Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP

Copyright

The Wikileaks Copyright Cables: Confirmations Not Revelations

Last weekend, I posted that I suspected the KIPR tag on U.S. diplomatic cables being released by Wikileaks represented cables involving intellectual property issues. Sure enough, the first batch of KIPR cables have been released in Spain, confirming U.S. pressure on that country to reform its copyright laws. The release – which come from El Pais – has generated considerable commentary with BoingBoing proclaiming that it reveals that the U.S. wrote Spain’s proposed copyright law. That headline led others to speculate what the remaining KIPR cables might reveal, particularly the 65 Canadian ones (there are also 84 WIPO tagged cables and nearly 2,500 KIPR tagged cables overall). There has been one release on copyright law in France, with officials discussing U.S. industry support for its three-strikes approach.

While I am very interested in seeing the Canadian KIPR cables, I’d be surprised if the cables reveal anything new. The fact that the U.S. is actively lobbying in foreign countries on intellectual property issues (particularly copyright) is not a secret, it’s a open strategy. The cables don’t really show that the U.S. wrote Spain’s copyright law, because they didn’t need to. Years of relentless lobbying pressure at the highest levels of government make it as clear as possible what the U.S. is looking for (plus they release the annual Special 301 report just in case anyone is still confused) so that when a government decides to reform its laws it invariably takes the U.S. position into account.

December 6, 2010 — 35 comments — News

Globe’s McKenna Back With Column Confusing Copyright Laws and Licencing

The Globe’s Barry McKenna runs a column today on the state of Bill C-32, wrongly linking Canadian copyright laws with the availability of online services. For example, he points to the absence of Pandora from the Canadian market, even though Pandora’s founders have stated that it is licencing costs, not […]

December 6, 2010 — 10 comments — News

National Post on C-32’s Fair Dealing

The National Post ran a story over the weekend on the fight over fair dealing in Bill C-32.

December 6, 2010 — 1 comment — News

NZ Govt Copyright Leak: Doubts Value of WIPO Internet Treaties, Supports Flexible Digital Lock Rules

New Zealand is one of several countries currently negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, a regional trade deal that the U.S. would like to see include a major chapter on intellectual property (Canada has been excluded from the talks). A new leak [PDF] of the New Zealand government’s position on the IP chapter is revealing on several levels, most notably for its criticism of the WIPO Internet treaties and the attempts to limit existing flexibilities on digital locks. According to the leaked document:

December 4, 2010 — 3 comments — News

Putting Copyright Statutory Damages In Perspective

One of the more interesting exchanges during Wednesday’s C-32 Legislative Committee hearing involved questions on the bill’s reforms to statutory damages. The bill proposes to establish a maximum statutory damages penalty of $5,000 for infringement that the court considers to be non-commercial. That contrasts with commercial infringement, which carries a $20,000 per infringement maximum. Note that the minimums are roughly the same – non-commercial infringement has a $100 minimum, while commercial infringement’s minimum is $200.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague questioned the change, suggesting that it could send the wrong message about infringement and be viewed as a licence to steal. I disagreed with his position, pointing out that $5,000 was still enormous cost for most Canadians and that it is potential multi-million dollar liability for non-commercial file sharing that sends a bad message about Canadian justice.

I also made the point that statutory damages are relatively rare on the international scene, a point that I think is worth expanding upon. Perhaps because both Canada and the U.S. have statutory damages, many MPs might be under the mistaken impression that most countries have them. In fact, the opposite is the case.

December 3, 2010 — 68 comments — News