With news that the House of Commons has taken a break for the summer, there will be no legislative committee examining Bill C-32 until the fall.
Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP
Copyright
The Bloc on C-32: Only Consumers Suffer Frustration From Digital Locks
After a post on the Bloc's position on three strikes, I was contacted by Bloc Heritage critic MP Carole Lavallée, who wanted to clarify her position on the government's copyright bill. She provided a detailed response that argues that three strikes is worth considering and expressess doubt about the value of placing digital locks at the foundation of the new copyright bill. Lavallée notes that digital locks do little for creators and create considerable harm and frustration for consumers. She adds that WIPO is an obsolete approach, advocating instead for the introduction of a levy system.
It should be noted that this suggests that all three opposition parties have now expressed concern with C-32's digital lock provisions. The NDP have been outspoken in their opposition and Liberal critic Marc Garneau has indicated that the bill is missing an exception to allow consumers to break locks for private, non-commercial purposes. With the Bloc now stating that locks are not a solution, the minority Conservatives will need to find a compromise in order to pass the bill.
Her full response – posted with permission – is below:
Copyright Bill Shortchanges Consumers
The Edmonton Journal runs an op-ed on the negative implications of the digital lock provisions in C-32 for Canadian consumers.
Canadian Consumer Groups Respond To Moore on C-32
The Canadian Consumer Initiative, which represents major consumer organizations from across Canada including the Consumers Council of Canada, Option consommateurs, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Union des consommateurs, has written to Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore to respond to his comment in the House of Commons asserting that the Chamber of Commerce acts in the best interests of consumers. The letter notes that the Chamber in no way represents consumer interests and that the CCI is united opposing the digital lock provisions found in C-32. Full text of the letter below:
The Copyright Lobby’s Astroturf Campaign in Support of C-32
The copyright lobby, almost certainly led by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, has launched a major astroturf campaign in which it hopes to enlist company employees to register their support for Bill C-32 and to criticize articles or comments that take issue with elements of the proposed legislation. The effort, which even includes paid placement of headlines on Bourque.com, is still shrouded in some secrecy. A member list, which featured many record company executives, has now disappeared from public view. Requests to identify who is behind the site have been stonewalled thus far, with both ACTRA and AFM Canada explicitly stating they are not part of the site (this is no surprise since most creator groups have been critical of C-32).
The heart of the site (which requires full registration) is a daily action item page that encourages users to "make a difference, everyday." Today's list of 10 items is a mix of suggested tweets, blog comments, and newspaper article feedback. Each items includes instructions for what should be done and quick link to the target site. For example, users are asked to respond on Twitter to re-tweets of an op-ed by Dalhousie law professor Graham Reynolds. The suggested response is "As an employee in entertainment, this Bill will protect your livelihood" or "The discussion around DRMs is largely fear mongering." Other suggested twitter activity includes twittering in support of James Moore and his comment that the Chamber of Commerce represents the best interests of consumers or to start following MPs on Twitter (in the hope they will follow back and later see astroturfed tweets).
The site also encourages posting comments on a wide range of articles and interviews. For example, users are encouraged to comment on a Torontoist article on C-32 with the following points:
- The article completely overstates the expected prevalence of DRMs
- DRMs have faded quickly from the music industry- why would producers/artists hide their work?
- There are a whole list of exceptions in the Bill, none of which Michael Geist and his Bit Torrent followers acknowledge
Recent Posts
Another Canadian Digital Policy Own Goal: Corporate TikTok Ban Leads to Millions in Lost Cultural Group Support 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 239: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Digital Services Tax 
Canada’s DST Debacle a Case Study of Digital Strategy Trouble 
Canadian Government Caves on Digital Services Tax After Years of Dismissing the Risks of Trade Retaliation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 238: David Fraser on Why Bill C-2’s Lawful Access Powers May Put Canadians’ Digital Security At Risk
