Compiled by Dylan C. Robertson & Victoria Salvas

This election means death. Not only have Ottawa scrums, filibusters, and drawn-out committees been killed, pieces of legislation making their way through parliament have all met a harsh end as politicians take to the campaign trail.

Before a bill becomes law, it is introduced in either the House of Commons or the Senate. Subsequently the bill goes through readings where it is introduced, given a number code and debated. It can be read again, amended then passed, from the House to the Senate but only becomes law if it is given Royal Assent by the Governor General.

But bills are stopped in their tracks when an election is called. We tracked down the people who pioneered five of the most important bills that died on the order paper when the writ dropped. We asked what they thought of the abrupt death of their projects and if they’ll attempt rebooting them.

While government bills (titled C- with a number under 201) can be reintroduced at an advanced phase with the consent of the House, private members’s bills and motions are entered in a lottery to determine their Order of Precedence, meaning the order in which they can be re-introduced. Only 30 members per session have their motions considered, although the list is replenished if all motions are dealt with.

Here’s a look at the five bills that may or may not rise again:

1. Cheaper HIV Drugs:

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes), was introduced by then NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis in May 2009. After she left to run for mayor of Winnipeg, the bill was adopted by another NDP MP, Paul Dewar.

The bill, which came to be known as “the AIDS drug bill” would’ve allowed generic drug makers to supply their products to developing countries, so they could fight diseases like tuberculosis and malaria, and help the world’s 15 million AIDS victims. Apotex Inc. had promised to make much-needed antiretrovirals for children, should the legislaiton pass. The bill, which was passed earlier this month by the House of Commons, was sabotaged by its review committee and then by the Conservatives’s attempt to effectively whip the senate, feeling it would hinder Big Pharma.

“It’s pretty outrageous,” said Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “This bill had a lot of potential, and we pushed really hard to get it to pass. We had a lot of support from MPs in all parties.”

Dewar said he plans to reintroduce the bill. “We have to abolish the senate though, first,” he laughed. “That’s my plan. Well I’m just joking… but not really.” Dewar noted the bill was lucky to be successfully transferred after Wasylycia-Leis’s leave, as it is not an automatic process. “It was revived when actual co-operation broke out in the House of Commons,” he said. “Through unanimous consent, I was able to pick the bill up. “I’m ready, able, and willing to carry it forward after the election,” said Dewar, who hopes it ranks high in the order or precedence. “There’s so much public support for it. I don’t think they could get away with this again.”

2. Civilizing parliament:

Private Member’s Motion M-517 proposed a reform of Question Period. Conservative MP Michael Chong’s pet project aimed to civilize parliament’s most savage — and ironically unproductive — 45 minutes each sitting day.

The motion sought to strengthen how much discipline a speaker can give, lengthen the alloted time for each question and answer, and aimed at “examining the convention that the minister questioned need not respond.”

“Parliament needs to be reformed and I think the reform of parliament should begin with the reform of Question Period,” said Chong. If passed, the motion would have also stipulated who should be asked questions, most notably dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister, and requiring ministers be present for two of the other four days. Chong noted that he was listed in the Order of Precedence for the first time in six years, and said he would re-table his motion in the rare chance he was listed for the next session. “I’m disappointed that the committee didn’t have a chance to deal with it before the election.”

Chong explained that while many members add motions and bills to the order paper solely to generate publicity for an issue, he fully intends to enact this reform. “I’ll continue to work on this issue through whatever mechanisms are available to me after the election,” said Chong. “Because this problem isn’t going away and I think Canadians want it to be addressed.”

3. Protecting trans rights:

Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression), was a private member’s bill sponsored by NDP MP Bill Siksay. Introduced in early 2009, the legislation would have make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity, and aimed to protect transgender individuals by amending the Human Rights Act.

These amendments would have also been made to the Criminal Code, rendering these acts of discrimination hate crimes. The House passed the bill in February, against Stephen Harper’s wishes. However, the fact that it received “unanimous support from the Bloc, several Conservatives, and the Liberals bodes well for the next parliament” says Siksay. The MP is confident in the future of the bill; passing it again will demonstrate the governments’ “commitment to human rights.”

