The story of the weekend was the publication by the U.S. Republican
Study Committee of a progressive report on copyright, only to withdraw
the paper hours later (coverage from Techdirt (1, 2), Volokh Conspiracy, the American Conservative,Politico, CNET, and Macleans). The paper - which can still be found online
- identifies several copyright myths and contains several notable
proposed reforms including expanding fair use, reforming U.S. statutory
damages rules, creating copyright misuse penalties, and limiting copyright
terms.
Interestingly, Canada has already begun to move in this
direction with Bill C-11, which reformed statutory damages and
created a non-commercial user generated content provision. Moreover,
Canadian law features a shorter copyright term than that found in the
U.S. Given the rush to take the paper down, the fear is that even
modest reform recommendations face opposition from copyright lobby
groups,
who exert enormous influence with U.S. politicians. As Canada jumps into
the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations in the next few weeks,
Canadian copyright reforms will undoubtedly face tough scrutiny as
the U.S. pressures us to undo many positive reforms and make further
changes that the Canadian government previously concluded did not strike
a reasonable balance.
File sharing of music has been part of the Internet landscape for well
over a decade, but the debate over its economic impact continues to
rage. The issue has come to fore once again in recent weeks after
Columbia University's American Assembly released an excerpt of a report
that found that peer-to-peer users purchase 31 percent more downloads
than non-P2P users. The NPD Group, which conducts industry analysis for
the Recording Industry Association of America, quickly responded
with data that purports to show that among music buyers, both P2P and
non-P2P users spend about the same, though P2P users spend more on
merchandise and concert tickets. The NPD Group dismisses the additional
spending, arguing "it would be silly" to concluded the P2P promotes
merchandise or ticket sales.
While there have since been responses from the American Assembly and further promotion of the NPD Group findings from the RIAA (along with coverage from CNET and TorrentFreak), no one seems to have picked up on the basic math error from NPD Group. The NPD Group post ironically starts with:
I often think you ought to have a license to publish data, especially
these days, when misinterpreted statistics easily make their way to the
blogosphere, and thus become truth.
It adds spending for physical CDs, paid downloads, and subscription
fees for music buyers of both P2P users and non-P2P users aged
18-35: P2P users spend $62 per year, while non-P2P users spend $54.
The chart lists the subtotal and then shows merchandise and concert
ticket revenues, where P2P users spend far more ($52 to $20 for
merchandise, $91 to $63 for concert tickets). The grand total is
listed as $267 for P2P users and $191 for non-P2P users, a
difference of 35.6 percent.
Oddly, this chart contains math errors for both non-P2P users (the
total should be $192 not $191) and P2P users (the total should be
$268 not $267), though perhaps this is due to rounding errors from
the original data. More important, however, is a bigger math error
in the chart as NPD Group significantly understates the difference
between P2P and non-P2P users. In arriving at the grand total, it
adds all the categories (physical CDs, paid downloads, subscription
fees, merchandise, and concert tickets) plus the sub-total. In other
words, it double counts the physical CDs, paid downloads, and
subscription fees. The actual grand total of the five categories of
spending is $206 per year for P2P users and only $138 for non-P2P
users for a difference of 49.3 percent. There is obvious irony in
NPD Group talking about the need for a licence to publish data only
to get its math wrong, yet the real significance is that few would
credibly argue that a nearly 50% increase in spending by P2P users
can be simply chalked up to unsupported claims that P2P usage had no
impact on consumer purchasing behaviour.
Four months after the Supreme Court of Canada issued its
landmark series of copyright decisions, a consensus on the scope of
fair dealing has begun to emerge within the education community.
While Access Copyright has been sending threatening
letters to institutions that seek to rely on fair dealing with
claims that the decisions are being misinterpreted,
roughly similar policies have now been developed by K-12 school
boards, community colleges, and universities that plainly reject the
views of the copyright collective.
