Thanks to the hard work of my research assistant Keith Rose, posted below is comparison chart of the two Conservative copyright bills - this week's C-32 vs. the 2008 C-61 bill. An annotated version can be accessed here. A straight comparison is available here and embedded below.
With a copyright bill only weeks away, thousands of Canadians are again speaking out for a fair, balanced approach. The public interest in copyright has predictably led to mischaracterizations of fair copyright as some claim that it is really about wanting everything for free or about opposing copyright reform. This increasingly leads to a blame the user mentality - the award-winning Vancouver Film School video on DRM and the Amazon Kindle incident from last summer discussed in yesterday's post is labeled as "ridiculous fear-mongering" (yet for years rights holders opened every movie with this film) or users are said to ignore creator concerns with a "gimme" attitude (yet the Writers Union recently urged its members to lobby MPs by claiming that flexible fair dealing would legalize theft).
The reality is that inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric can be found on both creator and consumer-focused sites. There are undoubtedly some who use fair copyright to justify obvious cases of infringement, just as there are those that use copyright reform to preserve outdated business models or to guard against uses that the Supreme Court of Canada would surely view as fair dealing. Even a cursory search for online discussion demonstrates that claims that "sensationalist campaigning" on Canadian copyright is primarily found on sites such as mine are simply wrong.
So yet again in an effort to separate fact from fiction, here is my submission to the copyright consultation from last summer. It doesn't call for everything to be free, it calls for WIPO implementation, and it emphasizes that updating the law means accounting for both creator and consumer needs. As I've discussed over the past ten days, sources say Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore has largely rejected this submission - along with thousands of other submissions calling for a fair copyright approach - but it can't hurt to reiterate what those reforms could look like. For the many Canadians whose views may also be ignored, now is a good time to remind their MPs and the Ministers what they think the copyright bill should contain.
In addition to my Hill Times op-ed this week on the transformation of Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore from iPod minister to iPadlock minister, the paper includes a second article with some predictions for copyright reform. The opening of the article includes a quote from Canadian Heritage Parliamentary Secretary Dean Del Mastro on the reform process:
"It would be naïve of me to say that we could introduce a bill on copyright that would be loved on all sides."
Del Mastro's comment is consistent with the conventional wisdom on copyright reform, namely that it is a contentious issue pitting users against creators that is difficult to reconcile. Yet the conventional wisdom here may be wrong. It is true that a copyright bill is unlikely to be loved by all sides. In fact, a bill loved by any side is probably a bill that does not strike the right balance (that is one of the reasons Moore's shift to strong support for C-61 digital lock rules is so problematic - one group loves it, some tolerate it, many hate it). Far better, is a bill that is acceptable to all sides. That means there will be compromises for all with the goal of crafting a bill that meets the most stakeholder needs and maintains the copyright balance.
Is that possible? I think so. The key elements in such a bill would include:
With a new copyright bill that may look much like Bill C-61 likely within a matter of weeks, I've launched a new Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook page (distinct from the group) that can be used to keep current and learn more about what can be done as events unfold. Join today.
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan announced yesterday that the government is imposing time allocation on the second reading debate on Bill C-11. That means debate on the bill should conclude on Friday and the bill will be sent to committee for further hearings and review. While the government's overuse of time allocation is a concern, sending C-11 to committee places the core issues on the table - will it amend the digital lock rules as so many are asking and/or will it cave to copyright lobby pressure and add SOPA-style amendments to the bill? Now is the time to speak out.Feb.08/12Comments (5)
Alexander Furnas explains
in the Atlantic why the broader implications of ACTA may make it as bad
as SOPA. Furnas notes "while many of the alarmists specific claims are
inaccurate, ACTA exposes the systemic danger in how international
intellectual property regulation has evolved over the last 20 years." Feb.07/12Comments (0)
Kris Kotarski writes an opinion
piece in the Calgary Herald that calls attention to the lobby panic
that leads to legislation like SOPA and ACTA.
Feb.07/12Comments (0)
The National Post featured an op-ed
from Jesse Kline
over the weekend that notes "the essential question that must be
addressed going forward is whether government regulation is needed to
protect industries that have failed to innovate." He says the answer is
no.
Feb.07/12Comments (3)
John Ibbitson discusses
the implications
for Canada of joining the Trans Pacific Partnership, noting it would
likely include surrendering Canadian sovereignty over copyright law. A
reminder that the government is currently consulting on the TPP.
Details on the agreement and participating here, here, and
here.
Feb.06/12Comments (0)
Open Media has launched a new
campaign
against copyright reforms that threaten digital rights including the
prospect of website blocking, Internet termination, and digital locks.
Feb.06/12Comments (0)
AccessNow is maintaining an excellent
map
of the protests planned across the continent on February 11th, which
has been designated an international day of action against ACTA. The
issue has attracted mainstream media attention (eg. New
York Times) and questions
emerge about the likelihood the treaty will receive the necessary
approvals for ratification.
Feb.06/12Comments (0)
Entertainment software giant Ubisoft, who the Ontario government gave $263 million in
2009 to create 80 jobs per year over 10 years (or $328,750 per job),
has advised
its customers that its games may not work sometime this week due to its
reliance on digital locks and the migration of data servers. Feb.06/12Comments (4)
Last week Rogers advised
the CRTC that it plans to drop
Internet throttling for all customers by the end of the year. The
move was not unexpected given that its policy was an outlier
among all major Canadian ISPs. I'll have more to say on this
development soon.
Feb.06/12Comments (1)
