Last week, I delivered a keynote
address on copyright issues at the University of South Florida St.
Petersburg. The talk focused on the activism around SOPA and assessed
the global strategies employed by the U.S. and copyright lobby groups
of shifting away from WIPO toward closed negotiations such as the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
The reports
that the music industry lobby (along with the Entertainment Software
Association of Canada and the movie lobby) is seeking the inclusion of
SOPA-style provisions into Bill C-11 has generated considerable
discussion online and in the mainstream media (CBC,
Financial
Post).
Yesterday, Balanced Copyright for Canada, the group backed by the music
industry, fired back with several tweets claiming that opposing their
reforms would benefit "illegal
BitTorrent sites"and "illegal
hosting sites."
Leaving aside the fact that if these sites are illegal, they are
by-definition already in violation of current law, the claims point to
what seems likely to become a SOPA-like scare campaign that seeks to
paint skeptics of CRIA demands as supporters of piracy.
These claims involve two different issues with Bill C-11. The first are
the digital lock provisions, which dozens of
organizations
(including businesses, the Retail Council of Canada, creator groups,
consumer groups, and education associations) have argued are overly
restrictive. The proposed solution is to link circumvention of a
digital lock with actual copyright infringement, an approach that is
consistent with the WIPO Internet treaties and has been adopted by
trading partners such as New Zealand and Switzerland (Canada even
proposed the approach in Bill C-60). These amendments would not
legalize hacking businesses, but rather ensure that the same balance
that exists offline is retained in the digital environment.
The second issue involves expansion of the "enabler provision"
currently proposed in Bill C-11. I have pointed out that Canadian law
appears to effectively address these sites as the music industry is
currently suing
isoHunt
for millions of dollars based on the current law. In the event that
more certainty is needed, the current enabler provision would grant
even more powers to rights holders to target these sites. Yet that is
apparently not good enough for the music, software, and movie lobby
groups, who want to expand the enabler provision to include SOPA-like
liability as well as add website blocking injunctions to Canadian law.
The danger with this approach is that it threatens to target
perfectly legitimate websites.
Arguing against an overbroad enabler provision is not siding with
illegal sites, but rather ensuring that legal ones are not caught by
the dragnet.
The music industry claims to be a big supporter of Bill C-11, yet few
groups have demanded
more changes. In fact, when it appeared before the House of Commons
committee reviewing the bill, one MP noted
that their demands were "substantial" and "anything but minor."
Their demands include:
expansion of the enabler provision to include SOPA-style expanded
liability
create new injunction powers to block websites
create new injunction powers to remove content from websites
require ISPs to implement a policy on repeat infringers that
could include Internet termination
remove the non-commercial liability cap for statutory damages
restrict the user-generated content provision
create new limits on personal copying exception
create new limits on time shifting exception
create additional limits on backup copy provision
limit the safe harbour for ISPs
limit the safe harbour for caching activities
limit the safe harbour for hosting content
limit the search engine (ILT) exception
eliminate the ephemeral recording amendment
The music industry is seeking a huge overhaul of Bill C-32 that makes
any requests for adjusting the digital lock rules look minor by
comparison. As it escalates the rhetoric by claiming critics stand with
piracy, it is apparent that the lobby groups' fight to blend a Canadian
DMCA with a Canadian SOPA will only intensify in the weeks ahead.
Reports indicate that Industry Minister Christian Paradis could unveil
the government's spectrum
auction and telecom
foreign ownership policies this month. My weekly technology law
column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) provided a preview of some the key issues. While interest
in spectrum auction policy is typically limited to
telecom companies and business analysts, all Canadians have a stake in
this decision. The available spectrum - known as the 700 MHz spectrum -
opens up a host of possibilities for new innovation, competitors, and
open Internet access. It is viewed as particularly valuable spectrum
since it easily penetrates walls, making it ideal for delivering
wireless high-speed Internet services.
Auctioning the spectrum raises a host of critical policy choices.
Topping the list is whether the government tinkers with the auction
framework to help foster greater marketplace competition. Some of the
large incumbents unsurprisingly favour an “open auction” with no
bidding limits, but assuming Paradis concludes that some measures are
needed, the choice will likely come down to either a spectrum set-aside
that reserves some spectrum for new entrants and smaller companies or
spectrum caps.
