|
Sunday January 15, 2006 |
While there has been great interest in the Bulte story for the past two weeks (which continues with Cory Doctorow's terrific op-ed yesterday on the dangers of U.S. style copyright reform in the Toronto Star, Rob Hyndman's great post on the impact of blogs, and the Globe's Matthew Ingram), I think it is important to understand that Thursday's fundraiser and the history of financial contributions is only a small sample of the link between lobbying and campaign contributions with copyright reform.
Using government records and information obtained under the Access to Information Act, my Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, freely available version) reveals a process that is badly skewed toward lobby interests and in serious need of reform. From the column:
Industry Canada' s Lobbyist Registration Database includes dozens of registered lobbyists for copyright interests. For example, the Canadian Recording Industry Association currently has five registered lobbyists on its payroll, while Access Copyright' s similarly sized contingent of five registered lobbyists even includes former MP Paul Bonwick, a Bulte contributor who worked closely with her on a 2004 copyright report while both served on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Financial contributions to political parties and MPs are commonplace, which helps to explain Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association President Douglas Frith' s response to the furor over the Bulte fundraiser. Frith argued that the process was balanced by virtue of his organization' s financial support for both Liberal and Conservative candidates.
According to Elections Canada, in the decade from 1993 to 2003, CRIA provided campaign contributions to the Liberal party in every year with the exception of 2001. While during many years only modest amounts were donated, by far the largest contribution was made in 1998, which came immediately after the passage of copyright reform. That reform bill included the establishment of the private copying levy that has since generated more than $140 million in revenue for the industry and artists.
While the impact of lobbyists occasionally comes into public view through the presence of MPs at industry-sponsored events, most of it is evident only behind closed doors.
Greater access to Ministers and government officials is certainly one of the most important consequences. A March 2002 letter from then CRIA President Brian Robertson to newly appointed Industry Minister Allan Rock, obtained under the Access to Information Act, provides a classic illustration of this phenomenon.
The CRIA letter congratulates Rock on his new position and urges him to support ratification of the World Intellectual Property Organization' s Internet treaties. Rock is advised that CRIA has enjoyed a very productive dialogue with Canadian Heritage Minister Sheila Copps "persuasive enough to have the Minister of Heritage publicly state. . . that it was now the government' s intention to ratify the Treaties."
The copyright lobby has also proven successful in obtaining greater representation before parliamentary committees as well as in securing meetings with government officials. During Bulte' s tenure as chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in 2004, the committee was perceived to be decidedly pro-copyright lobby with panels stacked against user interests.
That perception is borne out by internal government documents which verify that Bulte shot down a proposal to allow Industry Committee MPs, who are generally perceived to provide a technology-focused balance to the debate, to attend copyright hearings. Bulte's terse response indicated that "the chair of the heritage committee is not open to the suggestion of inviting industry committee members."
The copyright lobby also meets regularly with government officials. A document obtained under the Access to Information Act titled "List of meetings between Canadian Heritage' s Copyright Policy Branch and its stakeholders in copyright reform" indicates that in the nearly thirteen months between April 1, 2004 and April 25, 2005, government and policy officials from that department met or held teleconferences 15 times with Access Copyright, 14 times with music collectives, seven times with CRIA, and five times with publisher associations. Meanwhile, the document lists only one meeting with education groups, two meetings with public interest groups, and two meetings with technology groups.
In fact, the close connection between the copyright lobby and government can even extend to contracts. Last year, the Canadian Publishers' Council, whose executive director is one of the hosts of the Bulte fundraiser, obtained a $20,000 contract for a "copyright awareness initiative" whose goal was to develop an Internet-based social awareness campaign to "engage young people in a new conversation about copyright."
