Canadian Official Admits Last Copyright Bill Was Solely About Keeping US Diplomats Happy

from the and-the-latest? dept

One of the points that Michael Geist has made time and time again is that it seems like all of the attempts at copyright reform in Canada (and, I would argue, in many other countries) has had little to do with setting up the best system for either creators or the public, but about satisfying demands from the US (which are funneled from the entertainment industry through diplomats, through processes like the USTR's infamous Special 301 report). Geist now points us to a new paper, where the chief of staff of the Industry Minister back when the last copyright bill was introduced admits that it was entirely about satisfying the US. There's no subtly here at all:

Of particular significance are comments Haggart obtained from Michele Austin, who served as Maxime Bernier's chief of staff when he was Industry Minister.

According to Austin, the decision to introduce U.S.-style DMCA rules in Canada in 2007 was strictly a political decision, the result of pressure from the Prime Minister's Office desire to meet U.S. demands. She states "the Prime Minister's Office's position was, move quickly, satisfy the United States." When Bernier and then-Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda protested, the PMO replied "we don't care what you do, as long as the U.S. is satisfied."

This is tremendously problematic for a variety of reasons. While the pro-stronger-copyright's more entertainingly ridiculous spokespeople are trying to spin a new story about how modern copyright only works if it's all based on the US's system, that's empirically absurd. The problem, as has been shown over and over and over again, is the simple fact that there remains no empirical evidence that stronger copyright benefits either creators or society as a whole. In fact, a lot of the evidence these days suggests exactly the opposite. Because of that, locking the entire world into a single system, based on nothing but claims from a particular industry, seems unwise. In fact, you would think that the exact opposite position would make sense. We would be much better off with a system where countries tested varying types of copyright law, so that we could actually see the impact and start to make actual decisions based on the data, not claims from those who abuse the system for profit. Tragically, rather than do that, it looks like Canada has decided to just go with the most political expedient system, even if that comes at the expense of content creators and the public at large.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, us

Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights

from the with-this-lock,-i-control-all dept

As was widely expected, Canadian politicians have introduced their version of the DMCA, dubbed the "Copyright Modernization Act" (or Bill C-32 if you want to get technical). Michael Geist runs down the good and the bad at the link above, but it appears there's a lot more that's bad than good. While the plan tries to add "balance" by extending fair dealing provisions just slightly wider than before (though, still pretty limited), it undermines that very concept with a heavy anti-circumvention clause. This is the worst aspect of the DMCA exported north to Canada. Basically, as long as a rights holder puts some form of DRM/copy protection on their work, all those exceptions go out the window. You can't circumvent, even for non-infringing reasons.

What this does is change the basic contours of copyright law. It gives the rights holders the ability to define the exceptions, and take away the right of users. It's this very aspect of the DMCA that needs to be fixed, not expanded to other countries. It goes against the core principles of copyright law, which include exceptions for the sake of important modes of expression. By letting the rights holder determine what is and what is not allowed as an exception, simply by letting the rights holder put any kind of digital lock (no matter how weak) is a travesty of copyright law. It's not copyright law at all, at that point. It's really a law to lockdown content away from the public, and to have the government declare a particular business model as supreme and protected by the government.

Filed Under: canada, circumvention, copyright, digital locks, dmca

Facebook Trying To Get Canadian Spammer To Pay Up

from the spam-spam-spam-spam dept

Facebook has been somewhat aggressive in going after folks who try to use Facebook for spam, winning various high dollar judgments. Of course, you never expect the spammers who lose those lawsuits to ever actually pay up, but apparently in the case of one Canadian spammer, Facebook is upset enough to try to pursue things further. Michael Geist points us to the story of Adam Guerbuez and his gleeful disregard for the ruling against him (Google translation from the original French). Apparently, Facebook won an award for $873 million. In response, Guerbuez has put up a blog that doesn't just mock the situation, but gleefully plays up the huge amount of the award, while noting that he has no intention of paying, and doesn't believe the award applies to him, since he's in Canada rather than the US. Of course, the article notes that Facebook is now pursuing the case in Canada as well, despite the lack of an equivalent to CAN SPAM. This highlights one of the bigger issues with laws like CAN SPAM. As more and more spammers are not even in the US, the law isn't particularly effective. It seems that technological measures to deal with spam are always going to be more effective.

Filed Under: canada, spam
Companies: facebook

Another Lawsuit Questions Who Owns The Copyright On Legal Filings

from the fun-with-copyright dept

Last summer, we wrote about a lawsuit in the US where a lawyer was suing LexisNexis and Westlaw for their services offering access to legal filings. At issue was who owned the copyright on those legal filings. Historically, that issue has rarely come up, because there's little commercial interest in the filings by themselves. However, some lawyers are apparently getting upset about other companies collecting and selling access to their filings... even though the reality of the situation is that those aggregators aren't selling the filings, so much as the aggregation of all the filings. No one is ever going to go to a lawyer and offer to pay for a copy of a particular filing. However, it appears similar legal questions are being asked north of the border as well. Michael Geist points us to the news of a class action lawsuit being filed against Thomson Reuters for its service that aggregates legal filings for other lawyers.

