Canada has formally ratified the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The ratification was a key part of the copyright reform process, leading to contentious debate over the Canadian approach to providing legal protection for digital locks. The treaties will enter into force on August 13, 2014.
WIPO by Eszter Hargittai (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/p7mM3
Canada Ratifies WIPO Internet Treaties
12 Comments
Recent Posts
Canadian Media Companies Target OpenAI in Copyright Lawsuit But Weak Claims Suggest Settlement the Real Goal 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 221: Inside My Canadian Heritage Committee Appearance on Freedom of Expression 
When Antisemitism Isn’t Taboo: Reflecting on the Response to Nazi-Era Hate on the Streets of Montreal 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 220: Marina Pavlović on the CRTC’s Plans to Address Consumer Frustration Over Wireless Contracts 
Protecting Freedom of Expression: My Heritage Committee Appearance on the Chilling Effect of Antisemitism
Great news
for content owners; it’s about bloody time!
@Steve
If you say so. Frankly, it’s exhausting to see a(nother) bill I didn’t support, written by a party I didn’t vote for, ratify a treaty I don’t condone. I don’t see creators or individuals – only “owners” – asking for more copyright.
Speaking only for myself, I wish copyright were dead. Maybe then I could download a frigging telephone book to use offline. It’s 2014! Copyright just isn’t worth it.
@Troy
RE: WIPO Copyright Treaty – adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on December 20, 1996
RE: WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty – adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on December 20, 1996
Troy did you even bother to read the background info (supplied to you via a link in this post) before commenting? You say, “written by a party I didn’t vote for” which party are you referring to exactly?
@Troy
The ratification process completes the Government’s commitment to implementing the WIPO Treaties, which were signed by Canada in 1997, one year after they were adopted by WIPO.
@Steve
> Troy did you even bother to read the background info (supplied to you via a link in this post) before commenting?
Did you even read my comment (scroll up) before choosing to ignore it?
> You say, “written by a party I didn’t vote for” which party are you referring to exactly?
To clarify: I didn’t consent to C-11 – or vote for the party that enacted it in 2012 – nor did I consent to the WIPO treaty, or the party that signed Canada onto it in 1997 (which is also responsible for multiple ratification attempts).
However: copyright is not a left-right issue. Rather, it’s about the regressive use of technology and the promise that sold the Internet – one of universal access to knowledge and the freedom to synthesize knowledge and share – a promise that that has been quietly buried to the cheers of copyright “owners.” Wikipedia is the closest thing to realizing that promise, but it’s an exception to the rule, and that rule is copyright.
If content “owners” want copyright, let them have copyright – amongst each other – but leave me out of it; I do not consent.
@Troy
If and when a day comes that you are the dictator of your country then all the “me me me” you posted maybe of some value; Canada however is a based on democracy and not just what Troy consents to.
Best of luck to you.
@Steve
> “Canada however is a based on democracy and not just what Troy consents to.”
Any way you spin it, the government – with majorities in 2012 and 1997 – is doing the dictating in respect of copyright in Canada. You happen to side with the outcome – this time – but that doesn’t lend morality, or mean there is calm consensus.
As I said previously, I am “speaking only for myself.” (I think anything else would be unreasonable.)
If and when you too want not to be spoken for, democracy will feel less like a friend and useful trump card.
@troy
isnt WIPO the (World)IPO
not sure that the government of Canada has veto power there?
Can someone explain why these treaties are bad? as musician im happy to know that this might make it just a little bit easier to deal with infringement on (mostly) foreign filesharing sites. Just curious as to what the downside is
@Troy
Fact check – no spins
“the government – with majorities in 2012 and 1997”
1997 – Jean Chrétien’s Liberal Party of Canada won a second majority government.
The Reform Party of Canada replaced the Bloc Québécois as the Official Opposition.
The Conservative Party of Canada which was formed by the merger of the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party of Canada) and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (colloquially known as the Tories) in 2003. The party came to power in the 2006 federal election as a minority government, a position it maintained after the 2008 election, before winning its first majority government in 2011.
Seems to me Troy your anger is centered around Intellectual Property Right and not the elected officials that don’t give YOU what YOU want.
“As I said previously, I am “speaking only for myself.” (I think anything else would be unreasonable.)”
I fully agree with you on that point; you certainly don’t speak for me.
…
@Jessie
> “Can someone explain why these treaties are bad? as musician im happy to know that this might make it just a little bit easier to deal with infringement on (mostly) foreign filesharing sites. Just curious as to what the downside is”
Criticisms of the treaties (and C-11) include, but are not limited to:
1) Digital locks in the WCT (now C-11) prevent many reasonable and previously legal uses.
2) WCT and WPPT restrict speech and sovereignty (YouTube takedowns, surveillance, international bullying, ex from the USTPO).
To it’s credit, WIPO is far and away more “above board” than the top-secret TPP.
All of that is moot, however, since I do not view copyright and “imaginary property” as legitimate, so criticizing the treaties’ details assumes I accept their premise, which I don’t. I see copyright as a dam on a natural resource, not a moral right – like privacy. Some dams are useful – but is it useful to limit uses of published knowledge? No. There are more ways to fund things (Kickstarter, competitive donations, selling related services, asking for money up front, …) than toxic copyright. At the moment copyright is used primarily as a weapon to limit speech, innovation, and solving problems (again, the telephone book example – I should be able to save that. It is not property.).
Here’s a take on DRM (digital locks) that you might enjoy: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
@Steve
As I said, it’s not a party issue (nor did I suggest it was), nor did either of those pivotal years represent a single party. But both were majorities, and as such the treaties were signed and ratified by sheer political force (and industry lobby money), despite consistent protests and an absence of public consensus. Democracy at work…
Vadhiya
Nice article Dear, I love to read this types of articles. Thanks a lot to share with us…… Click here for Gadgets, Tech news, Free Software, Money Making Tips and more….
Copyright is irrelevant to me as I use Creative Coomons for my work