As discussed in my post
on the ACCC fair dealing policy, the breadth of fair dealing raises
obvious questions about the necessity of an Access Copyright
licence. All educational institutions already spend millions on
licensed materials. Indeed, the Access Copyright study on K-12
institutions found that 88% of
copying was permitted without the need for either an Access
Copyright licence or reliance on fair dealing. Given the scope
of fair dealing as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, many are concluding that the
Access Copyright licence offers little additional value to Canadian
educational institutions.
The latest fair dealing guideline comes from the University of
Toronto, which has adopted guidelines that closely mirror the ACCC
and Ontario
school board guidelines. It includes excerpts of a chapter
from a book, an article, or 10% of a work for class handouts, course
management systems, or coursepacks. The emerging consensus on
educational fair dealing seems likely to be implemented by
educational institutions across the country. While Access Copyright
may continue to threaten litigation, the Supreme Court decisions
demonstrate the serious risks the collective faces in dragging the
issue back to the courts. Moreover, with Bill C-11 creating a $5,000
cap on statutory liability for non-commercial infringement, the
actual liability for educational institutions has been massively
reduced by legal reform.
The University of Toronto was the first
to sign an Access Copyright licence earlier this year. By
adopting this fair dealing guideline, it seems likely to drop the
licence at the first opportunity in 2013. The University
of Toronto fair dealing guidelines include the following:
1. Faculty and other members of the teaching staff, as well as
other University staff supporting the educational activity may
communicate and reproduce, or otherwise deal with, in paper or
electronic form, short excerpts (as defined below) from a
copyright-protected work (including literary works, musical
scores, sound recordings and audio-visual works) for the purposes
of research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism,
review, or news reporting. In some limited circumstances, such as
with a photograph or drawing, an entire work may be copied. 2. Copying or communicating short excerpts from a
copyright-protected work for the purpose of news reporting,
criticism or review must mention the source and, if given in the
source, the name of the author or creator of the work. 3. Subject always to the consideration and application of the
fair dealing factors referred to above, a copy of a “short
excerpt” from a copyright-protected work may be provided or
communicated to each student enrolled in a class or course: a. as a class handout b. as a posting to a learning or course management system
that is password protected or otherwise restricted to students of
the University c. as part of a course pack 4. A “short excerpt” can mean (but is not limited to and may
vary depending on the exact nature of the work being used, and of
the use itself, all in the context of consideration and
application of the fair dealing factors): a. up to 10% of a copyright-protected work (including a
literary work, musical score, sound recording, and an audiovisual
work) b. one chapter from a book c. a single article from a periodical d. an entire artistic work (including a painting, print,
photograph, diagram, drawing, map, chart, and plan) from a
copyright-protected work containing other artistic works e. an entire newspaper article or page f. an entire single poem or musical score from a
copyright-protected work containing other poems or musical scores g. an entire entry from an encyclopedia, annotated
bibliography, dictionary or similar reference work, provided that
in each case you copy no more of the work than you need to in
order to achieve the allowable purpose. 5. Copying or communicating multiple different short excerpts
from the same copyright-protected work, with the intention of
copying or communicating substantially the entire work, will
generally not be considered fair dealing. 6. Copying or communicating that exceeds the limits in these
Fair Dealing Guidelines will require further analysis, including
additional scrutiny of the principles enunciated in CCH and the
other Supreme Court cases referred to above. If you find yourself
in this situation you should seek guidance from a supervisor or
other person designated by the University for evaluation. An
evaluation of whether the proposed copying or communication is
permitted under fair dealing will be made based on all relevant
circumstances. 7. Any fee charged by the University for communicating or
copying a short excerpt from a copyright-protected work must be
intended only to cover the University’s costs, including overhead
costs.
More than a decade of debate over Canadian copyright reform came to a
conclusion last week as Bill C-11, the fourth try at reform since 2005,
formally took effect. While several elements of the bill still await
further regulations, the biggest overhaul of Canadian copyright law in
years is now largely complete.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the wholesale changes have left many Canadians wondering how the law
will affect them, as they seek plain language about what they can do,
what they can't, and what consequences they could face should they run
afoul of the law.
