CC:
The Hon. James Moore, MP, Minister of Canadian Heritage
The Hon. Tony Clement, MP, Minister of Industry
The Hon. Harold Albrecht, MP
submissions@faircopy.ca

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

My name is Bob Jonkman. I am a software author and technical writer, and make use of copyrighted material in my work — reference documents, purchased commercial software, free Open Source software, and freely available software with various license restrictions. I am married to a television screenwriter, my sister is a journalist, my father-in-law is a musician and song writer, and my brothers- and sisters-in-law are fine artists, musicians, and authors. Copyright law affects me and my family in how we earn our livings at work, and how we entertain ourselves at home.

I am not a lawyer, or an expert on copyright and intellectual property law. As a technologist, I have been following the copyright arguments online, and feel qualified only to comment on how copyright should work with technology, and how technology affects the way copyright can work.

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

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

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

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

The last four discussion points are very interrelated, and rather than repeat myself for each point I’d like to answer these questions for each aspect of copyright law that concerns me. Overall, I favour shorter copyright terms, no criminalisation for non-commercial infringement, no criminalisation of circumvention of technical protection measures, and no media levies. At the same time I think there can be a strong copyright law that favours creators and content owners, while not adversely affecting Canadians buying or using copyrighted material.

Length of Copyright: Less copyright is good copyright. With current terms extending fifty years after the author’s death, most works are obsolete by the time they fall into the public domain. This is especially true for technical documentation and software, where the effective usefulness may be measured in months rather than years. I would be in favour of a copyright term of 20 years, measured from the time of the creation of the work, but not to exceed the life of the author. An estate should have no copyright over a deceased author’s work — copyright is a right to exclusive copying, not a right to eternal income.

Copyright Registry: It is difficult to determine if a work is under copyright if the author is not known. With a copyright registry there is a clear and definitive determination whether a work is under copyright — if it is not registered or the registration has expired, the work is in the Public Domain. The National Library of Canada already collects all works of Canadian authors (and composers and musicians), and would make a good repository for a copyright registry. Registering copyright should be done at no cost to the author, to avoid disenfranchising the less wealthy. I realize that a copyright registry is not a popular option, and may not follow international guidelines, but here Canada has a means to create a unique solution for Canadians.

Crown Copyright: There should be no Crown Copyright. The Government of Canada and the provinces produce many good, important works, which should be placed immediately in the Public Domain. These works are produced with tax dollars, so, in effect, Canadian citizens are already the owners of these works. While purchasing government publications at the government bookstores may offset printing costs, reproducing them electronically and making them available on Web sites incurs no additional costs. With free distribution those government publications are no longer available only to those with disposable income. From the technology perspective, once government data is freely available many new online services can be created (eg. Geospatial data for mapping applications), which are now restricted by Crown copyright.

Fair Use, Parody, Satire, Criticism: The Canadian Fair Dealing exceptions to copyright are too restrictive. This makes it impossible to provide commentary or criticism in context, or any parody or satire on a work at all. Copyright law should have clear language to allow educational excerpts for parody and satire, and quoting for criticism. Educational institutions should have broad exemptions to be able to quote from copyrighted works where that work is under study, but not for freely copying reference materials. Open Source or Open Documentation licences for reference material is a good alternative, and those works can still be covered by copyright.

Format Shifting, Time Shifting, Location Shifting, Personal Use: Activities such as copying a CD to an MP3 player, recording a TV show for viewing at another time, or uploading purchased music to an Internet service to make it available to the purchaser anywhere online are all taken for granted by Canadians in the age of computers. There needs to be clear language in copyright law that making a copy for personal use is completely legal. That creating backup copies of software, digitital media or works stored in electronic formats for personal use is legal. That changing the format from text to speech or braille is legal. With clear legal standing, many new online services can be created, which today are avoided because of their potential illegality (eg. An online service which lets me pick up my digital TV subscription anywhere online, or online personal backup repositories).

