View RSS Feed

Modderman

April 26/2010 Updated>> Keeping us Aware of the Traps of Bill-C61

Rate this Entry
by , 04-26-2010 at 07:31 PM (1101 Views)
Quote Originally Posted by ModderMan View Post
Click here for the latest news

also in the blog...you can go back and read other very interest material regarding C-61


Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore: The iPadLock Minister?

PDF | Print | E-mail Monday April 26, 2010
Since his appointment as Canadian Heritage minister in 2008, James Moore has carefully crafted an image as "Canada's iPod Minister." Young, bilingual, and tech-savvy, Moore has expressed regular support for the benefits of the Internet and is always ready with a quick "tweet" for his many followers. Yet as my op-ed in the Hill Times notes (HT version (sub required), homepage version), according to the scuttlebutt throughout the copyright community, Moore may be less iPod and more iPadlock. As the government readies its much-anticipated copyright package, Moore is said to be pressing for a virtual repeat of Bill C-61, the most anti-consumer copyright proposal in Canadian history.

Moore's about-face on copyright will come as a surprise to those who have heard his enthusiasm for new technology and the Internet. In June 2009, Moore told Industry Minister Tony Clement's Digital Economy conference that "the old way of doing things is over. These things are all now one. And it's great. And it's never been better. And we need to be enthusiastic and embrace this things."

Those comments were quickly followed by the national copyright consultation that generated thousands of responses, the majority of which called on the government to abandon the C-61 approach in favour of copyright rules that struck a better balance between the interests of creators and consumers.

In recent months, Moore seemed to support a more consumer friendly approach. When NDP MP Charlie Angus introduced a private member's bill last month to extend the private copying levy to devices such as iPods, Moore was quick to lambaste the proposal as the iTax. Heralded as an "iPod Freedom Fighter," Moore proclaimed the bill a serious threat to consumers.

Days later, Moore reserved judgment on the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications broadcast policy decision that opened the door to a new fee-for-carriage system for local broadcast signals. Once again, Moore adopted a pro-consumer position, indicating that his view on the decision would depend upon its consumer impact.

Moore's posturing won him few friends in the Canadian cultural community, with some suggesting that the Canadian Heritage minister should spend less time focusing on his iPod and more on Canadian artists.

The copyright bill may still be several weeks away, but reintroducing Bill C-61 with only minor tweaks - a bit more flexibility for recording television shows or transferring content from one format to another - would leave in place the core provisions of the bill that generated widespread discontent. These include U.S.-style legal protection for digital locks known as anti-circumvention legislation and a rejection of the flexible fair dealing approach that attracted considerable support during the copyright consultation as a balanced, technology-neutral solution.

What is most surprising with this path is that there are solutions that would toughen Canadian copyright law and provide the flexibility that business, consumers, and creators say they need.

For example, virtually everyone agrees that Canada should implement the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet treaties. Yet there is considerable flexibility in how those treaties are implemented. Indeed, just last week India, home to a thriving movie and technology market, tabled legislation designed to bring it into conformity with those treaties. The Indian approach - much like the earlier Canadian Bill C-60 - sought to maintain the copyright balance that exists offline in the online world.

Similarly, a growing number of countries - led by the United States - have adopted flexible fair dealing or fair use provisions that benefit creators, business, and consumers. Flexible fair dealing based on existing Canadian jurisprudence would ensure a fair-for-all, not a free-for-all.

Last week, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard about the need to target bad actors. Canadian law has many tools to do so, with major record labels having pressured some peer-to-peer sites offline (such as QuebecTorrent) and gearing up to challenge others in Canadian courts (isoHunt).

Recent experience indicates that the copyright bill isn't final until tabled, but after spending the summer of 2008 fighting Bill C-61 and the summer of 2009 revisiting copyright reform as part of the national consultation, copyright is unquestionably on the public radar screen. Canadians had been promised a forward-looking, technology neutral approach, but they may soon find that someone has hit the delete button on those promises. I'll be posting more in the coming days about what people can do - in the short term, I've launched a new Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook page (distinct from the group) that can be used to keep current and learn more about what can be done as events unfold.


Hamilton Chamber of Commerce Challenges National Chamber IP Approach From 2008 during consultations

As Copyright Watch recently chronicled, local Chambers of Commerce have been singing from the same songbook as Industry Minister Jim Prentice in letters to the editor on Bill C-61. This is consistent with the national Chamber, which earlier this year formed a new lobby group to push for copyright reform and issued a press release supporting the introduction of the copyright bill - complete with local quotes - within 90 minutes of the tabling of the bill.

Notwithstanding these lobbying efforts, a crack in the coalition has emerged. At least one chamber of commerce has decided that it wants to look at the bill with an eye to the impact on small and medium sized businesses. The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce had adopted a resolution that it is hoping to get the Ontario and Canadian Chambers of Commerce to adopt seeking studies on the impact that IP legislation would have on SMEs. The concern is that SMEs would bear the burden of enforcement directed at businesses. The Hamilton chamber argues:

  • The estimates of piracy used in support of the Canadian and Ontario policies are unsupported by verifiable Canadian data;
  • Most small businesses are not aware of IP issues and would likely be at a disadvantage if action were ever taken against them on any alleged IP infringement;
  • Small businesses would have a disproportionate increase in expenses in complying with the costs that the policies would create;
  • In Canada, many large owners of IP have ‘over-reached’ the protection that IP has given them to the detriment of small businesses;
  • The proposed change in laws does nothing to favour Canadian businesses;
  • Many IP users are funded by tax dollars (i.e. education, libraries, archives) and an increase in enforcement is likely to increase their costs, which will, in turn, lead to higher taxes which disproportionately affects small business.


The Hamilton Chamber expands on each of these concerns and issues five recommendations:

  1. Verify the quantum of unlawful copying in Canada through the independent collection of statistics based on facts arising in Canada;
  2. The impacts and benefits that any changes will have on all businesses in Canada including small businesses;
  3. The financial and administrative burden that will be created for businesses - and especially small businesses - to ensure that they can successfully and inexpensively defend unsupported allegations of infringement;
  4. A consideration of how IP enforcement regimes can - within international and national limits - favour and encourage Canadian businesses;
  5. A consideration of how IP enforcement regimes will affect the costs of educational, archival and library uses of IP in Canada and how those costs paid by public funds can be reduced.

Submit "April 26/2010  Updated>> Keeping us Aware of the Traps of Bill-C61" to Digg Submit "April 26/2010  Updated>> Keeping us Aware of the Traps of Bill-C61" to del.icio.us Submit "April 26/2010  Updated>> Keeping us Aware of the Traps of Bill-C61" to StumbleUpon Submit "April 26/2010  Updated>> Keeping us Aware of the Traps of Bill-C61" to Google

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments