Latest Wikileaks Release Shows How US Completely Drove Canadian Copyright Reform Efforts

from the surprise,-surprise dept

With Wikileaks State Department cables showing how much the US influenced copyright policy in Sweden and in Spain, it shouldn't really be much of a surprise that the US unduly influenced copyright policy elsewhere as well. The latest Wikileaks report confirms what pretty much everyone knew already: copyright reform in Canada was driven mainly by US interests. Michael Geist points out some of the highlights, including the US Government demanding anti-circumvention provisions (things that the creators of those provisions in the US have even admitted were a failure). Yet, the US demands this, while maintaining that it would prefer there be few, if any, exceptions on circumvention:

If there are any exceptions to TPM or rights management information (RMI) liability, the exceptions should be clearly enumerated and narrow in scope

Separately, the US demanded third party liability on ISPs to pressure them into acting as Hollywood's private copyright police force:

A system of protections and obligations for ISPs that shelters them from certain liability, reduces and prevents copyright infringement on the Internet and provides incentives for ISPs to work cooperatively with copyright owners.

In response, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harpher seemed happy to promise such things, which explains why the Canadian government kept pushing so hard for anti-circumvention "digital lock" rules, despite widespread opposition to that key part of the proposed Canadian copyright reform. And yet, the US keeps complaining that Canada isn't ratcheting up its copyright laws fast enough, not recognizing the widespread public opposition that such laws are facing.

Embassy Ottawa remains frustrated by the Government of Canada,s continuing failure to introduce - let alone pass - major copyright reform legislation that would, inter alia, implement and ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties. Several recent factors compound this frustration, including the fact that:

-- the Prime Minister told the President last August that Canada would pass copyright legislation;

-- the November Speech from the Throne laying out the government,s Parliamentary agenda stated that it would "improve the protection of cultural and intellectual property rights in Canada, including copyright reform;" and

-- senior GOC officials, especially Industry Minister Prentice, repeatedly assured the Ambassador and senior Mission Canada officers that the copyright bill would be introduced "soon." Specifically, assurances were given that the legislation had been finalized and would be introduced prior to the Christmas recess, and then again immediately upon Parliament's return in January. Neither of which occurred.

Note that there is no discussion as to why Canada hasn't moved forward. No discussion of the rather effective opposition to overly draconian copyright laws. Just demands that Canada "do something," and plans for the US to keep applying more and more diplomatic pressure.

Even more telling, the US ambassadors only seem to speak with either the government or copyright holder organizations in all of this. In one cable, it discusses concerns from the recording industry and the movie studios that Canada's proposed legal changes don't go far enough. Nowhere do they seem to speak to actual consumers or to anyone who represents consumers. Because, you see, it's not about them. In fact, it appears that the "Canadian" Recording Industry Association has a very cozy relationship with the US government, with the two meeting to get feedback on proposals and strategize about policy issues. Again, no mention of any similar consultation with the people actually impacted by such changes in the law: everyone else. In fact, it seems like the only time the public is mentioned at all, it's to note how pesky it is that they don't seem to like these changes, and to explain why Canada has slow rolled the changes (because politicians were afraid negative publicity would hurt their re-election campaigns).

In one of the earlier documents linked above, the State Department (based on feedback from industry) criticize the idea of "notice and notice" rather than "notice and takedown" with a snarky complaint about how it's "if I told you once, I've.... told you once." Apparently, the officials don't recognize how notice and takedown invariably leads to false takedown and stifling of free speech (something we thought US diplomats were supposed to be protecting).

Once again, none of this is even remotely surprising. The US government, at the urging of the US entertainment industry, has been pushing its own brand of overly aggressive, speech stifling, copyright laws around the globe. It's just too bad that Canadian politicians apparently don't have the guts to stand up to bullying US diplomats.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, diplomats, reform

Proposal For UK Libel Reform Fixes Many Problems, Leaves Plenty Of Others

from the it's-a-start dept

For years, we've covered the ridiculous libel laws in the UK that create a massive chilling of certain forms of speech. Thankfully, there's been a push to reform the law over the past couple years, and a draft bill has finally been introduced which appears to solve a lot of the problems with UK libel law, including limiting who it covers (to cut off crazy libel tourism cases) and reinforcing and clarifying "truth" and "fair comment" as defense, while adding an important new defense: "public interest."

That all sounds good, but it's not perfect. As Arthur Bright notes at the link above, the law still places the burden on the defendant. This is a bizarre facet of UK libel law. Whereas, in the US, the plaintiff first has to prove defamation, in the UK, it's more or less assumed to be true, and the defendant has to offer up one of the defenses in response.