Digital Rights Management (DRM), Technical Protection Measures (TPM): The circumvention of DRM and TPM must not be illegal, and the tools to perform circumvention must not be illegal, and the dissemination of knowledge to circumvent must not be illegal. The "Content Industry" tries to protect its copyright by making it difficult to make copies. Sadly for them, this is always ineffective. Even when circumvention of DRM and TPM is itself made illegal, the people who make illegal copies have no qualms about illegal circumvention either. The only harm is to people who purchase media with DRM or TPM, who are prevented from exercising their personal use rights for format shifting or time shifting. The company that holds the keys to DRM is above the law, and can remove legally purchased material by revoking the keys. I don’t advocate making DRM or TPM illegal — let those who want to apply DRM and TPM to their material do so. Their competitors who publish material without DRM will quickly out-sell them.

Lawsuits by Big Media: It seems to me that the "Content Industry" is driving much of the efforts to change copyright law. As prominent Canadian lawyers like Howard Knopf have noted, Canadian copyright law is plenty strong already. Content distributors (not authors, musicians or filmmakers) are abusing copyright law as a revenue source — it is far more lucrative to threaten and settle for thousands of dollars, or to sue and be awarded millions of dollars, than it is to actually create content. Copyright law must clearly state that commercial infringement is a criminal act, but non-commercial, personal infringement (where there is no financial gain) is not. Canadians should not live in fear of criminalisation merely for listening to music, or letting customers in the waiting room listen to music. Companies should be liable for frivolous lawsuits — making a false claim of infringement should incur far heavier penalties than those of the alleged infringement.

Making Available: It is not a crime for me to leave my bicycle unlocked — the criminal is the one who steals it, locked or not. By the same token, making copyrighted material available should not be illegal, but infringement of copyrighted content should be (with appropriate penalties depending on whether such infringement is commercial or non-commercial).

Carrier Liability: It is easier to identify the service provider hosting infringing content than the person who puts it there. Carriers should not be held liable for the actions of their customers — to use the bicycle analogy again, the parking facility is not responsible for the bike theft.

Three Strikes, Graduated Response, Notice and Takedown, Notice and Notice: It is easy to identify the Internet Service Provider hosting infringing content, but ISPs must not be put in the position of enforcers. If there is evidence of infringement then there are already mechanism in Canadian law to stop it. The law must clearly state that accusations by the "Content Industry" without proof will not result in denial of Internet service for Canadians. The content industry can report infringement to law enforcement authorities, just like any other infringing activity is dealt with in other venues. Internet service is too important to Canadians to allow the content industry to arbitrarily cut it off. Notice and Notice would be a polite way to inform someone of possible infringement, and is the right Canadian thing to do.

Of course, if Making Available is no longer an infringement of copyright, then there is no need for Carrier Liability, Three Strikes, or Notice of any kind.

Media Levies, ISP Levies: There should be no levies on media at all, nor should Internet Service Providers be required to collect levies. As technology progresses, more and more material will be available digitally. It seemed to be a good idea in 1996 to collect a music levy on CDs to offset the cost of music infringement. Unfortunately, the media on which the music levy is applied can be used for many other purposes — data storage, movies, games, software, coasters. The media levy is improperly collected more often than not. And levies cannot cover all the content available — today movies, books, newspapers and games are all available digitally too, and there are many more media capable of holding digital content: portable hard drives, solid state thumbdrives, iPods, cameras, phones and Blackberries. The amount of digital content will only increase, and new digital media will be invented. New Creative Content licenses on content are also becoming popular, which the creators explicitly want to be free. Paradoxically, collecting a levy is both overly broad and inadequate at the same time.

Secretive international agreements, eg. ACTA: Open government is good government. Inviting Canadians to submit their thoughts on copyright has sparked a national interest in the process of lawmaking, and the workings of Canadian parliament in general. Canadians have been given a direct, effective voice in how their country is governed, a textbook example of participatory democracy. Unfortunately, at the same time Canada is participating in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreements talks, which threaten to undermine all the work being done on copyright reform. Not only are Canadian citizens themselves excluded from these talks, it seems foreign interests will be dictating how Canada should form its copyright, trademark and other laws. Please ensure that any negotiations of this type are publicly reported, and that Canadians’ views on copyright are represented. If Canada can participate in these negotiations only with the condition of secrecy, then decline to participate. As these copyright consultation submissions show, Canadians are perfectly capable of designing their own copyright law.