4. Improving First Nations’ water:

Bill S-11 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, was introduced in May 2010 and would have developed federal regulations for governing water provision, disposal and quality standards in First Nations communities.

An issue that has received much attention recently is the issue of providing First Nations reserves with safe drinking water. An assessment from 2001-2001 found that three quarters of the drinking water systems in First Nations communities were at risk.

Despite the dire situation on many reserves, many First Nations leaders criticized the bill, feeling they were left out of the creating of the legislation and not offered funding to get it off the ground. The Assembly of First Nations felt that the bill presented lofty goals but sparse plans for financial investment and support, which in the long run, could leave reserves in worse condition.

5. Copyright reform:

Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, was the third attempt at copyright reform killed by an election call, dragging on a 14-year effort.

The bill sparked controversy for attempting to criminalize the use and promotion of software that circumvents digital locks, generating high-profile criticism, a minister’s comment that critics were “radical extremists,” and an indutry-led astroturfing campaign. But the bill also aimed at tackling online piracy, and making it legal to transfer music from CDs to iPods.

MP Tony Clement, who introduced the bill as Minister of Industry, told us he plans to reintroduce the bill if re-elected. “It’s just another example of important legislation that has now been discontinued because of the opposition parties passing a motion of non-confidence,” said Clement. “This is a very necessary piece of legislation to help regularize certain habits of consumers and also protect artists from wealth-destroying pirates. “I’m hoping that if we get a majority government, we can actually concentrate on the issues like C-32 and privacy protection and other aspects of the digital economy.”

Industry Minister Tony Clement’s iPod contains 10,452 songs, he told reporters on May 26, most of them transferred from CDs he bought. It’s a widespread practice generally known as “format shifting,” and in Canada, it’s illegal.

The minister didn’t shamefacedly admit his crime in an embarrassing gaffe; he called a press conference and announced it in order to make a point. Copyright law in Canada has lagged behind social and technological reality for years now, impotently policing an extinct world of mimeographs and cassette tapes while the rest of us got on with things. Ever ripped a CD to your computer or MP3 player like Minister Clement did? Ever taped a TV show to watch later? Had a cellphone unlocked? All are currently illegal in Canada, even as they happen every day. So on June 2, Heritage Minister James Moore introduced the Conservatives’ latest attempt to update Canadian copyright, Bill C-32.

There is some good news. The bill proposes new freedoms for people to make copies of protected material in non-commercial ways: transferring that bought-and-paid-for CD to your iPod would be legalized, as will taping a TV show to watch later. There is a new provision for artists to use copyrighted material in parody and satire. And the bill would legalize the use of protected works in many educational contexts. These new rules will finally bring the law into some sort of alignment with reality.

But there is a glaring problem: all these new freedoms are overridden by the government’s total surrender on the matter of “digital rights management,” restrictive types of software that control our use of the e-books, DVDs, or video games we purchase—what devices we may use, who we may share with, and how many times. No one would stand for a shirt that self-destructed unless worn with a certain brand of jeans, but that is the essence of DRM—the things you purchase never belong to you. Under C-32 as currently written, circumventing any digital lock would be a crime, even if the purpose were legal. With this measure, the bill legitimizes the sinister notion that large corporate interests are entitled to broad, intrusive powers to control how individuals consume culture. That idea is dangerous.

Yes, artists need legal protections to ensure they are compensated for their work. But it is not in the interest of any Canadian—including Canadian artists—to shackle artworks to technology that invades our privacy and criminalizes the normal exchange of ideas that constitutes all culture. It may still be possible to reopen the digital lock provision; a strong and unambiguous public response is the key.

Today’s the day! Heritage Minister James Moore will apparently introduce new legislation to update Canada’s copyright laws this afternoon. Michael Geist, the usual go-to guy for all discussion on this topic, has a quick introduction on his site. Basically, fair dealing will remain pretty strict; Geist has complimentary things to say about how internet intermediaries like ISPs will be treated; and then we get to the mess that is digital locks and DRM:

Third, the bill will include digital lock provisions, known as anti-circumvention rules.  These rules, which will allow Canada to implement international copyright treaties it signed over ten years ago, was the most-discussed issue during the consultation.  Thousands of Canadians argued that Canada should adopt a flexible implementation that renders it illegal to “pick a digital lock” for the purposes of copyright infringement, but preserves the right to do so for legal purposes.

