News

Canadian Labour Congress Adopts New Copyright Policy

Earlier this year, I posted on a Canadian Labour Congress IP policy that was scheduled for approval by the CLC Council.  The proposal represented a dramatic shift in approach  that was exceptionally one-sided.  The proposal did not pass, however, and the CLC formed a working group to develop a new policy.  Sources advise that the new policy was approved late last month and the results much better reflect the diversity of interests within Canada's largest labour organization.  In fact, the policy combines both copyright and net neutrality, adopting a broader approach to digital policy.

On copyright, the policy statement contains 14 recommendations including expanding fair dealing, limiting the application of statutory damages, eliminating crown copyright, and linking anti-circumvention legislation to actual infringement.  The 14 recommendations:

  • to engage in open and genuine consultation with Canadians before drafting new copyright legislation;
  • in the drafting of any new copyright legislation, to balance the needs of Canadian users, creators and owners of copyrighted works in a manner that reflects and addresses Canadian concerns;
  • to introduce and pass amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act to conform with the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Internet Treaties and to implement those treaties;
  • to expand the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights of users, creators and owners of copyrighted works;
  • to direct enforcement measures at commercial copyright infringement, including the counterfeit and pirated goods that threaten the health, safety and jobs of Canadians;
  • to amend the Statutory Damages provisions of the Copyright Act to remove their application from those who copy a work with a reasonable belief that their actions are justified by Fair Dealing or other statutory rights;
  • to advocate for the establishment of an audio-visual performance rights treaty at the WIPO and establish such rights in domestic legislation to benefit performers and creators for use of their work;
  • to eliminate Crown Copyright so that government materials can be freely used by Canadians;
  • to introduce anti-circumvention provisions (measures that protect digital locks) in the Copyright Act that renders circumvention unlawful if such circumvention is for the purposes of copyright infringement;
  • to ensure that the use of digital locks or other such technological measures for the protection of copyrighted works in Canada will be consistent with the established principles and practices of current copyright legislation in relation to access for “fair dealing” purposes;
  • to amend the Copyright Act to protect the holders of moral rights either by recognizing such rights as non-waivable and inalienable personal rights, or by considering further limitations and conditions on such waivers;
  • to amend the current Canadian copyright ownership formulation in section 13(3) of the Copyright Act where the employer, not the author or creator, is deemed to be the first owner of the copyright so it is less onerous for a wider range of creative workers;
  • to update and expand the Canadian private copying regime to ensure that creators are appropriately compensated for uses of their work in all media while affording users the right to copy works they have obtained legally for personal use; and
  • to enact an effective legal framework in the Copyright Act governing internet service providers that ensures providers play a role in addressing copyright infringement on the internet and that allegations of copyright infringement are dealt with fairly.

This represents a dramatic shift for an organization representing three million Canadian workers that includes groups such as ACTRA.  When I posted on this issue earlier this year, I suggested that people contact the CLC to express their concern with the proposed resolution.  Given this new policy, it would similarly be appropriate to contact the CLC to express support for taking a closer look at the issue and working toward a more balanced policy approach.

9 Comments

  1. better, but far from great.
    It may better, but it is nothing to celebrate yet

    – to expand the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights of users, creators and owners of copyrighted works;
    – to update and expand the Canadian private copying regime to ensure that creators are appropriately compensated for uses of their work in all media while affording users the right to copy works they have obtained legally for personal use;

    It appears their concept of expanded fair dealings does not include the right to format shift purchased media. It should!

    -to amend the Copyright Act to protect the holders of moral rights either by recognizing such rights as non-waivable and inalienable personal rights, or by considering further limitations and conditions on such waivers;

    I’ve never been a fan of moral rights. It gives creators a lifetime veto over how you can publicly display a work you have purchased. A good example of this over reach is Michael Snow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v._The_Eaton_Centre_Ltd. Giving them more moral rights will make this even worse.

    – to introduce and pass amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act to conform with the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Internet Treaties and to implement those treaties;

    While everyone likes to use the WIPO treaties as an example of US policy laundering, no one appears willing to stand up and say that in fact we should NOT be ratifying this garbage.

    – to amend the Statutory Damages provisions of the Copyright Act to remove their application from those who copy a work with a reasonable belief that their actions are justified by Fair Dealing or other statutory rights;

    Statutory Damages are the tool that the RIAA used to extort ridiculously disproportionate settlements from their victims. It is the sort of tactic that should not be allowed, even if people were fully aware that they were breaking copyright law. At the very least, they should be calling for statutory damages to be limited to commercial infringement, not merely knowing infringement.

    – to enact an effective legal framework in the Copyright Act governing internet service providers that ensures providers play a role in addressing copyright infringement on the internet and that allegations of copyright infringement are dealt with fairly.

    ISPs should not play any role, unless you consider passing on an infringement notice to be a role. If they are in anyway held accountable for infringement on the internet, you can be sure that free speech will suffer.

  2. @Hook
    With respect to the idea of format shifting, they covered that:

    “to update and expand the Canadian private copying regime to ensure that creators are appropriately compensated for uses of their work in all media while affording users the right to copy works they have obtained legally for personal use; and” (the second last item).

    Agree with statutory damages related to commercial infringement, however we need to be careful about non-commercial infringement. I am of the opinion that there needs to be some sort of penalty for knowingly and intentionally infringing non-commercially. Perhaps two different penalties, one for commercial, and a lesser penalty for non-commercial intentional infringement. The issue of unintentional infringement, or infringement while believing that the activity was non-infringing, is a matter for debate (for instance, are you guilty of a crime if you believed it wasn’t illegal?).