I conclude by arguing that copyright policy must be both fair and seen to be fair. It is time for a new approach that starts with a commitment from all MPs who accept funds from the copyright lobby not to serve in Ministerial positions or on legislative committees that involve copyright policy. The final week of the election campaign provides the ideal opportunity for Canada' s leaders to begin to clean up Canadian copyright.bulte, c-60, copyright, cria, michael geist Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareSunday January 15, 2006 |
|
|
Friday January 13, 2006 |
|
Every so often there is a posting that you simply must read. And then re-read. Speaking Out of Turn, from acclaimed Canadian musician Matthew Good, is that posting.bulte, copyright, cria, matthew good, michael geist Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday January 13, 2006 |
|
|
Wednesday January 11, 2006 |
While Ms. Bulte has expressed a willingness to debate me on copyright issues sometime in the future, yesterday we both discussed the fundraiser issue on CBC Radio's Ontario Today. I was interviewed first, followed by Bulte (real audio streams of interviews available at Geist, Bulte not working at the moment). Bulte raised three points that I think merit comment (not including taking another swipe at me at the end of the interview). First, she tried (unsuccessfully in my view) to distinguish between the hosting of a fundraiser and the sponsorship of a fundraiser. She argued that CRIA, CMPDA, et al are merely hosting the event, rather than sponsoring it. I don't think the argument did much for host Alan Neal as it feels like a Canadian version of "weapon of mass destruction related programs". The problem here is holding a fundraiser directly linked to industry lobby groups four days before an election. Whether sponsored or hosted, the concern remains the same. Second, Bulte demonstrated the danger of drawing directly from the CRIA playbook. She professed to represent the interests of artists in her riding, yet again made a point of raising the downloading issue. The problem with this approach is that downloading has little to do with the interests of those same individual artists. Fighting for Canadian artists is admirable but Bulte is seemingly using that support as a cover for advocating U.S. backed policies and organizations that contribute very little to the development of new Canadian music much less Canadian culture. Third, Bulte made the startling claim that while artists were not well represented, Internet users have great support coming from Industry Canada. This will be news to Industry Canada and once again does not stand up to scrutiny. Consider the hearings before Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the spring 2004 which led to the Bulte report. Bulte chaired that committee and certainly could have ensured that the hearings were balanced. Unfortunately, user groups were scarcely heard from and there was no government ministry there to defend user interests. On the other hand, the copyright industries were out in full force with the music industry and collectives represented by CRIA, SOCAN, ADISQ, CMRRA, and the CPCC among others. In fact, there is more to this story. According to documents obtained under an Access to Information request, as chair of the committee Ms. Bulte actively opposed the inclusion of an industry perspective in deliberations on copyright before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. An email request from a senior Canadian Heritage official days before committee hearings in March 2004 asked whether invitations might be extended to members of the Industry Committee. The terse response from an official says it all: "The chair of the heritage ctee is not open to the suggestion of inviting industry ctee members." So while Ms. Bulte claims that users can rely on Industry support, the truth is that she has actively opposed inclusion of that perspective. That kind of balance is precisely why so many Canadians are troubled by the revelations involving Bulte and the financial support of some of the groups that appeared before her committee.
Update: I've just learned that Online Rights Canada, a joint initiative between EFF and CIPPIC, has launched a petition calling on all Canadian politicians to take the Copyright Pledge. Learn more here and sign here. bulte, copyright, cria, fundraising Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday January 11, 2006 |
|
|
Wednesday January 11, 2006 |
Not to be overlooked by the Bulte issue is the fact that the major parties have provided some feedback into their views on copyright (many individual candidates have as well - those are posted at Digital-Copyright.ca). The Canadian Teachers Federation obtained responses from all parties on the education issue and access to publicly available materials on the Internet. The Liberals confirmed their decision to shift away from the Bulte report by again committing to a consultation on the issue.
The Conservatives and NDP took stronger pro-education stands. The Conservatives confirmed that they are "fighting alongside provincial education ministers and educators for the addition of an amendment that would allow teachers, researchers, and students to access publicly available material online." The NDP expressed concerns about the Bulte report, noting that the "Heritage Committee recommendations [on bill C-60] could put up barriers that would see schools pay extended licensing fees for students' use of online content and even limit rights libraries hold to share Internet resources." The Liberal party platform has also been leaked and it contains a single paragraph on copyright reconfirming the intent to bring back Bill C-60. It states that: "Following several years of debate and consultation, the Martin government introduced legislation to amend the Copyright Act. Although this bill died when the opposition forced the election, a Liberal government will reintroduce it to give Canadian creators and their works protection without nullifying the great public benefits made possible by digital technologies." The most troubling response yet also comes from the Liberals who responded to CIPPIC's question about the need for protection from DRM in light of the Sony Rootkit fiasco. Their none-too-encouraging response? "The Liberal Party of Canada supports technology that protects digital artistic content and we will continue to work hard to facilitate consensus amongst stakeholders in copyright matters. We introduced a wide ranging piece of copyright legislation in the last Parliamentary session that encourages creativity and protects the rights of creators, while ensuring diffusion of knowledge and access to cultural products."
Update: The NDP has released its platform and it includes a policy recommendation that actually would benefit artists. Rather than focusing on unnecessary copyright reform, the party is calling for an Income tax exemption for the first $30,000 on copyright and certain royalty income.
c-60, conservatives, copyright, liberal, michael geist, ndp Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday January 11, 2006 |
|
|