Sources say the government has rejected the flexible approach in favour of the U.S.-style ban on circumvention (subject to a handful of limited exceptions).  If true, the problem with the approach is that it undermines both the new and existing exceptions.  For millions of Canadians, that means that their user rights will be lost whenever a digital lock is present including for CDs, DVDs, electronic books, and many other devices.  In the process, the balance will tilt strongly away from consumers and their property rights over their own purchases.

In other words, any fair dealing privileges that you could have enjoyed previously can be revoked if publishers include some  lame, already-cracked DRM junk in their products.

Back in July of 2009, the Canadian government launched an eight week public consultation on copyright reform.  Members of the public were invited to let their will be known surrounding issues such as fair use, copyright terms, ISP neutrality and a host of other issues. With over 8,300 respondents in total an astounding 6183 people made it known that they opposed another bill C-61 (a meager 54 respondents favoured the bill)

Bill C-61, of course, was the draconian U.S. DMCA-style copyright reform bill that former Industry Minister Jim Prentice introduced to parliament in June of 2008. The bill was ultimately abandoned when an election was called that fall, but has remained on the periphery since. The Conservatives have attempted to pass copyright reform three times without public consultation, bending to the will of industry lobbyists.

So, finally, the public has spoken and in near unison oppose the claustrophobic sanctions of bill C-61. Canadians, in fact, are a much more generous and trusting population than we could have guessed. The overwhelming majority support stronger fair use/fair dealing protection, shorter copyright terms, and believe individuals should be protected from liability for non-commercial use. Moreover, as popular as lightening copyright restrictions was, the opposite is equally equally true: only 153 respondents favour limiting or halting unauthorized filesharing and only one, one single respondent, supported fining those for copyright violation.

So what does this mean?  Essentially, Canadians are asking for the very opposite of what the government has been trying to pass for years. The question now is whether current Industry Minister Tony Clement is listening.

After the jump, the full results of the questionnaire, courtesy Michael Geist:

In some corners of the web, piracy is a form of curation. Illustration by Matt Daley.

In the summer of 1999, a terrifying rumour began circulating on the then-young internet, gluing millions to their screens: Napster, the illegal music service, was about to be shut down. It seemed like the party with an endless soundtrack was coming to an end.

The site, which famously provided access to millions of illicitly copied songs, introduced internet piracy to the masses. Once people had a taste for a web that was a unending cultural smorgasbord, there was no going back: piracy has now become as central to web culture as celebrity news and porn.

But though the greedy rush to download anything and everything remains, a new and surprisingly widespread breed of piracy has been quietly simmering in the corners of the internet. Rather than encouraging users to grab as much pop culture as they can, these sites are about quality, not quantity. Instead of an anarchic free-for-all, they’re more like a curated exchange amongst aficionados. By most definitions, it’s still stealing, but stealing with a “Robin Hood” twist: the ultimate goal is to spread good art and challenging ideas—for free. That may be controversial, but as principles go, it’s a pretty noble one.

Today, the most common way to download copyrighted material might be a site called The Pirate Bay. It’s just one of the sites that index content scattered across the internet rather than housing it, making them harder to shut down. Every day, millions of films, songs and books are downloaded; unsurprisingly, the most commercially successful entertainment is also the most pirated. A perhaps unintended consequence of the entertainment industry’s hype for the new and popular is that it also drives those who steal from it.

But another approach to piracy has been evolving, too. Rather than an all-you-can-eat buffet, these sites are more akin to an underground dinner club for foodies. Instead of an array of popular, everyday items, one is presented with the crème de la crème of culture, whether a pristine copy of a Fellini film or that Ella Fitzgerald recording few have ever heard.

