Months of public debate over the future of Canadian copyright law were quietly decided earlier this week, when sources say the Prime Minister's Office reached a verdict over the direction of the next copyright bill. The PMO was forced to make the call after Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Tony Clement were unable to reach consensus on the broad framework of a new bill. As I reported last week, Moore has argued for a virtual repeat of Bill C-61, with strong digital locks provisions similar to those found in the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act and a rejection of a flexible fair dealing approach. Consistent with earlier comments on the need for a forward-looking, flexible approach, Clement argued for changes from C-61.
With mounting pressure from the U.S. - there have been repeated meetings with senior U.S. officials in recent weeks - the PMO sided squarely with Moore's vision of a U.S.-style copyright law. The detailed provisions will be negotiated over the coming weeks by the respective departments, but they now have their marching orders of completing a bill that will satisfy the U.S. that comes complete with tough anti-circumvention rules and no flexible fair dealing provision.
The bill is not expected until June, but it will have dramatic repercussions once introduced. First, the bill represents a stunning reversal from the government's seeming shift away from C-61 and its commitment to a bill based on the national copyright consultation. Instead, the consultation appears to have been little more than theatre, with the PMO and Moore choosing to dismiss public opinion. Second, after adopting distinctly pro-consumer positions on other issues, Moore has abandoned that approach with support for what may become the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history. Third, the bill will immediately impact the Canadian position at the ACTA and CETA negotiations, where the bill's provisions on anti-circumvention and ISP liability will effectively become the Canadian delegation position.
For those wondering what can be done, my only answer is to speak out now. Write a paper letter to your Member of Parliament and send copies to the Prime Minister, Moore, Clement and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. No stamp is required - be sure to include your home address and send it to the House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6. Once that is done, join the Facebook group and the Facebook page and be sure to ask others do the same. You may spoken out before, but your voice is needed yet again.
I have blogged in the past about the evolving communication strategy for Industry Minister Jim Prentice and copyright reform. Just prior to the release of the bill, I posted an "unofficial" backgrounder that noted that Prentice was hoping to shuffle the bill to the committee so that he would not have to deal with it all summer long. True to form, Prentice's brief responses at this weekend's Stampede Breakfast suggest that this is precisely the line that he intends to use. Having had limited success with the "made in Canada" claims and absolute disasters when asked about specifics in the bill (note that Kempton Lam reports that Prentice's chief of staff Jean-Sebastien Riouxsays that people have been "too specific" about the bill's shortcomings), Prentice is now hoping to simply not answer questions by claiming that there will be an opportunity to debate the bill at committee. In this exchange with Jan Rubak, Prentice is asked:
Question: Canadians have a hundred questions about the Copyright reform bill. Are you going to actually answer them straight-out sometime soon?
Prentice: Well there'll be opportunity at the Parliamentary committee to debate all of those.
In other words, Prentice does not plan to answer questions about Bill C-61. Having previously hung up on interviewers, he now hopes to hide behind a committee despite the fact that the bill has not even been referred to committee yet. Canadians should not have to wait months for answers. It is the time for the Minister to stand up and respond to specific concerns about Bill C-61.
I've posted typical responses from the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP to C-61. Several people have written with the Bloc response, which receives good coverage from Patrick Tanguay.
Since the introduction of Bill C-61 two weeks ago, there has been extensive coverage and commentary in the Canadian media. I've created a Google Map that tracks the coverage - red indicates a negative review, yellow a neutral one, and blue represents positive coverage. There are links to all the underlying articles on the map and I'll be updating this regularly.
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)