The good news is that the law now features a wide range of
user-oriented provisions that legalize common activities. For
example, time shifting, or the recording of television shows, is now
legal under Canadian copyright after years of residing in a grey
area. The law also legalizes format shifting, copying for private
purposes, and the creation of backup copies. This will prove helpful
for those seeking to digitize content, transfer content to portable
devices, or create backups to guard against accidental deletion or
data loss.
Canadians can also take greater advantage of fair dealing, which
allows users to make use of excerpts or other portions of copyright
works without the need for permission or payment. The scope of fair
dealing has been expanded with the addition of three new purposes:
education, satire, and parody.
Fair dealing now covers eight purposes (research, private study,
news reporting, criticism, and review comprise the other five). When
combined with the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decisions that
emphasized the importance of fair dealing as users' rights, the law
now features considerable flexibility that allows Canadians to make
greater use of works without prior permission or fear of liability.
The law also includes a unique user generated content provision that
establishes a legal safe harbour for creators of non-commercial user
generated content such as remixed music, mashup videos, or home
movies with commercial music in the background. The provision is
often referred to as the "YouTube exception", though it is not
limited to videos.
The most significant new restriction involves the controversial
digital lock rules that prohibit by-passing technological
protections found on DVDs, software, and electronic books. There are
some exceptions to this prohibition (including the ability to
circumvent the digital lock to protect personal information, unlock
a cellphone, or access content if the person has a perceptual
disability), but these are drafted in a very restrictive manner.
What if a Canadian violates the law by copying more than is
permitted under fair dealing, circumvents a digital lock, or engages
in unauthorized file sharing?
The law generally tries to target genuinely "bad actors", while
leaving individuals alone. For example, the law now includes a cap
of $5,000 for all non-commercial infringement (commercial
infringement can result in liability of $20,000 per infringement).
The change reduces the likelihood of lawsuits against individuals
for non-commercial activities, including unauthorized downloading or
mistaken reliance on fair dealing.
The Canadian approach to unauthorized downloading is now centered on
a "notice-and-notice" system that is likely to take effect next
year. The system allows rights holders to send notifications
alleging infringement to Internet providers, who must forward the
notices to their subscribers. The Internet provider is not required
to disclose the subscriber information nor take any further action.
Circumventing a digital lock raises different legal issues. The
Canadian digital lock rules are amongst the most restrictive in the
world, but they do not carry significant penalties for individuals.
Under the new law, it is not an infringement to possess tools or
software that can be used to circumvent digital locks and liability
is limited to actual damages in non-commercial cases. As former
Conservative Member of Parliament Lee Richardson noted last year,
this suggests that individuals are unlikely to face legal action if
they circumvent a digital lock, though larger institutions may
establish policies prohibiting the practice.
The Supreme Court of Canada this morning shocked the pharmaceutical
industry by voiding
Pfizer's patent in Canada for Viagra. The unanimous decision
provides a strong reaffirmation of the policy behind patent law,
namely that patents represent a quid pro quo bargain of public
disclosure of inventions in return for a time limited monopoly in
the invention. The Supreme Court describes it in this way:
The patent system is based on a "bargain", or quid pro quo: the
inventor is granted exclusive rights in a new and useful invention
for a limited period in exchange for disclosure of the invention
so that society can benefit from this knowledge. This is the basic
policy rationale underlying the Act. The patent bargain encourages
innovation and advances science and technology.
Disclosure is therefore a crucial part of the patent bargain.
The court clarifies that this involves not only a description of the
invention and how it works, but rather a much more practical level
of disclosure "to enable a person skilled in the art or the field of
the invention to produce it using only the instructions contained in
the disclosure." In this case, the court finds that Pfizer
failed to provide sufficient disclosure, concluding: the public's right to proper disclosure was denied in this
case, since the claims ended with two individually claimed
compounds, thereby obscuring the true invention. The disclosure
failed to state in clear terms what the invention was. Pfizer
gained a benefit from the Act - exclusive monopoly rights - while
withholding disclosure in spite of its disclosure obligations
under the Act. As a matter of policy and sound statutory
interpretation, patentees cannot be allowed to "game" the system
in this way.
