Blog

citation needed by Dan4th Nicholas (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/8PEZiG

Ignoring the Evidence: Why the Copyright Review Was Right To Ignore the Canadian Heritage Committee Study, Part Four

My series on why the Industry committee was right to ignore the Canadian Heritage committee study as part of the national copyright review has previously discussed process (the government vested sole responsibility with the Industry committee), an examination of the witness and brief list that confirms that Industry conducted a much more comprehensive consultation that overlapped with much of Heritage but also included hundreds of additional witnesses and briefs, and the (im)balance among witnesses which indicates that the Industry committee made a greater effort to hear a wide range of perspectives consistent with the diverse views on copyright.

Read more ›

June 25, 2019 0 comments News
Witness comparison by type - INDU vs. CHPC

Unbalanced Witness List: Why the Copyright Review Was Right To Ignore the Canadian Heritage Committee Study, Part Three

My series on why the Industry committee was right to ignore the Canadian Heritage committee study as part of the national copyright review has focused on process (the government vested sole responsibility with the Industry committee, its clear assertion as the authoritative copyright review, and an examination of the witness and brief list that confirms that Industry conducted a much more comprehensive consultation that overlapped with much of Heritage but also included hundreds of additional witnesses and briefs.

Read more ›

June 21, 2019 1 comment News
Comparison of INDU vs. CHPC copyright witnesses

Limited Views: Why the Copyright Review Was Right To Ignore the Canadian Heritage Committee Study, Part Two

The Industry committee’s clear assertion this week as the authoritative copyright review is grounded in process since the government gave it sole responsibility for conducting the review. While my earlier posts focus on the process and the unprecedented INDU release, the committee justifiably points out that it also heard from far more witnesses through hearings and briefs than the Heritage committee. In fact, it notes that it heard from the “vast majority of stakeholders who contributed to CHPC’s study.” Working with University of Ottawa student Philip Abraham, we reviewed the witness lists, the brief submissions, and the citations by the committees to better assess claims about which committee best reflects the full spectrum of stakeholder views on copyright. This post examines who participated in the committee work and a follow-up posts will highlight the balance in the witness lists and whether the committees were listening.

Read more ›

June 20, 2019 3 comments News
INDU release, https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/INDU/news-release/10581857

“Sole Responsibility” for the Copyright Review: Industry Committee Issues Unprecedented News Release Confirming It Was Right To Ignore the Canadian Heritage Committee Study

My series on why the Industry committee rightly chose to ignore the Canadian Heritage committee study on artist remuneration took an unexpected turn yesterday. Hours after I posted an analysis demonstrating that the Heritage committee had ignored its mandate by tabling its report in the House of Commons, the Industry committee issued an unprecedented news release confirming that it did not consider the Heritage report and that its report is the exclusive copyright review. The news release states:

Read more ›

June 19, 2019 6 comments News
No Longer a “Proposed” Telecom Policy Direction: Government Resets Canadian Telecom Policy With Emphasis on Broader Approach to Competition

No Longer a “Proposed” Telecom Policy Direction: Government Resets Canadian Telecom Policy With Emphasis on Broader Approach to Competition

Earlier this year, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains sent shockwaves through the Canadian telecom industry by unveiling a proposed new policy direction to the CRTC based on competition, affordability, consumer interests, and innovation (my original post on the proposed direction here, podcast with Teksavvy’s Andy-Kaplan Myrth here). The big three telecom providers unsurprisingly objected to the government’s shift away from facilities-based competition toward a broader approach that welcomed all forms of competition. That shift signalled support for entry of new competitors such as mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), a signal that the CRTC understood with its new-found support for them.

Read more ›

June 18, 2019 3 comments News