The last spectrum auction included a set-aside, which opened the door
to a handful of new competitors such as Globalive, PublicMobile, and
Mobilicity. A further set-aside may make sense since this round of new
entrants may look to use the spectrum primarily for wireless broadband
services, providing a potential alternative to the cable and telecom
dominance.
If another set-aside proves too unwieldy, a spectrum cap, which would
limit the amount of spectrum any single company could hold, may emerge
as the alternative. A spectrum cap might prove effective if combined
with two additional conditions.
First, the implementation of a use-it-or-lose it principle that would
require all bidders to use the spectrum within a defined period. The
use-it-or-lose-it approach would help guard against the hoarding of
spectrum, particularly for incumbents who may overbid in the hopes of
keeping new competitors out of the market.
Second, safeguards against opportunistic flipping of the spectrum with
the prohibition on its sale within the first five years of the auction.
The trio of policies – caps, mandatory use, and a block on transfer,
may increase the number of successful bidders.
Another critical issue is who should be entitled to bid for the
spectrum. The last spectrum auction featured Canadian ownership
requirements, thereby limiting potential entrants. Given that Canada is
one of the only developed countries that has retained significant
telecom foreign ownership restrictions, the auction provides a
tailor-made opportunity to eliminate the restrictions by opening the
market to all bidders.
The spectrum policy decision will also determine which spectrum is
available for auction and which is reserved for alternate purposes. The
government has already indicated that it plans to grant some of the
spectrum to law enforcement agencies, which intend to create their own
emergency wireless network.
Many leading technology companies have recommended allocating some of
the spectrum for unlicensed purposes. This spectrum, which would be
free to anyone to use without the need for licence or government
approval, could yield new services and technologies.
Beyond the technical details of the spectrum auction, the final
billion-dollar question is what the government should do with the
auction proceeds. While the $4 billion in proceeds from the last
auction went into general revenues, this auction represents the best –
perhaps only – opportunity to access billions of non-tax dollars for
the digital economy. The money could be used to support broadband
initiatives, digital content creation, and digital skills
programs.
Last night I appeared
on George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight
with a short "Soapbox" segment to explain mounting concerns over Bill
C-11. The program has posted a video version of my comments on some of
the digital lock issues in the bill and the demands for SOPA-style
amendments.
Akamai has released its latest State
of the Internet Report
and it finds that Canada continues to slide in global broadband
rankings. Last year, the Akamai report was often favoured by those who
took issue with criticisms of Canadian broadband, claiming
it offered "an objective sanity check" on comparative broadband speeds.
If so, even Akamai now finds Canadian broadband declining when compared
to other countries.
Just six months ago, Canada was tied for
9th in average broadband speed. According to the latest
report,
Canada now sits tied with Hungary for 14th behind countries that
include the United Arab Emirates, Romania, the Czech Republic, and
Ireland. On the peak connection speed, Canada ranks 19th in the world.
The data isn't very impressive on the mobile broadband metrics either.
The mobile broadband speed measured carriers around the world including
one Canadian carrier. The Canadian carrier ranked 68th worldwide for
average broadband speed, below carriers in every region of the world.
In recent days there has been massive new interest in Canadian
copyright reform as thousands of people write to their MPs to express
concern about the prospect of adding SOPA-style rules to Bill C-11
(there are even plans for public protests
beginning to emerge). The interest has resulted in some completely unacceptable threats
and confusion -
some claiming that the Canadian bill will be passed within 14 days (not
true) and others stating that proposed SOPA-style changes are nothing
more than technical changes to the bill (also not true). Even the
mainstream media is getting into the mix, with the Financial Post's
Terrance Corcoran offering
his "expert" legal opinion that CRIA's lawyers are likely to lose their
lawsuit
against isoHunt.
Given the
importance of Canadians speaking out accurately on Bill C-11, ACTA, and
the TPP, I've posted ten key questions and answers to sort through the
claims. The first eight questions address the links between Bill C-11
and SOPA as well as proposed changes to the current copyright law. The
final two question focus on ACTA and the TPP. Read More ...
1. What, if
anything, are the links between current Bill C-11 and SOPA?
