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fair copyright to justify obvious cases of infringement, just as there are those that use copyright reform to preserve outdated business models or to guard against uses that the Supreme Court of Canada would surely view as fair dealing.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.
Following UBC's
announcement that it will not sign the Access Copyright model
licence, three additional universities have followed suit - Athabasca,
Windsor,
and Winnipeg.
The four universities demonstrate that the licence raises concerns in
all types of universites - big, medium, small and distance-focused.
May.22/12Comments (2)
Reports indicate
that the European Union is set to provide an 80 billion euro boost to
open access by making open access publishing the norm for its Horizon
2020 research program.
May.22/12Comments (0)
Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta says
his country will not ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
unless the European Parliament modifies the agreement. Since the EP
does not have the power to amend ACTA, that makes ratification unlikely.
May.22/12Comments (0)
Dozens of leading U.S. law professors have written
to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance to express concern about the
lack of constitutional authority to approve the Anti-Counterfeiting
Trade Agreement without submitting it for Congressional approval. May.17/12Comments (0)
Harvard Professor Winston Hide has stepped
down from the editorial board of the prestigious Genomics journal
over the lack of open access. May.17/12Comments (0)
In addition to the UBC decision to not sign the Access Copyright model
licence, the Manitoba Library Association has added
its voice
in opposition to the agreement. Moreover, the Trent University Senate
has adopted a motion stating "that the Senate, in solidarity with the
CAUT, the CFS and dozens of other constituent and governing bodies,
reject this unfair and unreasonable AUCC-Access Copyright 'model
license' and instead affirm and abide by 'the right to fair and
reasonable access to copyrighted works for educational purposes.'"
May.16/12Comments (1)
The Globe's John Ibbitson has a column
that confirms much of the private speculation about lawful access,
namely that the bill is going nowhere so long as Vic Toews remains
public safety minister. This is consistent with the prevailing view
that Toews is so closely associated with the worst of the bill -
warrantless disclosure of subscriber information, new surveillance
technologies, and divisive us vs. them framing - that a change will be
needed for the bill to come back. Ibbitson focuses on the likelihood of
Parliament proroging before the bill is revamped and returns, yet
speculating on those issues is always difficult. What is certain
is
that lawful access will return at some point, meaning Canadians will
need to remain vigilant to ensure that any future bill addresses the myriad of
concerns associated with Bill C-30.
May.16/12Comments (2)
Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro offers up one of the oddest copyright
analogies during the C-11 debate, likening format shifting to socks
and shoes.
May.16/12Comments (12)
The Wall Streeet Journal's MarketWatch picks
up
on Canada's missing digital economy strategy, using the Penske File
framing to discuss the failure of Industry Minister Christian Paradis
to lead on the file.
May.16/12Comments (0)