The one thing that still irks about the new bill, at least from an American perspective, is that it still places the burden of a truth defense on the defendant. It still seems unfair and inefficient to put the burden of proving a statement's truth on the defendant when the plaintiff presumably has much easier access to everything they need to disprove the claim. Perhaps, with the changes the bill makes to strengthen 'fair comment' and tighten jurisdiction, the backwardness of the truth defense will not be as much of an issue. But I still worry about situations where a limited-resource defendant faces a super-wealthy corporate plaintiff - why should the poor village blogger have to prove the truth of a statement that the rich City executive ought to be able to disprove with minimal effort?

Hopefully this particular issue can be fixed in later drafts. On the whole, though, it's good to see the UK moving in the right direction on this.

Filed Under: defamation, libel, reform, uk

It's January, Which Means Congress Promises Patent Reform That Will Never Come

from the like-swallows-returning-to-capistrano dept

Every January, it seems, we hear proclamations from Congress that this year (no, really!) will be the year that patent reform finally gets done. Of course, each year, when this proclamation is made, what comes out is a bill that is even more watered down than before and which will almost certainly make the system worse, not better. I have no doubt that this year will be more of the same. Senator Patrick Leahy, who has never met a form of intellectual property he couldn't make worse, has announced that patent reform is a priority this year. Chances are it will go nowhere again and that's a good thing. As is noted in the article, more and more politicians are actually recognizing that bad, half-baked, patent reform is worse than no reform at all. That's good. Of course, it doesn't mean that the patent system doesn't need reform, but at least we won't be dealing with patent reform that just makes a big mess even bigger.

Filed Under: patents, patrick leahy, reform

Canadian Recording Industry Claims That Canadian Copyright Proposal Is A $5k License To Infringe

from the how-out-of-touch-are-you? dept

Michael Geist points us to an article about the state of Canada's proposed copyright reform bill, C-32, which has significant problems in that it basically tries to export failed DMCA provisions to Canada, driven largely by US diplomatic pressure. However, with C-32, it seems that no one's particularly happy with the entire bill. The article quotes the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) boss, Graham Henderson, complaining about the provisions that limit liability for non-commercial copying (while applauding most of the rest of the bill):

"Once this bill is passed, you could go online and steal every movie that's ever made, every book, and every song, put them on your hard drive, admit liability, and write a $5,000 check. That would be the full extent of it -- and it would be the first rights holder who would get all the money. Nobody else would get a cent. It's close to saying that for people who want to steal stuff, there's a compulsory license of $5,000."

It's difficult to think of a sentence that shows anyone more out of touch than that. Would anyone really want to pay $5,000 (not an insignificant sum by any means) for purely a non-commercial compulsory license? Whenever various compulsory licenses have been discussed, they've usually been in the range of $5/month or so. To pretend that anyone will just pay up $5,000 for non-commercial copying is just silly.

Filed Under: c-32, canada, copyright, graham henderson, non-commercial, reform
Companies: cria

Increasing Concern Of UK's Draconian Libel Laws And How They're Abused

from the time-to-fix-the-problem dept

As I mentioned, we've recently been threatened with a number of lawsuits. One of them is a threat from the UK -- despite the fact that we are not UK-based and have no UK presence or business operations. The concern, as with most legal threats against us, was due to a comment someone made, making fun of someone who, despite haven spoken critically of others, does not appear to like being spoken about critically. The comments in question are certainly not libelous in the US, but with UK defamation law being significantly more draconian, the upset person insists that the comments are, in fact, libel and that a lawsuit is the only proper response. I still think that, even under UK libel law, it would be a stretch to find these comments libelous and a lawsuit in the UK against us would be meaningless, but we requested that the lawsuit threat be removed, and the person not only refused, but suggested the plan was to move forward. When we suggested that such a lawsuit would certainly publicize both the ridiculousness of UK libel laws and how this particular person responded to a random anonymous comment from someone on a blog page, we were told that we were being "bullies" for mentioning that such a lawsuit might look bad for the person. I find it odd that someone who threatens to sue us would then call us a bully for suggesting why such a lawsuit might backfire. Isn't the bullying in threatening a lawsuit?

And, thus, we are left with serious consequences. We've discussed how these sorts of ridiculous libel cases in the UK are creating serious chilling effects for lots of people, and more and more folks are coming forward to point out that the UK really needs to change its laws. The latest is UK comic Dara O'Briain who is sounding the alarm against this "ridiculous system" which almost everyone has recognized is creating "libel tourism."

"The libel laws which were initially set up to protect the reputation of individuals at a time when companies weren't the entities they are now are being used by companies to essentially quash dissent and to destroy criticism.

"That's a major problem. Companies can basically bully people out of saying bad things about their products and services."

The good news is that these comments came at the launch of a campaign to reform the UK's defamation laws to fix its backwards system, which is based on a different time. Hopefully the campaign moves forward quickly -- and with any luck, the threatened lawsuit against us does not become an exhibit they can use in how ridiculous these laws have become.