Bill C-11, the Canadian copyright reform bill, is the latest iteration
of several attempts at Canadian copyright reform. There is a lot to
like about the bill: it includes an expansion of the fair dealing
provision, new consumer rights for format shifting, time shifting, and
backup copies, a provision facilitating user generated content, a new
distinction between commercial and non-commercial infringement, as well
as a fair and effective approach to Internet provider liability. Some
of these provisions are not perfect (flexible fair dealing would be
better than the C-11 model, eliminating statutory damages for
non-commercial infringement is needed), but the bill is far better than
prior Conservative copyright bills.
As I have stated since its introduction, Bill C-11 is flawed but
fixable.
The major problem with the bill remains the digital
lock provisions,
which eviscerate many of the new consumer rights and undermine fair
dealing. The approach has been widely
criticized
by dozens of groups representing business, creators, consumers,
educators, and librarians. The proponents of the digital lock rules are
chiefly U.S.-backed lobby groups, the same groups that were behind SOPA
in the U.S. In fact, there is considerable
evidence
that the Canadian approach is a direct result of ongoing U.S. pressure
on the issue. Had SOPA passed, it included a provision requiring
further linkages between U.S. trade pressure and intellectual property
policy.
2. Could Bill C-11
become more like SOPA?
Yes. Last week, I noted that music and entertainment software lobby
groups have proposed
SOPA-style changes to C-11.
For example, the industry wants language to similar to that found in
SOPA on blocking access to websites, demanding new provisions that
would "permit a court to make an order blocking a pirate site such as
The Pirate Bay to protect the Canadian marketplace from foreign pirate
sites." Section 102 of SOPA also envisioned blocking of websites.
Several lobby groups also want language similar to that found in the
infamous Section 103 of SOPA. That provision, which spoke of sites
"primarily designed or operated for the purpose of...offering goods or
services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates"
infringement, raised fears that it could be used to shut down
mainstream sites such as Youtube.
According to a music
industry document,
Bill C-11's "enabler provision" should be expanded to include "services
that are primarily operated to enable infringement or which induce
infringement." Those demands are echoed by the Entertainment Software
Association of Canada, which called on the government to "amend the
enabling provision to ensure that it applies to services that are
"designed or operated" primarily to enable acts of infringement." Both
groups also want statutory damages added to the enabler provision so
that liability can run into the millions of dollars for a target
website.
Bill C-11 committee member Dean Del Mastro, a Conservative MP,
specifically referenced the enabler provision in a recent
interview
about potential changes and there are rumours that the U.S. government
is pushing the Canadian government to toughen the enabler provision
(while keeping the digital lock rules unchanged).
3. Are there plans
to add "three strikes and you're out" Internet termination rules to
Bill C-11?
The government has indicated that it does not want to add Internet
termination (often called graduated response) to the bill.
However,
the music industry is demanding that Internet providers be required to
adopt a termination policy for subscribers that are alleged to be
repeat infringers. According to the music industry document:
To incent service providers to
cooperate in stemming piracy by requiring them to adopt and reasonably
implement a policy to prevent the use of their services by repeat
infringers and by conditioning the availability of service provider
exceptions on this being done.
This demand would move Canada toward the graduated response policy that
could result in loss of Internet service for Internet users. There is
no indication in the music industry document of due process or even
proof of infringement.
4. Are these
SOPA-style changes simply technical amendments?
No. The expansion of the enabler provision to include SOPA-style rules
could create new legal risk for legitimate websites. For example,
last
week I illustrated how the rules
could be used to target online video sites such as Youtube.
If those proposed changes are adopted, it could create a huge chill in
the investment and technology community in Canada. Online video sites,
cloud computing sites, and other online services may look at the Bill
C-11 and fear that even a lawsuit could create massive costs, scare
away investors, and stifle new innovation.
5. Can Bill C-11 be
fixed?
I believe the answer is yes. First, the SOPA-style demands,
including website blocking, Internet termination, and expanded
liability, must be rejected. Second, the digital lock provisions must
be fixed by linking circumvention of digital locks to copyright
infringement. Such an approach enjoys broad support as it would provide
legal protection for
digital locks, be consistent with the WIPO Internet treaties, and
follow the model of trading partners such as New Zealand and
Switzerland.
6. Aren't these
digital lock rules needed to help the music industry?
No. As the industry itself now promotes,
Canada is a leader when it comes to online music sales. Canada is the
6th largest market for recorded music in the world, ranking 6th for
digital sales and 7th for physical sales. Digital sales have grown
faster in Canada than the U.S. for the past five consecutive years.