Pfizer argued strenuously that this should not result in
invalidating the patent, but Justice Lebel, writing for the court,
found no other alternative. The Viagra patent is therefore voided in
Canada (which will allow for generic substitutes) and the importance
of the basic foundation of patent policy for the broader benefit of
society reaffirmed.
This morning, the majority of Bill
C-11, the copyright reform bill, took
effect, marking the most significant changes to Canadian
copyright law in decades. While there are still some further changes
to come (the Internet provider notice-and-notice rules await a
consultation and their own regulations, various provisions related
to the WIPO Internet treaties await formal ratification of those
treaties), all the consumer oriented provisions are now active.
These include:
The addition of education, parody, and satire as fair dealing
purposes.
The creation of a non-commercial user generated content
provision that creates a legal safe harbour for creators of
non-commercial UGC (provided they meet four conditions in the
law) and for sites that host such content.
The adoption of several new consumer exceptions including time
shifting (recording of television shows), format shifting, and
the making of backup copies.
Changes to the statutory damages rules that distinguish
between commercial and non-commercial infringement. The law now
includes a cap of $5000 for all non-commercial infringement. The
change reduces the likelihood of lawsuits against individuals
for non-commercial activities and would apply to educational
institutions engaged in non-commercial activity and
significantly reduce their potential liability for infringement.
The inclusion of an exception for publicly available materials
on the Internet for education. This covers the content found on
millions of websites that can now be communicated and reproduced
by educational institutions without the need for permission or
compensation.
The adoption of a technology-neutral approach for the
reproduction of materials for display purposes. The current law
is limited to manual reproduction or on an overhead projector.
The provision may be applicable in the online learning context
and open the door to digitization activities.
The implementation of a distance learning provision, though
use of the exception features significant restrictions that
require the destruction of lessons at the conclusion of the
course.
The inclusion of a restrictive digital inter-library loans
provision that will allow for digital transmission of materials
on an inter-library basis, increasing access to materials that
have been acquired by university libraries.
A new exception for public performances in schools, which will
reduce licensing costs for educational institutions.
There are several other notable provisions and exclusions. First,
although
the notice-and-notice provisions for Internet providers have not
taken effect, but the decision to stop short of the U.S.-style
notice-and-takedown or a notice-and-termination rule is a huge
victory for Canadians that provides a balanced approach safeguarding
privacy and access to the Internet. Second, the government
also rejected an expansion of the private copying levy. In
fact, the government today also published
regulations specifically excluding MicroSD cards from the levy.
Third, the law includes an "enabler provision" that will make it
easier for rights holders to sue sites or services that facilitate
infringement.
Fourth, the digital lock rules are now also in effect. This was the
most controversial aspect of the bill as the government caved to
U.S. pressure despite widespread opposition to its restrictive
approach. There are some exceptions to the digital lock rules
(including for law enforcement, interoperability, encryption
research, security, privacy, unlocking cellphones, and persons with
perceptual disabilities), but these are drafted in a very
restrictive manner. The government has established a
regulatory process to allow for new digital lock exceptions, which
creates the possibility of Canadians seeking new exceptions to at
least match some of the U.S. exceptions on DVDs or streaming video.
At the moment, Canada is arguably more restrictive than even the
U.S., though the digital lock rules do not carry significant
penalties for individuals. Under Canadian law, it is not an
infringement to possess tools or software that can be used to circumvent digital locks and liability is limited to
actual damages in non-commercial cases.
As I wrote earlier
this week, copyright is part of a sea change in digital policy
making in Canada. In 2007, the government was hours away from
introducing a bill that contained virtually no user-oriented
provisions. Today, a bill took effect that has its flaws but also
creates some of the most expansive copyright user rights in the
world.