It was perhaps a music community named OiNK.cd that was the most prominent of these more rigorous sites. This go-to place for quality tunes was shut down by a legal challenge in 2007, though the site’s owner was recently cleared of charges. Nonetheless, What.cd and Waffles.fm (which, for visitors to its homepage, pretends to be a site about recipes), quickly took the place of OiNK. cd. In function, these sites work much like The Pirate Bay. In philosophy, they differ significantly. Many users take time to find and upload obscure tracks of smart, Scandinavian electronica rather than something by Beyoncé. Discussion on the sites’ forums often reflects this commitment to hidden gems, and those who share obscure or difficult works often gain credibility. Instead of mirroring the behaviour of the populist industries they seek to undercut, the sites are unapologetically elitist.

But to characterize these sites as a paradise for thieves with highbrow tastes would be to miss part of the picture. The original material might have been pirated, but these sites make members share amongst themselves. Ratios of uploads to downloads are enforced. Download every available bit of Spanish jazz without sharing in kind and you will be ruthlessly and quickly ejected. What’s more, rather than the populist grab-whatyou-can ethos of The Pirate Bay, you have a community of invested, informed people to guide your wanderings, introducing you to the innovative and new as you return the favour with your own obscure treasures.

Nor is this phenomenon limited to movies and music. AAAARG.org, a site that stores hundreds of academic articles, has electrified cultural theory geeks by finally putting some of that anti-establishment Marxist thinking into practice. When an academic publisher recently requested an article be taken down, it was met with angry and erudite responses about “the exploitative forces of capital.” To the publisher, a copyrighted work was being distributed without compensation; to the sites’ users, ideas were being shared for the greater good.

From the start, we knew the web was going to change things. What we possibly didn’t realize was, unbeknownst to many, new modes of cultural exchange were being born that replaced blind consumption with careful curation, often by simply removing the costly barriers erected around “the good stuff.” As a result, those who adhere to the letter of the law, and the spirit of copyright and ownership that underpin it, believe these sites are simply dens of theft.

But such a view is short-sighted. What these services let us see is that when the exchange of ideas, rather than the exchange of dollars, is the controlling principle, communities will form around the best and most challenging of what culture has to offer. Call me a naive idealist, but I think that’s a good thing. And when history looks back on this moment, rather than maintain the status quo, I’d rather it be known I was in Robin Hood’s band of merry thieves.

Politically speaking, it was a pretty good haul of booty.

On June 7, an organization of self-described “pirates” took what was a fairly small step toward gaining real political clout, but a gigantic leap for everyone in the world who has ever downloaded an MP3 file without paying for it.

By winning around seven percent of the vote and a seat in the European Parliament, Sweden’s Pirate Party—dedicated to freedom of information on the internet and the abolishment of restrictive copyright laws—did more than demonstrate the power of online rabble-rousing and grassroots net activism; it offered concrete evidence of the viability of a campaign built around the legalization of online file sharing.

With the Swedish vote, Western news outlets saw either an example of the growing role of the internet in politics, or a quirky story to throw in at the end of a newscast. But a group of Canadian activists saw something more: an opportunity.

“One of my buddies sent me a link on Facebook, and from there I joined up and it just took off,” says 18-year-old Jake Daynes, a Vancouver native who, a few scant weeks after joining, found himself the de facto chief spokesperson for the fledgling Pirate Party of Canada.

First it was a few dozen people like Daynes joining a Facebook group, then several dozen more. Then the question went around: “Who wants to make a website?” Next came a message board and chat room on a clunky-looking DIY homepage. Then came a party constitution, a set of bylaws, and some interim party officials.

Seven weeks after the official Pirate Party celebrated its victory in Sweden, Canada’s incarnation was closing in on a thousand members in its Facebook group, had a flashier, brand-new website (pirateparty.ca) a communications director hustling for press contacts, was planning its first internal elections, and— maybe, just maybe—looking at some candidates to run in the next federal election.

They’ve got a plan: To appeal to their strengths (demographic analysis of ridings that have the highest percentage of under-30 voters), a message to rally the unbelievers (“We point out to older and more Conservative voters that issues like net neutrality and deep packet inspection are very much privacy issues, which is a core Conservative belief,” says Daynes), and a word-of-mouth (or word-of-Facebook) campaign that keeps spreading.