There are wide range of online music services in Canada, all created
without restrictive digital lock rules. I delivered a full
talk on the issue titled Why Copyright
Reform Is Not the Cure for What Ails the Music Industry last year
at the Nova Scotia Music Week conference (talk sources).
7. Aren't these
digital lock rules needed to help the entertainment software industry?
No. The Entertainment Software Association of Canada has been one of
the most outspoken proponents of restrictive digital lock rules. Yet
its own evidence demonstrates why balanced digital lock rules do not put
the industry at risk. In 2007, it released a report called Entertainment
Software: The Industry in Canada,
which estimated that there were approximately 9,000 video game jobs in
Canada. Four years later, the industry has grown to 16,000 jobs, yet
Canada has had no digital lock legislation during that period. In other
words, without any changes to Canadian copyright law, the industry has
emerged as a major success story.
Not only is the claim unsupported by years of experience, but when the
industry was recently asked about perceived risks, copyright concerns
fell well down on the list. Last year, the ESAC commissioned a study
by SECOR Consulting
that surveyed the industry and asked for the top three risks faced by
the Canadian video game industry over the next two to five years.
Copyright ranked far behind many other concerns.
8. Aren't these digital
lock rules needed to be compliant with international law?
9. Where does Canada
stand on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)?
Canada signed
ACTA
in October of last year. At the moment, ratification of ACTA will
require legislative change in Canada. Some of those changes are
contained in Bill C-11, but not all. A second intellectual property
enforcement bill is expected to be introduced in Canada later this year
that will provide new powers to customs officials as well as other
measures. The Department of Foreign Affairs is presently conducting an open
consultation on ACTA. Email your comments
to the department or write Consultations and Liaison Division (BSL),
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Foreign Affairs and
International Trade Canada, Lester B. Pearson Building, 125 Sussex
Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G2.
10. Where does
Canada stand on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?
The Canadian government filed notice
of a public consultation
on December 31, 2011 on the possible Canadian entry into the Trans
Pacific Partnership negotiations, trade talks that could result in an
extension in the term of copyright that would mean nothing new would
enter the Canadian public domain until 2032 or beyond. The TPP covers a
wide range of issues, but its intellectual property rules as
contemplated by leaked U.S. drafts would extend the term of copyright,
require even stricter digital lock rules, restrict trade in parallel
imports, and increase various infringement penalties. I've written
about the effect in Canada here, here, and
here.
The major intellectual property lobby groups want to keep Canada out of
the deal until we cave to the current U.S. copyright demands. The IIPA,
which represents the major movie, music, and software lobby
associations, points to copyright reform and new border measures as
evidence of the need for Canadian reforms and states "we urge the U.S.
government to use Canada’s expression of interest in the TPP
negotiations as an opportunity to resolve these longstanding concerns
about IPR standards and enforcement." These are the same groups that
supported SOPA in the U.S.
The consultation is open until February 14, 2012. All it takes a single
email with your name, address, and comments on the issue. The email can
be sent to consultations@ international.gc.ca. Alternatively,
submissions can be sent by fax (613-944-3489) or mail (Trade
Negotiations Consultations (TPP), Foreign Affairs and International
Trade Canada, Trade Policy and Negotiations Division II (TPW), Lester
B. Pearson Building, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2).
Throughout the fall, I ran a daily digital lock dissenter series,
pointing to a wide range of organizations representing creators,
consumers, businesses, educators, historians, archivists, and
librarians who have issued policy statements that are at odds with the
government's approach to digital locks in Bill C-11. While the series
took a break over the Parliamentary holiday, it resumes this week with
more groups and individuals that have spoken out against restrictive
digital lock legislation that fails to strike a fair balance.
New posts will begin tomorrow, but it may be helpful to recount the
series to date, which illustrates that no amount of spin can disguise
the obvious opposition from groups representing millions of Canadians
to the Bill C-11 digital lock provisions:
The protests against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continue
to spread in cities across Europe. The protests began in Poland, where thousands
have taken to the streets and opposition politicians have worn Guy
Fawkes masks in protest against the country signing the agreement last
week. The scenes
from Poland are remarkable, demonstrating the widespread anger over
the decision to join ACTA.