The fall of 2007 was a particularly bleak period for Canadians
concerned with digital policies. The government had just issued a
policy direction to the CRTC to adopt a hands-off regulatory
approach even as consumer prices for Internet and wireless services
were increasing. Meanwhile, the Department of Public Safety held a
semi-secret consultation on Internet surveillance where mandatory
disclosure of subscriber information was assumed.
Moreover, the CRTC had largely rejected mounting concerns with the
way Internet providers managed their networks (often called network
neutrality), there were doubts about new wireless competitors
entering the marketplace, Industry Canada had seemingly no interest
in developing anti-spam laws or updating privacy legislation, the
government agreed to participate in negotiations on the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and a copyright bill with
virtually no user-oriented provision was being prepared for
introduction.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) notes that fast forward five years later and the CRTC
has now positioned itself as a staunch defender of the public
interest with consumer concerns at the centre of its policy making
process, a lawful access bill was introduced in the spring but is
viewed as politically dead, the CRTC has crafted and enforced new
net neutrality rules, anti-spam legislation has been enacted, there
are several new wireless providers and the removal of most foreign
investment restrictions, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is
discredited after being rejected by the European Parliament, and
copyright reform is set to take effect this week with a host of user
safeguards and rights.
While many remain skeptical, the shift toward the public interest in
the development of Canadian digital policies ranks as one of the
most remarkable policy transformations of the current Conservative
government. The change is not absolute - Canada caved to U.S.
pressure on several copyright issues, delayed implementation of the
anti-spam bill due to corporate lobbying, and is negotiating new
trade treaties that could undo much of the recent progress - but the
state of Canadian digital policy is far better than anyone could
have reasonably anticipated several years ago.
There are undoubtedly many factors behind the shift, but topping the
list was the confluence of three inter-related developments.
First, Internet and digital policy issues went from niche issues to
the mainstream since the rules associated with Internet access,
wireless services, social media, user generated content, and privacy
became far more personal with implications for millions of people.
Digital policy may have once focused chiefly on commercial concerns
attracting limited public attention, but the public has increasingly
connected these policies to their own lives.
As a result, thousands of Canadians participated in a 2009 copyright
consultation, more than 500,000 people signed a petition on Internet
billing, hundreds of thousands took to the streets in Europe to
protest against ACTA, and the government faced an overwhelming
backlash against its Internet surveillance plans.
Second, the Internet was not only a serious concern for many
Canadians, but it also provided the mechanisms to ensure their
voices were heard. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter,
blogs, and online video provided an avenue for Canadians to become
informed about the issues and the means to speak out.
Third, the government gradually realized that missteps on digital
policy could be politically costly, while good policy was also good
politics. The payoff may be slow in coming, but the emergence of
digital policies that prioritize public concerns leave opposition
parties with less ammunition for criticism and the promise of
greater competition and innovation.
Many have been quick to dismiss the public voice on digital issues,
deriding Canadians that speak out as seeking a free ride, or being
uniformed or ignorant of the complexity of the issues. The same
groups often simply ignore those views altogether, as if the public
submissions were just noise with no discernible impact.
Yet the Canadian experience of the past five years demonstrates a
clear shift in approach with legislation, regulation, and policy
outcomes that once seemed highly unlikely. The public interest will
not win out on every issue, but its impact is evident throughout the
digital landscape.
Millions of Canadians go to work each day, turn on their workplace
computers, and wonder whether they have also shut off their privacy.
Many employers seek to remove any reasonable expectation of privacy
by telling employees that they should not expect any privacy when
using workplace computers during company time.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada grappled
with the question of workplace privacy and arrived a somewhat
different conclusion. My weekly technology law column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) notes it ruled that the workplace environment may
diminish an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy, but it
does not remove the expectation altogether.
The case involved a criminal action against a high school teacher,
who was provided with school-issued laptop computer that could be
used for incidental personal purposes. A computer technician at the
school discovered nude photographs of a female student while
performing routine maintenance on the machine. The school copied the
images and turned over the computer and the images to police, who
later charged the man with possession of child pornography and
unauthorized use of a computer.
