The decade-long Canadian copyright reform debate is nearing a
conclusion as the government is slated to hold the third and final
reading for Bill C-11 this week. My weekly technology law column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) notes that with a majority in both the House of
Commons and Senate, the Conservatives are likely to pass the bill
before Parliament takes a break for the summer.
The imminent passage of the bill is already being heralded as win for
creators, consumers, and businesses. There is certainly much to like -
expanded fair dealing, new consumer exceptions, caps on liability to
prevent multi-million dollar lawsuits against consumers, and a balanced
approach to liability for Internet providers among them. Moreover, the
rejection of draconian provisions demanded by some lobby groups such as
website blocking or penalizing Internet users with threats of lost
access is a positive development.
Yet for many copyright watchers, the bill falls just short, providing a
classic example of what could have been…
What if the government had not rejected concerns from groups
representing the blind, who warned that the bill's digital lock rules
will make it more difficult for Canadians with perceptual disabilities
to access digital content?
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday May 28, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
|
Industry Canada has quietly published a study
measuring radio frequency exposure from WiFi devices. The study finds
that exposure rates are many times lower than recommended levels by
Health Canada.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday May 28, 2012 |
|
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on May 27, 2012 as Conclusion of copyright debate
leaves many unanswered questions
The decade-long Canadian copyright reform debate is nearing a
conclusion as the government is slated to hold the third and final
reading for Bill C-11 this week. With a majority in both the House of
Commons and Senate, the Conservatives are likely to pass the bill
before Parliament takes a break for the summer.
The imminent passage of the bill is already being heralded as win for
creators, consumers, and businesses. There is certainly much to like -
expanded fair dealing, new consumer exceptions, caps on liability to
prevent multi-million dollar lawsuits against consumers, and a balanced
approach to liability for Internet providers among them. Moreover, the
rejection of draconian provisions demanded by some lobby groups such as
website blocking or penalizing Internet users with threats of lost
access is a positive development.
Yet for many copyright watchers, the bill falls just short, providing a
classic example of what could have been…
What if the government had not rejected concerns from groups
representing the blind, who warned that the bill's digital lock rules
will make it more difficult for Canadians with perceptual disabilities
to access digital content?
What if the government had not rejected requests from leading cable
companies such as Rogers and Shaw, who fear that the bill will block
their ability to introduce network PVRs into the Canadian market and
restrict innovative cloud-based computer services?
What if the government had not rejected requests from the Documentary
Organization of Canada for a specific digital lock exception for
documentary film making, given that U.S. film makers benefit from such
an exception and that Canadians will be placed at a competitive
disadvantage?
What if the government had not rejected requests from many Canadian
library associations, who argued that new digital inter-library loans
provisions are unusable in light of requirements to establish onerous
restrictions limiting the use of works?
What if the government had not rejected proposed amendments from NDP,
Liberal and Green Party MPs to add flexibility to the digital lock
rules so that concerns that the approach trumps fair dealing and
education rights could be addressed?
What if the government had not rejected concerns from teachers, who
lamented new distance learning provisions that include requirements to
destroy lessons 30 days after a course concludes?
What if the government had followed the lead of innovative economies
such as South Korea and Israel, which both recently adopted U.S.-style
fair use rules that are often credited with forming the copyright
engine behind cutting-edge business models?
What if the government had not rejected an amendment to require
labeling of digital locks so that consumers would have advance warning
of the restrictions that come with the products they purchase?
What if the government had not rejected a proposal from the Canadian
Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences to eliminate crown
copyright and give a boost to its open government data initiative?
What if the government had not rejected a plan raised by Project
Gutenberg to create a legal safe harbour provision for the use of works
where the copyright owner is unknown, thereby increasing digitization
of Canadian materials?
What if the government had not rejected the advice of provincial
ministers of education who called for an expansion of fair dealing to
cover copies for classroom use as is the case in the U.S.?
What if the government had not rejected the Retail Council of Canada's
recommendation to eliminate the iPod tax and thus avoid a hearing later
this year on extending the private copying levy to microSD cards?
No bill is ever perfect and Bill C-11 is no exception. Yet as the
government touts its success in navigating the challenging copyright
waters to pass a bill after multiple false starts, it might temper its
enthusiasm by recognizing that provisions that lock out the blind,
create disadvantageous barriers for creators and educators, and stifle
innovation are not a cause for celebration.
Michael Geist holds the Canada
Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online
at www.michaelgeist.ca.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday May 28, 2012 |
|
|