“So far the response we’ve been getting is very positive,” Daynes says. “If we keep growing like this, within the next few months, we hope to be fully registered and a recognized political party.”

A little more than 10 years after university students began whispering amongst themselves about a miraculous new program called Napster, the subterranean rumblings of the Pirate Party of Canada may similarly signify a turning point in the battle for freedom from restrictive copyright law.

The Pirate Party of Canada stops short of calling for full legalization of music file sharing, but part of its platform— “We must fight for fair copyright laws. Laws that are fair to consumers, as well as artists … We must also promote and contribute to the sharing of art and culture”—certainly puts it in line with a radical plan for copyright reform that aims to make online peer-to-peer music sharing in Canada completely legal.

This plan, conceived by the Songwriters Association of Canada, has been around for two years and has gone through several drafts. Artists would be compensated through a levy charged by internet service providers to all broadband internet users who engage in file sharing (users who didn’t share files could opt out). In exchange for this levy, the user would be free to download as much music as he or she wanted, from as many sites as desired, to keep it for as long as it’s wanted, and to share it with anyone else who paid the levy. The fees would be pooled to create a fund to pay the artists whose music has been downloaded. An industry collective would distribute the money based on data collected by Canadian internet service providers (like Nielsen ratings measure television, only if every television had a Nielsen box). The more an artist’s music was shared, the more she would be paid. The revenues, according to SAC’s calculations, could be substantial.

“At $3 a month, when there are 15 million broadband households in Canada, that’s about $500 million per year by 2010,” says Eddie Schwartz, president of SAC. He believes the system would be more equitable for small and independent music acts, allowing them to actually make money from online music even if they lacked the infrastructure the major labels enjoy.

“There are musicians out there who, in the world of record labels handling promotion and distribution, have no opportunity for a career in music anymore,” says Schwartz. “The labels are signing very few people and the independent movement has really taken off because there’s so much more talent out there that can’t get signed and promoted. But the independents are being [illegally] file shared as well, so it’s not a career option, really. But if we had a monetization plan for file sharing, those independents would be seeing 100 percent on the dollar, because they’re doing it all themselves.

“Independent musicians make up about 30 percent of the music industry now. That’s $150 million going to independent artists in Canada alone.”

“The existence of free music has helped make the major labels irrelevant. The internet gave artists the power,” says independent singer-songwriter Emm Gryner, herself a member of SAC. “The only problem is, we’re lacking a ‘supervisor’ or ‘boss’ who can look out for songwriters and music-makers as a collective, and make sure we are compensated for our work.” Despite the support of artists like Gryner, the plan wasn’t a big hit when SAC first proposed it in 2007.

“Initially it seemed to engender a lot of criticism,” says Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.

Not only was it unclear whether or not the plan would fit within the boundaries of Canada’s copyright law, but the levy was planned to be mandatory for anyone with a broadband account—a notion that understandably upset listeners who still planned on buying their music in stores or from online retailers. Another major problem, says Schwartz, was that SAC didn’t explain the plan properly before releasing it. “There was an assumption among the general public that this would just be one more way to pay for music,” he says. “People were thinking that they already buy CDs, they pay for music through iTunes and this was just one more way they could pay, so why bother?”

Subsequent versions of the SAC plan addressed these concerns by making the plan optional for both artists and consumers, thus allowing for compliance to international copyright law, and by leaving it in the hands of the Copyright Board of Canada to set the fees. Studies commissioned by the organization showed that the plan had serious promise, according to Schwartz.

“We consulted with creator groups in Europe, in the United States, and with francophone groups in Quebec. We did a lot of research. We had three studies commissioned on international copyright law, an economic study to ensure the numbers were right. We didn’t just jump into this.

“Eventually this is going to reach critical mass,” says Schwartz. “Perhaps not as soon as I’d like, but consumer groups have expressed support, artists, songwriters, even ISPs are coming around. There is no doubt in my mind this is going to happen. It’s just a question of when it reaches critical mass.”

Opposition to the SAC proposal won’t go quietly. “The more recent revised SAC proposal that came out this year tried to address many of those concerns,” says Geist, “but [the recording industry] is the most deep-pocketed voice, the one with the extensive contacts from a lobbying perspective, and they are one group that’s not onside.”