The legal issue in the case turned on whether the police conducted a
warrantless search of the computer in violation of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guards against unreasonable
search and seizure. To answer that question, the Court
assessed whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
The Court's analysis started by reaffirming that Canadians
reasonably expect privacy in the information found on their personal
computers. Provided the use is permitted or reasonably expected, the
same is true for workplace computers since both personal and
workplace computers frequently "contain information that is
meaningful, intimate, and touching on the user's biographical core."
But what if the employer has a workplace policy or established
practice that warns against personal use? The Court acknowledged
that such policies create a "diminished" expectation of privacy, but
argued that they do not completely remove the expectation as the
"nature of the information at stake exposes the likes, interests,
thoughts, activities, ideas, and searches for information of the
individual user." In fact, the court noted "whatever the
policies state, one must consider thetotalityof the
circumstances in order to determine whether privacy is a reasonable
expectation in the particular situation."
The court also considered the fact that the laptop belonged to the
school (a 2010 Supreme Court computer privacy case involved a
personal computer owned by the individual). The Court found that the
ownership of the computer is a relevant consideration, but it too is
not determinative.
Reasonable expectation of privacy therefore depends upon the
"totality of the circumstances", which presented a difficult balance
in this case since there was a clear privacy interest in the
information on the laptop set against school policies and ownership
of the computer. Given these competing interests, the Court ruled
that the reduced privacy interest was not eliminated in its
entirety. It therefore ordered that the teacher face a new trial.
While this case involves criminal issues and the Charter analysis
will not apply to every workplace (the court even states that it
will "leave for another day the finer points of an employer's right
to monitor computers issued to employees"), the decision sends a
strong signal that Canadians do not forfeit all their privacy rights
simply by logging onto their workplace computers. The reasonable
expectation of privacy for Canadian workers may be diminished on the
job, but it is not extinguished.
Reports this morning from EDRI, a European digital rights group, indicate that Europe
has now dropped demands to include ACTA-style intellectual property
criminal provisions within the Canada - EU Trade Agreement. The
inclusion of IP criminal provisions in CETA was the source of
considerable outrage in Europe in the aftermath of the European
Parliament's rejection of ACTA in early July. EDRI reports
that the European Council obtained support over the summer from
member states to drop demands for the criminal provisions, fearing
those provisions could lead to a European rejection of the treaty
(the Dutch government has already indicated it will not support CETA
if it includes ACTA provisions).
The removal of ACTA's criminal provisions leave only two
copyright-related question marks in CETA. First, the ACTA border
measures provisions have yet to be determined as they are being
discussed within the context of protection for geographical
indications. Second, Canada is still seeking the inclusion of
criminal anti-camcording rules. Canada adopted those rules in 2007
under significant pressure from the United States. Europe resisted
their inclusion within ACTA, resulting in a provision that is
optional rather than mandatory. While Canada is seeking a mandatory
rule, it seems likely this is a (very weak) bargaining chip, rather
than a serious attempt to require criminal anti-camcording measures.
Canada may drop the demand during negotiations later this month over
pharmaceutical patent reform. Regardless, the European Parliament's
rejection of ACTA has clearly had a significant impact on CETA as
the Internet and criminal provisions are now both apparently gone in
the face of widespread European opposition.
The government is slated to bring Bill
C-11, the copyright reform bill, into effect next week without
the "notice-and-notice" rules for Internet providers. The
revelations come in a Privy
Council document that provides notification on when the bill
will come into force. It is expected that the order bringing the
bill into effect will be published
on November 7, 2012. The majority of the bill will take effect
on that date, including fair dealing reform, new consumer
exceptions, caps on statutory damages for non-commercial
infringement, the user generated content provision, and the digital
lock rules. There are two notable exceptions, however.