Filed Under: defamation, libel tourism, reform, uk

Music Industry Copies Language Of Copyright Reformers In Pushing For Three Strikes

from the oh-come-on dept

It's really funny to watch the entertainment industry lobbyists use a popular trick among disingenuous debaters: it tries to flip the arguments being used towards themselves against their opponents. For example, we've seen copyright maximalists argue against those of us who question the need for gov't intervention in issues like copyright claim that copyright represents a true free market, and weakening copyright law is somehow unfair gov't meddling in the free market. The latest trick is particularly neat. Plenty of people argue that all of the attempted changes that the entertainment industry has been pushing for around the world are unnecessary attempts by this industry to prop up an obsolete business model. Would you believe that the entertainment industry is now using the same language in favor of its proposals?

Indeed. As lots of people are pushing back on dangerous plans to "kick people off the internet," ISPs have pointed out how costly such a three strikes policy would be for ISPs who are suddenly drafted to be copyright police. In response, the head of BPI, the major UK music lobbyist group, responded by charging that ISPs were relying on an obsolete business model. Seriously:

"BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading. That's not only unfair to artists and creators, but penalises BT's many customers who use the internet legally,"

This implies -- incorrectly -- that file sharing is somehow a massive boon to ISPs. The very same ISPs who keep claiming they need to use traffic shaping to prevent any network from being overloaded by file sharing. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that ISPs are relying on file sharing as any sort of business model at all. A huge percentage of people have internet access, not because of file sharing, but because these days it's hard to get through life without an internet connection. Suggesting that they make their money because of file sharing is patently ridiculous. It's the sort of thing that a reporter should push back on, when an industry rep spews such nonsense.

Filed Under: copyright, language, reform
Companies: bpi

Want Healthcare Reform That Works? Get Rid Of Patents

from the and-watch-innovation-flow dept

Economist David Levine (author of the book Against Intellectual Monopoly) has a column up at the Huffington Post, where he explains why abolishing pharma patents would be a great way to reform healthcare. He runs through many of the arguments against such a move, and explains why they don't make much sense:

But, perhaps, without all those extra monopoly profits we wouldn't have such great new products? The fact is there aren't so many great new products - a well known fact among health economists is that while big pharma's spending has soared the last decade, as patent control has tightened, drug discovery has plummeted. Pharmaceutical innovation is not lower in Europe, despite of big pharma's lower monopoly profits. While the market for pharmaceuticals is now largely a global one, so local rules may not be so important, this was less true in the past. Historically, before pharmaceutical patents were introduced in Italy in 1978, that country accounted for about 8% of new pharmaceutical discoveries worldwide. After the industry was strangled by patents, that percentage dropped to practically zero. Switzerland, a powerhouse in the world drug industry, introduced pharmaceutical patents at about the same time. While Switzerland's fall has not been as dramatic as Italy's, it too is much less of a powerhouse today than it was before 1977.

Patents do not seem to lead to the innovation their proponents claim. The list of examples goes on and on: the discovery of the one-dose HIV cocktail that replaced the complicated multi-pill regime? That took place in India a country that at that time did not allow pharmaceutical patents. Of the fifteen great medical milestones recently identified by the British Medical Journal - only two were patented or could be attributed to the "incentive" that patents supposedly provide. Numerous technical studies by economists of the effect of stronger patents on innovation have failed to find any consistent increase. Put it plainly: while the social gains from abolishing patents on drugs are obvious and computable, the losses are dubious and, on the basis of empirical evidence, probably nil.

Pharmaceutical patents and the resulting monopolies have many other corrosive effects, over and above raising the prices of prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies spend far more money promoting their products than on R&D. Some of the giants spend as much as four times on marketing as they do on research and development. How do these companies market their products? Most of the money goes to "scientifically convincing" the medical profession to prescribe patented products. How? Well, for example, by inviting doctors and their families to week-long conferences in exclusive resorts, where two hours are for a marketing presentation (the "medical symposium") and the rest for (all-included) leisure. A spectacular - but hardly unique - example of the level of corruption is the conviction of Pfizer for encouraging doctors to bill the government for drugs they were provided for free. These practices not only raise the cost of drugs, but corrode trust in the medical profession.

He also goes on to suggest some other ways to lower the costs of "drug development," as well. There's probably not much new in there if you've read his book, but it's a good, straightforward description of the problem with pharma patents. While the writing is a bit flippant, if you go through the related chapter in Levine's book, and then start reading some of the other source material and studies, it's all backed up quite strongly. There's almost no evidence that patents do anything to promote more drug discovery -- and plenty to suggest it makes medicines significantly more expensive. Ditching pharma patents would make a much more efficient market in drugs that would end up saving a lot of lives.