This weekend the protests have spread beyond Poland, with hundreds
protesting in the Czech
Republic, Belgium,
and in cities across France including Paris, Lyon, and Bordeaux
(further Paris video
here). There have also been reports of smaller protests in London
and Dublin.
The ACTA protests appear to be spreading as there are plans for
protests next week in the Czech Republic,
the
Netherlands, Ireland, and Sweden. A full rundown of protest plans
can be found
here. The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on the
agreement later this year.
The reverberations from the SOPA fight continue to be felt in the U.S.
(excellent analysis from Benkler
and Downes)
and elsewhere (mounting Canadian
concern that Bill C-11 could be amended to adopt SOPA-like rules),
but it is the Anti-Counterfeiting
Trade Agreement that has captured increasing attention this week.
Several months after the majority of ACTA participants signed
the agreement, most European Union countries formally
signed the agreement yesterday (notable exclusions include Germany,
the Netherlands, Estonia, Cyprus and Slovakia).
This has generated a flurry of furious protest: thousands
have taken to the streets in protest in Poland, nearly 250,000
people have signed a petition
against the agreement, and a Member of the European Parliament has resigned
his position as rapporteur to scrutinize the agreement, concluding that
the entire review process is a "charade."
Some are characterizing ACTA as worse than SOPA, but the reality is
somewhat more complicated. From a substantive perspective, ACTA's
Internet provisions are plainly not as bad as those contemplated by
SOPA. Over the course of several years of public protest and pressure,
the Internet provisions were gradually watered down with the removal of
three strikes and you're out language. Other controversial provisions
on statutory damages and anti-camcording rules were made optional
rather than mandatory.
While the Internet provisions may not be as bad as SOPA, the remainder
of the agreement raises many significant concerns.
Countries such as
India have expressed
concern
that it conflicts with the TRIPS Agreement. Other elements of the
agreement increase the standards in the WIPO Internet Treaties and the
commercial scale definition at the WTO. The agreement adds new criminal
provisions, pressures ISPs to take greater action, and heightens border
measures. There remains ongoing debate as to whether the substance of
ACTA requires legislative change in many signatory countries (a
somewhat dated site on many ACTA issues here).
Beyond the substantive concerns, the ACTA process remains a major issue
as it sets a dangerous precedent for international IP agreements. For
years, the ACTA process was shrouded in secrecy, with only the
occasional leak bringing plans to light. Wikileaks cables confirmed
that the secrecy was viewed as a serious problem in many participant
countries. In fact, even as most countries supported greater
transparency and the release of draft texts, the U.S. steadfastly
refused, using transparency as a bargaining
chip
to extract concessions from other negotiating partners. In addition to
the transparency problems during the negotiations, the express
exclusion of many countries from the process raises real fears that
they will face increased pressure to meet ACTA standards in the years
ahead.
Given the ongoing concerns, the big question now is whether much can be
done. The majority of ACTA countries have signed the agreement, but it
will only take effect once five countries have formally implemented and
ratified it. That is not expected until at least May 2013, opening the
door to
stopping the agreement from taking effect. While there are global
initiatives such as the AccessNow
petition, much of the activity has shifted to specific countries or
regions:
Europe is home to the
most active anti-ACTA effort since there is still a possibility that
the European Parliament may reject the treaty. There remain serious
doubts about whether ACTA is consistent
with the EU Acquis. Learn more about what can be done at La Quadrature du Net, EDRI, the Open
Rights Group, and FFII.
In Canada, the
Department of Foreign Affairs is conducting an open
consultation on ACTA. Email your comments
to the department or write Consultations and Liaison Division (BSL),
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Foreign Affairs and
International Trade Canada, Lester B. Pearson Building, 125 Sussex
Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G2. A March 2011 Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage report recommended
limiting Canada's ACTA commitments.
In the U.S., much of the
focus is on whether ACTA must be approved by Congress. Senator Wyden
has raised
questions about the issue. KEI has extensive coverage of the U.S.
perspective on ACTA.
In Australia, the Joint
Standing Committee on Treaties is accepting
submissions on ACTA until January 27, 2012 (Kim Weatherall's
submission here). Australia tabled the agreement
in Parliament on November 21, 2011 and has taken the position the
agreement will not require any legislative changes. The Australia
Productivity Commission recommended
in 2010 that Australia not include IP provisions in trade agreements.
