Last week I delivered a talk on copyright reform at Concordia University titled Why Copyright. It focused on the response to Bill C-61, the growth of Fair Copyright for Canada, and the potential for different copyright reform choices. The talk - slides and audio - are embedded below.
The 61 reforms to Bill C-61 project concludes with one of the most puzzling provisions in the bill. Bill C-61 adds the following to copyright owners' basic set of exclusive rights:
in the case of a work that can be put into circulation as a tangible object, to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the tangible object, as long as the ownership of that tangible object has never previously been transferred with the authorization of the author in or outside Canada,
There is considerable debate among the copyright community about why this provision has been added and what it achieves. At first blush, it appears to be a codification of the first sale doctrine - the notion that the copyright owner holds the right of first sale and after that the work may be resold without permission. Another possibility is that the provision is designed to reverse the holding in Theberge, an important 2002 Supreme Court of Canada case in which the court rejected Quebec painter Claude Theberge's attempt to stop the transfer of his works from a poster to canvas on the grounds that there was no reproduction.
The most disconcerting interpretation, however, is that it provides broad new rights over any tangible object of a work. This could come into effect in any number of cases. For example, consider the controversy over the sale of a handful of Harry Potter books before the release date. This new provision could be used not only to stop the sales - the books are a tangible object never previously transferred with the authorization of the author - but could leave the sellers open to statutory damages for having infringed copyright by selling the book. The same provision could similarly interfere with the grey market, where legally obtained copies of books, CDs, or other works in one country are stopped from sale in another country. While some of these concerns may be legitimate, they can also typically be addressed by commercial agreement. It is not entirely clear why we need such a significant reform to the Copyright Act to address the issue.
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)