First, the Internet service provider "notice-and-notice" rules will
not take effect. The implementation has been apparently been the
subject of fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying over issues such as the
fees for processing notices and the retention of subscriber
information. The public has not been included in these discussions
and more open policy process is needed in developing the
notice-and-notice regulations.
Second, several sections related to the WIPO Internet Treaties will
also be delayed until those treaties come into force for Canada.
There are lingering
questions over whether Canadian law is fully compliant with
the WIPO Internet treaties, particularly with respect to the private
copying levy. Moreover, Canadian
policy now requires the government to provide the House of
Commons with at least 21-sitting days for review of a treaty before
taking legal steps to bring it into force. The tabling of the treaty
must include an explanatory memorandum. This suggests that these
provisions may be delayed and that the House of Commons may have
some further debate on the WIPO Internet treaties - perhaps
including why the government went far beyond treaty requirements -
whenever the government does pursue bringing the treaties into
force.
The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics has released its study on privacy and social media.
The report includes recommendations for new Privacy Commissioner
guidelines. The NDP supplemented those recommendations with nine
additional legislative proposals that include mandatory security breach
disclosure, order making power for the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,
and the inclusion of privacy issues as part of a national digital
economy strategy.Apr.23/13Comments (1)
The federal government has responded
to a question from MP Charlie Angus on privacy and security breaches by
revealing that there have been thousands of breaches over the past
decade. The stunning response acknowledges over 3,000 breaches that have
affected over a million Canadians.Apr.23/13Comments (0)
The debate over the state of wireless competition in Canada continues to rage. Last week, I appeared on CBC's The Current,
as part of a 30 minute segment devoted to the wireless industry. The
issue was also discussed during Question Period at the House of Commons,
with Industry Minister Christian Paradis focusing on competition and consumers:
We want to enhance competition and investment in this country, and
this is why we adopted this policy back in 2008 for the AWS spectrum.
Let me say that the price went down by an average of 11% since then, and
we will continue this way with the 700 megahertz spectrum. We launched
consultation with the industry to make sure that we enhance competition
and provide better choice and better rates for our consumers.
OpenMedia has an interesting post
that takes a close look at the claim that the large Canadian geography
is responsible for high cell phone prices. The post notes that coverage
actually focuses on as little as 20 percent of the country. Apr.22/13Comments (0)
Ted Menzies, the Minister of State for Finance, yesterday delivered a talk
on the Canada - EU Trade Agreement that marked an important shift in
the government's rhetoric on the agreement. Aside from a bizarre
reference to the value of the agreement being $17 trillion dollars
(total Canadian GDP is $1.8 trillion), the talk is most notable from the
move away from promising swift completion of the agreement. After years
of setting missed deadlines, Menzies now says there is no deadline for
completion, suggesting that the government is beginning to hedge on
whether there even will be a deal. I wrote about the prospect of the agreement dying altogether last month.Apr.11/13Comments (0)
Peter Nowak is back with another thorough debunking of many of the wireless myths about the competitiveness of the Canadian market. Apr.11/13Comments (0)
Peter Nowak has a great post
that takes another look at the state of the Canadian wireless market.
Nowak uses the latest data from Bank of America Merrill Lynch Wireless
Matrix to find that the Canadian carriers' ARPU ranks as the highest in
the world, that profit margin is the fifth highest in the world, and
that Canada's smartphone penetration is not nearly as strong as some
suggest.Mar.18/13Comments (2)
The European Commission's Joint Research Centre has released a report that finds that online music piracy does not harm sales. The report
examined the browsing habits of more than 16,000 European consumers. It
found that an increase in clicks on infringing sites led to a small
increase in clicks on authorized music sales sites.Mar.18/13Comments (2)
The National Post has a disturbing story on a new code of conduct at Library and Archives Canada, which appears to muzzle librarians, going so far as to describe teaching or speaking at conferences as "high risk".Mar.18/13Comments (7)
Last week I wrote about the National Post seeking $150 licences for posting short
excerpts online. It appears that the paper has now dropped the system.