The New Zealand
government has posted information on ACTA on its website.
The dangers associated with ACTA are not limited to this particular
agreement. The agreement opens the door to further secretive
negotiations, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership, which contain
extensive IP provisions that extend beyond ACTA. The SOPA battle
was a big win for those concerned with balanced copyright and the open
Internet, but it is by no means the end of the fight.
For many years, the most prominent critic of the Canadian online music
market has been the industry itself. The Canadian Recording
Industry Association (now known as Music Canada) has consistently
argued that few would want to invest in Canada due to the state of our
copyright laws. For example, in 2009, CRIA President Graham
Henderson published an op-ed
that said our trading partners were racing ahead of Canada, which he
argued was a product of Canadian copyright law. A year later, Universal
Music Canada appeared
before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and told MPs the
legal uncertainty meant that the investment was going to other
countries.
This week, the industry seemingly decided to change its tune. It
released a new
guide on licensing digital music in Canada that
identifies the key organizations that license music in Canada,
including the record labels and several copyright collectives. The
report highlights how there are services in Canada in all the major
segments, including digital downloads, non-interactive streaming,
on-demand streaming, and music videos.
There are two things particularly noteworthy about the report. The
first is that the industry is
suddenly promoting statistics that show Canada is actually a leader
when it comes to online music sales, noting that Canada is the 6th
largest market for recorded music in the world, ranking 6th for digital
sales and 7th for physical sales (it might have also noted the digital
sales have grown
faster
in Canada than the U.S. for the past five consecutive years). It also
cites new survey data confirming that young Canadians are music buyers,
which it says leads to the conclusion that Canada "is a digital
greenfield opportunity." This is huge shift from an industry
association that a few years ago likened
Canada to the HBO series Deadwood.
The second is that the guide provides further evidence of the creation
of a digital music market in Canada without digital lock legislation.
The guide points to download services such as iTunes, Hip Digital,
Puretracks, Archambault, HMV Digital, 7Digital; non-interactive
streaming services such as Galaxie Mobile and Slacker Radio; on-demand
streaming such as Rdio, BBM Music, and Zune Music Pass; and streaming
music videos such as YouTube and Vevo. Some of these services use
digital locks, some don't. The experience to date demonstrates that
establishing success online music services is a business issue, not a
legal one. The claim that a balanced approach to digital locks would
harm these businesses (when all these services have launched with no
legal protection for digital locks) is undermined by the industry's own
data, which points to an investment opportunity and the 6th ranked
market in the world.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has announced
the country is suspending its ratification of the Anti-Counterfeitint
Trade Agreement. The announcement comes following huge protests in
cities across the country.
Feb.03/12Comments (0)
Slovenia's Ambassador to Japan offers a full explanation for why she signed ACTA:
I signed ACTA out of civic
carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I
did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign
with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits
and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most
significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the
future of our children.Feb.03/12Comments (0)
Transport Canada has reportedly
issued a DMCA takedown notice to Scribd over an on-the-record response
it provided to a journalist. The move is particularly odd (though not
unprecedented, see here and here) given the document was issued to
a journalist and the government changed its crown
copyright licence last year to allow for private and non-commercial
public use without the need for further permission.
Feb.02/12Comments (0)
It doesn't affect me because I look
at the internet as the new radio. I look at the radio as gone. [...]
Piracy is the new radio. That's how music gets around. [...] That's the
radio. If you really want to hear it, let's make it available, let them
hear it, let them hear the 95 percent of it.Feb.02/12Comments (2)
The Guardian features an exclusive
interview
with Kader Arif, the lead ACTA negotiator in the European Parliament
who quit his position over objections that review process is a charade.
Feb.02/12Comments (0)
The video
from Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian's excellent forum on
lawful access is now available. Well worth watching.
Feb.01/12Comments (1)
The CRTC yesterday released
new net neutrality complaints data. The data shows
a significant increase in the number of complaints in the last quarter
of 2011 when compared with the prior two years. I wrote
about the complaints issue in July 2011 based on data obtained under
the Access to Information Act.
Feb.01/12Comments (1)
European opposition to ACTA continues to mount with Poland's culture
minister admitting
that it may not be approved by the Polish parliament and the Slovenian
ambassador to Japan apologizing
for signing ACTA last week.
Feb.01/12Comments (1)