Filed Under: david levine, healthcare, patents, reform

Canadian Recording Industry Puts Out Copyright Law FAQ... Which Gets Almost Everything Wrong

from the that's-what-we-call-propaganda dept

The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) -- which is basically just a front for the RIAA -- has been pushing hard for increasingly strict copyright laws in Canada, for no good reason (or, rather, entirely made up reasons). To date, the group has had trouble getting the laws passed, as the public has been quick to speak up in defense of user rights -- something that few politicians seem interested in protecting. However, Michael Geist points out that the CRIA isn't stopping, and has put out a copyright reform FAQ. However, what's amazing is that almost every "answer" in the FAQ appears to be wrong. In talking about what copyright is, it only talks about the rights of the content creator, and not the user, nor the fact that copyright law has always been designed to "balance" both sets of rights. It also claims (incorrectly again) that "piracy" (loaded word) is no different than shoplifting, despite the fact that any ounce of logic would tell you the two are quite different -- even if both may break the law.

But, perhaps the most stunning claim is the one where the CRIA actually claims that it's "piracy" that has caused record stores to shut down, rather than the shift to buying (legally) things online:

Q: Does copyright piracy put your job at risk? A: Yes. Canadians who work in the copyright-related industries have seen numerous job losses - from the artists who create music to truck drivers who deliver CDs and DVDs to retailers. Since the advent of widespread P2P file sharing 10 years ago, retail sales of music have declined by more than half; this has forced ongoing job reductions and slashed funds available for Canadian artist development.

Does the CRIA actually think anyone believes that P2P file sharing is the reason for this? I don't do any file sharing at all, but haven't set foot in a physical "record store" in years -- because I buy all my CDs online (and, yes, I still buy CDs). To claim that the end of physical retailing can be blamed on file sharing is simply ridiculous.

You can read through the link above to see the other "questions and answers" including, Geist's refuting nearly every single one. What's sad, though, is that some in the press, and many politicians, will start using these as talking points as if they're factual.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, faq, law, reform
Companies: cria

Did Canadian Politicans Give In To Hollywood's Demands On Copyright Reform?

from the the-hollywood-lobby-works dept

It looks like the Canadian battle over camcording in movie theaters was merely a prelude to the main show concerning copyright reform. If you don't remember, Hollywood lobbyists made a strong show earlier this year trying to convince Canadian politicians that camcording movies was a huge problem in Canada demanding much stricter laws. The problem was that the numbers that the lobbyists were tossing out (and which many in the press repeated without question) simply weren't true. Both the threat and the current condition of Canadian laws were exaggerated. Yet, it worked. Canada did, indeed, pass a much stricter law concerning camcording in theaters, despite little evidence that it would make the slightest difference or that it was even needed.

However, the bigger prize is a broad copyright reform act in Canada -- and having successfully walked politicians down the road before, it appears those same lobbyists may have done so again. Michael Geist reports that Canada is about to announce its latest copyright reform bill and it's a dreamlist of everything that the entertainment industry desires: DMCA-like anti-circumvention laws, retaining the private copying levy, no flexible fair use/fair dealing rules, no parody exception, no time-shifting exception (out, out, damn TiVo) and many others. The details aren't out yet, so it may be a bit premature to discuss this. However, Geist tends to have good sources on these things, and he's worried that this Hollywood dream bill will get fast tracked with little opportunity for people to speak up and complain that their rights are being taken away in favor of a number of big corporations and that the types of things that encourage new innovation and content creation are actually stifled by these types of draconian laws. Therefore, it makes sense for people to at least start making some noise now to get others aware of what is possibly in this bill and make it clear to the politicians that they won't stand for such a one-sided law.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, reform

Patent Battles Now More About Lobbying Than What's Best For Innovation

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Patents are supposed to be about promoting innovation. But these days it's clear that the original purpose of patents has long since been disconnected from the program. In fact, if you want to see how bad it's become, here are two separate stories that highlight how decisions over patents are increasingly all about lobbyists, rather than actually figuring out what's best for innovation (though, I guess you could say that for all politics these days). However, read this Washington Post article on the silly Qualcomm/Broadcom patent fight, that we've covered before, where apparently both sides knew that the whole fight was about hiring lobbyists to get Congressional Representatives to support its side. Nowhere in that discussion do they bring up what's actually right and what's best for the country (in fact, the article notes that Broadcom's win will probably mean new mobile phones are about to get more expensive), but it's all about whose lobbyists were more effective. Meanwhile, we ignored the story last week about the House passing the latest patent reform attempt, because it's meaningless until it gets Senate approval as well -- and as for whether or not the Senate approves it... well, once again, that seems to be up to the various lobbyists who are now scrambling. Again, it's amusing to see either side on this debate argue that it's "big companies" against "little guys." It's big companies on one side against big companies on the other -- and the real question being bandied about is who is going to be able to better exploit the system -- not what's best for innovation.

Filed Under: lobbying, patents, reform
Companies: broadcom, qualcomm