Thank you,

–Bob Jonkman.

[Added 8 October 2009: It seems my copyright submission was posted on the Copyright Consultations web site on 2 October 2009]

There’s much discussion on DSL Reports. Rocky Gaudrault, the president of Teksavvy ISP, weighs in with some advice: We’ll all need to make a concerted effort to curb our downloading to ensure we don’t give a dime more to Bell than we need to. We all know this is a cash grab and anti-competitive tactic [...]

Teksavvy offers a Premium package for $29.95 with $0.25/GiByte over 200 GiBytes, and an Unlimited package for $39.95, but with the new rates Bell won’t allow Teksavvy to offer an Unlimited package. Customers who use more than 60 GiBytes of bandwidth would be charged an extra $22.50 a month. For Teksavvy’s Premium customers, this is nearly double the current price. Customers who use more than 300 GiBytes in month would be charged an additional $0.75/GiByte. For that extra money you don’t get faster speeds than today. For that extra money you don’t get more downloads than today. For that extra money you don’t get a higher quality Internet. And that extra money goes to Bell, not Teksavvy.

Image from the OpenOffice spreadsheet Teksavvy possible UBB pricing.

Disclaimer: This is presented strictly as a comparison between what Teksavvy offers today and what might be the costs after UBB is implemented. This is sheer speculation; there has been no contact with Teksavvy staff on this.

60 GiBytes isn’t much, today:

• 1 GiByte is about 300 average Flickr photos.
• 1 GiByte is about 3 hours of watching YouTube videos — if you watch an hour a day you’ll use about 10 GiBytes/month.
• Using Bittorrent to download Ubuntu (or a movie) uses about 1.5 GiBytes.
• Downloading one season of a TV show is about 16 GiBytes.
• Downloading one High-Definition movie is about 40 GiBytes.

Remember that this is charged both coming and going, so you’ll be paying for all the spam that arrives in your mailbox, all the ads on websites, all the automatic Windows updates.

Customers who only use e-mail and do a bit of Web surfing probably won’t be affected by the rate increase. But anyone who uses the Internet more than casually will be paying more.

Even worse are the “Chilling Effects” – who’s going to develop new cool Web 2.0 applications if they’re constantly watching the meter to ensure they don’t exceed the 60 GiByte cap? Who’s going to sign up for online video services if the movies exceed the cap?

Canada has certainly fallen behind the technology curve. Usage Based Billing puts Canada in an even worse position than the OECD reported in 2008.

Image from the Excel spreadsheet Average broadband monthly price per advertised Mbit/s, by country, USD PPP (Oct. 2008) located at the OECD Broadband Portal.

If you want to protest this, submit a complaint to the CRTC.
For the type of application select Tariff, and as a subject, use File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 – Bell Canada – TN 7181. Thanx to Antonio Cangiano for these instructions!

I sent them this complaint:

I was disappointed to learn that the CRTC has approved Bell’s request to charge Usage Based Billing on connections for independent resellers, despite the CRTC’s own admission that most submissions from Canadians are opposed to such a tariff.

Usage Based Billing adds a significant cost to Internet services supplied by independent operators, reducing their ability to differentiate based on bandwidth and price. Worse, Bell’s proposed rates to its own customers appear to be less than what it is charging to independent ISPs. The obvious conclusion is that Bell is trying to eliminate its competition.

Recent reports on global bandwidth have already placed Canada next-to-last in cost per megabyte of bandwidth. This latest tariff will only increase prices for consumers, without providing any increase in service. Canada will surely be in absolute last place globally when the next report is issued.

The CRTC is mandated to provide telecom regulation to benefit Canadians. With this tariff, the only Canadians to benefit are Bell shareholders.

–Bob.