The Canadian Recording Industry Association ignored requests for comment on the SAC proposal, but has made its dislike of the idea clear. CRIA president Graham Henderson told Reuters early in 2009, shortly after the proposal was released, that his organization wouldn’t be commenting on details of the SAC proposal, telling the news organization that “we don’t want to pursue what amounts to a pipe dream that is presented as a quick fix.” CRIA refused repeated interview requests for this article.

The plan faces legal obstacles too. Canada’s copyright laws are currently under reconstruction. The federal government held public forums across the country last summer to prepare to draft and table new legislation, that may or may not include a revival of Bill C-61, which targeted file sharers by introducing a $20,000 fine for uploading copyrighted material. Artist support for file-sharing, however, is less and less a matter of debate. In the past two years, more and more artists have either made their music available via free or pay-what-you-can downloading, essentially taking control of their own online destiny.

One of the world’s biggest rock bands, Radiohead, offered up their last album, In Rainbows, as a pay-what-you-want download through their website, released the CD in stores a few weeks later, and still made out like, well, pirates. According to the band’s publisher, Warner Chappell, a year after the album’s fall 2007 release, Radiohead made more money off the pay-what-you-want downloads alone than they made in total from their last album, Hail to the Thief.

“I know a lot of people download my stuff for free, maybe because they’re broke or lazy or just curious,” says Gryner, who has won critical acclaim as an independent artist, but is currently co-hosting radio shows while recording her next album, trying to make her music career financially viable. “I don’t think it’s their fault that they’re trying to save a buck. I think the fault lies in the system that there are not enough regulations or options, especially for younger people who are used to downloading for free, or who don’t have credit cards.”

Other artists have spoken out, in interviews, on their websites, and from the stage at concerts against overly restrictive copyright policies. Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor famously yelled at fans to “steal, steal, and steal some more” in 2007, and also proposed a levy system similar to the SAC proposal in an interview with tech website CNET. Artists have also formed coalitions to fight for industry reform. Reznor, by the way, flat-out gave away his 2008 album, Ghosts I-IV, on his website. It still ended up at the top of Amazon.com’s list of bestselling albums of that year.

Alternative rock legend Billy Bragg penned an editorial in the Guardian in May of this year, on behalf of the Featured Artist Coalition he heads—a U.K.-based artists’ collective of music-industry heavyweights such as Robbie Williams, Radiohead, Annie Lennox, and members of Blur and Pink Floyd. The FAC didn’t call for an end to file sharing, but to embrace it as a distribution medium.

“If technology allows people to access music for free, they will take advantage,” Bragg wrote. “The next generation of music fans may no longer want to pay for music, but they are still hungry to hear it. The challenge to the industry is to find ways to monetize their behaviour.”

When a British ISP owned by Virgin Media planned early in 2009 to launch a subscription-based file-sharing service, its research predicted that 80 percent of music downloaders would be willing to pay for a legal file-sharing method. But the project was later scuttled after participating record labels demanded stringent anti-piracy regulations be attached to the service.

Scores of popular artists back a file-sharing subscription system and argue against restrictive copyright laws. Consumers say they’re willing to pay for file sharing. Political parties that support less restrictive copyright laws are gathering steam and Canada’s government spent the summer asking the public for guidance on the topic. A proposal that would legalize file sharing, compensate the artist, and move the music industry forward—and away from a battle that was lost more than a decade ago—has spent two years under construction. And yet the average music fan still wonders what will happen if he gets caught downloading the latest Tragically Hip album and worries about a $20,000 fine for uploading music if Bill C-61 is eventually passed. Why?

The last roadblock to the future of music distribution is the same as it was more than 10 years ago: the music business itself.

“[The record labels] can’t let go because we’re seeing the middleman, so to speak, largely eliminated,” says Geist. “If you’re thinking about this from an industry perspective, you’re wondering, ‘What’s the value-add that industry has typically provided?’ It’s been about marketing and distribution. And they’re just not providing a whole lot of value-add in regards to that anymore.”

Legalizing file sharing is the musical equivalent of legalizing prostitution: it’s already happening, crackdowns don’t stop it, and there are existing commercial frameworks that would improve working conditions and curtail exploitation.