    Agreed with you on the ISP recommendation. This opens a major can of worms; while seemingly minor, if allowed to pass it sets nasty precedent, that of the carrier being involved in the detection, and reporting, of illegal actions of their customers. By extension, Canada Post would have to open my snail mail to ensure that I am doing nothing illegal, Bell would need to have someone tap my line, etc. If the framework, on the other hand was simply that the ISP needed to provide, in response to a vetted production order, customer ID information, that is a different thing. By vetted I mean that it has gone through review by a neutral body in order to ensure that it is not a fishing expedition and that the accuser has probable cause to believe, as well as demonstrated interest (i.e. they can’t claim infringement for something they don’t own). In the case of a CRIA accusation, it would, for instance, mean that it has to go through a civil court judge. With respect to infringement notices, I agree, so long as your info is not passed onto the accuser if they haven’t gone through the production order steps.

  3. They covered format shifting. That’s the problem
    @Anon-k I know they covered format shifting. I quoted the same line you did in my original post. My complaint is on how they covered it. By making me pay everytime I move my library from one media to another. It should be covered under fair dealings so that once I buy something, I am free to do what ever the #311 I want with it in the privacy of my home without having to pay some other schmuck for the privilege.

    Howard Knopf made an excellent point a while back
    http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-attempt-at-ipod-tax.html

    Had the CPCC got their wish and had a levy placed on mp3 players, an Ipod that currently sells for < $300 would now cost over $2500. And that is a tax to appease just the music industry. Add more taxes to appease the movie and book industries and you will quickly find that the internet and media devices become quite affordable for most people. My point is that based on this desire to expand the unnecessary and unworkable private copying levy, they obviously have a very narrow concept of expanded fair use. Far too narrow I expect.

  4. I’m going to fire my editor
    That should read “..you will quickly find that the internet and media devices become quite UNaffordable for most people.”

  5. Robert Smits says:

    Progress is slow
    I agree with most of the comments made by Hook. One of the difficulties is that there is no easy, and fast method for union members to pass concerns upward through the affiliates to the Congress. Typically it’s done by resolutions to the Annual Convention, and copyright has not been on the top of the list for union concerns when we are at the same time combating anti-worker governments and corporations to protect their members during a recession.

    This is a sign that the CLC is taking the issue seriously, and that those of us pushing for better copyright laws are being heard, though. Now we need to keep up the pressure.

  6. @Hook
    Sorry, I missed your reference (I have got to figure out a way to increase the font size :-). We are in fact in violent agreement on this point.

    Not surprised that they took that stand. The CLC doesn’t represent workers. It represents unions. The unions sometimes represent the workers that pay them dues, sometimes they don’t. The larger the union, the less likely they are to take notice of the worker they claim to represent. As far as Robert’s comment about “anti-worker governments”… I’d state it as “anti-organized worker governments of all political affiliations”, as even the NDP, who are supposed to be the most labour friendly, have done anti-union things in the name of getting votes (can you say Rae-Days?). I am not so sure the current government is particularly better, or worse, than any other one that we’ve had (of course, my views may be coloured by the mid-90s wage freezes implemented by the feds at a time when we were already behind the wage curve, compared to the private sector, in my classification. UNDE’s attempt to use our private sector pay discrepancy in negotiations was mostly to try to boost the pay of other areas because of pay equity legislation).

  7. The one advantage of moral rights though….
    …if anyone takes a song I wrote/performed when I was in a band and rappifies our countryfies the dang thing, I’ll put a grinding halt to that so fast!

  8. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    Many good bits BUT
    The ISPs must NEVER “play a role in addressing copyright infringement on the internet and that allegations of copyright infringement are dealt with fairly.” That’s like telling the phone company to search out crime and criminals on the hone system. Corporations are NOT law enforcement agencies, and they certainly should never be given the power of law enforcement.

    I am aghast at this one:

    “to amend the current Canadian copyright ownership formulation in section 13(3) of the Copyright Act where the employer, not the author or creator, is deemed to be the first owner of the copyright so it is less onerous for a wider range of creative workers;”

    Less onerous? Less likely that the actual creators will be compensated. My question is: how did it come to pass that corporations get to own copyright? Corporations are business entities. They may employ creators, but they do not in themselves create. Corporations should be allowed to own trademarks and patents, but they have no business owning copyrights. Were it not for corporate interests copyright would not live longer than creators, and we wouldn’t have things like ACTA to worry about.

    Say No to WIPO.

    Say no to anti-circumvention/digital locks. If I try to scan Canadian currency I am whisked to a website which informs me what the laws are in respect of scanning currency. It tells me what I already know– that t is perfectly legal for a Canadian to scan Canadian currency. But the scanner will not do it because of digital locks. It offends me that I $300 scanner refuses to scan a Canadian ten dollar bill to include in my Remembrance Day post yesterday. I had to go online and get the image i needed somewhere else. (Thank you, snopes)

    Stop blaming the NDP for Bob Rae… what party is he with now again… not the NDP, that’s for sure. We are indeed fortunate to have a minority government at present. The best thing for Canada is minority government, because its the only time politicians will listen to us.

  9. Glen Merrick says:

    Bloody DRM
    Yadda, yadda, good sensible read until I hit

    # to ensure that the use of digital locks or other such technological measures for the protection of copyrighted works in Canada will be consistent with the established principles and practices of current copyright legislation in relation to access for “fair dealing” purposes;

    Idiots. Do they not realize that DRM is completely ineffectual?