Post Tagged with: "fair dealing"

Against Bill C-32: Creator Groups Stake Out Strong Anti-Copyright Bill Position

Update 11/1: I have received a request to remove the link to the ACTRA document on the grounds that it was posted prematurely. I have been advised that there is not yet consensus among all groups listed in the document on the various C-32 issues.

When Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore told an IP conference last June that only two groups of radical extremists were opposed to Bill C-32, most assumed that he had user groups in mind. Yet as various groups begin to publicly make their positions known, few have been as critical as a creator coalition that includes ACTRA, a writers’ coalition, visual arts coalition, and Quebec artists groups. In a backgrounder on the bill, those groups oppose nearly all the major reform elements of Bill C-32, with the notable exception of digital locks (on which they remain silent).

Just how broad is the opposition? The position paper stakes out the following positions:

October 28, 2010 — 78 comments — News

Locking Out Lawful Users

Osgoode Hall Law School professor Carys Craig has a great post at the IP Osgoode site on her article in From â€œRadical Extremismâ€ to â€œBalanced Copyrightâ€: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda, the copyright book from Irwin Law that officially launches tomorrow. Craig’s article focuses on two key aspects of Bill C-32: the fair dealing reforms and the impact of the digital lock provisions. On fair dealing, Craig brings much-needed perspective to the fair dealing reform, which has been the target of an ongoing fear mongering campaign that implausibly and inaccurately claims that it will erode Canadian culture. Rather, Craig notes:

Educational, parodic and other transformative uses have long been recognized as potential fair uses in the United States. Indeed, the need to expressly include these specific exceptions in Canada speaks more to the shortcomings of the Canadian approach to fair dealing (in contrast to US fair use) than it does to the pursuit of a genuine balance between owners and users in the copyright reform process.

Craig reserves her harshest criticism for C-32’s digital lock provisions, which she describes as “unduly expansive,” concluding:

October 13, 2010 — 30 comments — News

CMEC Seeks Leave to Appeal Fair Dealing Decision

The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada has announced that is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada this summer’s Federal Court of Appeal decision involving fair dealing in education. I discussed the decision here.

September 29, 2010 — 1 comment — News

Bill C-32: My Perspective on the Key Issues

With the House of Commons back in session this week, there has been growing speculation that Bill C-32, the copyright reform bill, will emerge as a government priority. Given the rhetoric we’ve seen over the past three months, it seems likely that proponents of the digital lock approach will seek to paint critics as anti-copyright, pirates, and radical extremists. While the rhetoric may seek to delegitimize consumers and many Canadians vocal on the copyright issue, the reality is that many consumer and education groups have been far more supportive of the bill than proponents such as the music industry.

With the caveat that I can only speak for myself, the following post covers the most contentious aspects of Bill C-32 by aggregating some of my posts and comments. When the bill was first introduced, my immediate response was that the government did a good job compromising on some very contentious issues (ISP liability, fair dealing, consumer provisions, statutory damages) but that the digital lock approach represented a huge flaw that undermined many of the positive steps forward. This remains my view – if we can find a compromise on digital locks, I think this is a bill worth supporting. The following five issues are likely to be the among most contentious in the upcoming hearings:

September 21, 2010 — 46 comments — News

“Legislative Guidance” on Fair Dealing: The Plan to Reverse CCH?

My post this week on several writers groups objections to Bill C-32 has generated considerable discussion, with some taking me to task for focusing on their letter’s warning of “unintended consequences,””years of costly litigation,” and “serious damage to the cultural sector.” Instead, they argue that I should have focused on the call for additional “legislative guidance” on the fair dealing reforms. After all, who could be against greater clarity in the law?

In the discussion that has followed, I believe that it has become increasingly clear that the “legislative guidance” is not really about the fair dealing reforms found in C-32, but rather fair dealing more generally. Unfortunately, the writers’ letter only speaks of their concerns and does not provide any specific policy or legislative reform recommendations that would clarify their intentions. However, with the government having opened up the fair dealing provision, those groups may see an opportunity to reverse the Supreme Court of Canada’s CCH decision that characterized fair dealing as a user right and established guidelines for its interpretation.

Why do I arrive at this conclusion?

August 27, 2010 — 141 comments — News