The only things standing in the way—in both cases—are the taboo (it’s still illegal, after all) and the middlemen, those who stand to lose millions of dollars if the workers are allowed to own the means of production.

The technology isn’t disappearing. The lawsuits aren’t working. Public support for a better way is only increasing. It’s time to legalize online music sharing.

“The music industry just never believed that any of this was going to become a big issue,” says Geist. “Then they thought that if you adopt some tough legal tactics this thing will just go away. But as successive media industries have learned, be it newspapers or film or music, the internet is a game changer, in pretty dramatic ways. You have to adapt.”

Before my son Louis could walk, he could surf. He took to the internet like an aquatic creature, swimming easily and confidently. It was cute to see him perched at the computer, his big baby head topped off by a pair of giant headphones. But his avidity made me uneasy, a disquiet that lingers still, when I hover over his shoulder trying to see what he’s watching, making, understanding.

Generations see screens differently. Illustration by Dave Donald

I come from a generation of watchers — of movies, of TV — but Lou belongs to a generation of makers. Even though he’s only seven years old, already he’s leaving me behind, moving from consumer to creator, making and posting videos of his Lego men, swimming in a vast sea of video clips, remixes, parodies. To him, culture isn’t a static thing to be passively imbibed, but something to act upon; not an inviolate product, but simply material. As much as I admire the next generation’s digital fluidity, I miss the bigger picture — something that isn’t cut up, sliced into bits and pieces. More importantly, I worry that Lou will miss it also.

The break between the emerging culture of the empowered creator and the old-fashioned passive consumer is the subject of Brett Gaylor’s award-winning documentary RiP: A Remix Manifesto. RiP picked up the 2008 Dioraphte Audience Award at the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam and is being released this spring online and in theatres. The subject of the film is how current intellectual property laws affect the culture being made by a new generation. The copyright debate is something of a Wild West show at the moment, and no one embodies that spirit more fully than a musician named Gregg Gillis, who records and releases under the name Girl Talk. Gillis combines hundreds of samples from other artists’ songs into mashups, and in so doing, risks lawsuits, prison time, and massive fines. The film uses Girl Talk as a test case for current copyright laws, but also poses fundamental questions about how new forms of culture always need to build, borrow, or outright steal from the past.

In one of the film’s more thought-provoking segments, Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor and founder of Creative Commons, argues that overreaching copyright laws have strangled creativity and eaten away at the public domain in the name of money and control. Despite lawsuits and penalties, people continue to rip, remix, and sample with gusto. After all, Lessig argues, the desire to play along is a natural form of creativity. And to punish or outlaw such a manifestation is tantamount to creating a generation with no respect for the law. (Lessig’s talk, included in the film, is available online at ted.com.)

I think Lessig is right about the importance of sharing ideas, but my misgivings linger — not just about how material is used, but how it’s perceived. It’s not because I’m afraid Louis will get sued one day. It’s because when films are simply something to be cut up, reworked, made into goofy commentary, and viewed ironically, I think something is lost. The ability to follow a sustained narrative has been fundamental to human nature, but it’s been so fractured, so chopped into small pieces, that it sometimes seems in danger of disappearing.

Louis informed me the other day that YouTube was better than TV and movies because you could watch whatever you wanted, and no one made you watch something (like ads) that you didn’t want to see. Here I am in danger of dating myself terribly, but this makes me think about how the medium carries the meaning. I am reminded of what it once was to listen to records. The A- and B-sides, the sequential tracks, formed a journey — and to interrupt this process was to miss the larger impact. You were meant to move in a linear fashion, from beginning to end.

That straight-line mentality has been disrupted, and not simply because there is often no top or bottom, no beginning or end, on the internet. When the larger arc is missing, the fundamental nature of story can change, becoming smaller and less affecting.

But the loss of the experience of sitting quietly in a darkened theatre to watch a movie — something I still love, but can’t truly share with my son — makes me sad. My experience has been shared by countless parents, who watch their children launch into some new world we can only fleetingly grasp. All we can do is wave goodbye from the shore, as they swim away.