While I can understand that, technically, legal filings are most likely covered by copyright, I think there should be a clear exemption there. The entire purpose of copyright law is supposed to be to create incentives to create works and share them. But, in the case of legal filings, clearly copyright is not needed as an incentive for either creating the works or for sharing them. It seems preposterous to think that such documents should get copyright protection. Really, this is yet another of the ridiculous consequences of copyright law changes that made any type of work automatically covered by copyright. If there was a system that required registration of copyrights, I doubt many lawyers would be copyrighting their legal filings.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, legal documents
Companies: thomson reuters

Canadian Industry Minister Admits He Breaks Copyright Law Frequently

from the but-will-the-new-bill-fix-it? dept

Michael Geist points us to an article about how Canadian Industry Minister Tony Clement has admitted that, under current Canadian law, he breaks the law all the time -- mainly by transferring songs from CDs to his iPod, which is apparently not currently allowed under Canadian copyright law (something I did not know...). Clearly, Clement is bringing this up to show that Canadian copyright law has some serious problems, though it's amusing to note that, if this is accurate, it's yet another in the long list of ways that Canadian copyright law (despite claims to the contrary by US politicians and the entertainment industry) is actually significantly more favorable to copyright holders than US law.

That said, Clement is the guy who supposedly was fighting for more reasonable copyright law in Canada, but the rumor is that he lost that fight to Heritage Minister James Moore, who pitched a US-style law. We're still waiting for the official release of this new copyright proposal, but if it's true that Clement lost the fight for a more reasonable law, the reason he's bringing this up now is that the upcoming bill to change Canadian copyright law will add lots of things that the entertainment industry wants, but won't balance it out with more rights for consumers -- such as the basic right to place shift your legally purchased music.

Of course, when you have your own government officials admitting that they break copyright law regularly (and give a good reason for it), it should be obvious that it's time to fix the law. Unfortunately, if the rumors are true, the "fix" is only going to make things much worse.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, time shifting, tony clement

Canadian Appeals Court Says Song Previews Can Be Fair Dealing

from the you-need-a-court-to-tell-you-that? dept

While the US entertainment industry continues to insist that Canada's copyright law is way too "friendly" to would-be infringers, one area where it most certainly is not is in the area of fair use. Up in Canada, they don't even have fair use, but the much more limited "fair dealing," which is rigidly defined (unlike fair use) -- with one area being "research." Apparently, the Copyright Board of Canada ruled back in 2007 that the 30-second previews of music found on services like iTunes counted as fair dealing, because it was consumer "research" into whether or not they wanted to purchase the song. In response, the Canadian songwriters group SOCAN disagreed and asked a court to review. According to SOCAN such a broad definition of "research" was not what Canadian copyright law intended. In SOCAN's view, "research" only meant scientific research (so, only folks in science labs and white lab coats could listen to 30 second previews legally).

Thankfully, the Canadian appeals court disagreed, saying that consumer research definitely can count as "research" under fair dealing:

The legislator chose not to add restrictive qualifiers to the word "research" in section 29. It could have specified that the research be "scientific", "economic", "cultural", etc. Instead it opted not to qualify it so that the term could be applied to the context in which it was used, and to maintain a proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests.

If, in essence, the legal research such as that referred to in CCH has a more formal and rigorous aspect, the same is not necessarily true for that conducted by consumers of a work subject to copyright, such as a musical work. In that context, it would not be unreasonable to give the word "research" its primary and ordinary meaning. The consumer is searching for an object of copyright that he or she desires and is attempting to locate and wishes to ensure its authenticity and quality before obtaining it. I agree with the Board that "[l]istening to previews assists in this investigation".

Of course, this is somewhat similar to ASCAP down here in the US recently trying to claim that those same 30-second previews required a performance license -- which, thankfully, was also rejected. Both situations show the ridiculous lengths that some of these organizations will go to, in their attempts to squeeze money out of places that are clearly promotional and where it should be obvious that the uses aren't just "fair use" or "fair dealing," but in the best interests of the songwriters in getting their songs heard and known.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, fair dealing, previews
Companies: socan

Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Have No Right To Hide Sources

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

While we're still fighting for a federal press shield law in the US (various states have them, but it's not universal), the Supreme Court in Canada has ruled that a journalist could be compelled to give up his or her sources if the court thinks it's worthwhile. The court did say that it really does depend on the circumstances, but if a court decides that it's of greater public interest to reveal the source, then the court can require it. Of course, there could be some serious unintended consequences that come with such a ruling -- including making sources and whistleblowers less willing to come forward, knowing that the journalists they speak to may not be able to protect their anonymity. I don't know how the Canadian political setup works, but couldn't this issue be solved with Canada passing a shield law? Hell, they can talk to their counterparts down south who are working on the same thing...

Filed Under: canada, press, shield law

Canadian Writers Guild Wants 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On Both Distribution And Storage Of Content

from the well-that's-sensible dept

Canada has long had a blank media levy on things like blank CDs, which is a sort of "you must be a criminal" tax on things. Of course, what it really does is drive down the usage of blank CDs by making them ridiculously expensive -- such that, in some cases, it accounts for 90% of the price of a blank CD. There have been failed efforts to extend such a levy to things like iPods, and Michael Geist alerts us to the news that the Writers Guild of Canada is proposing extending levies to all distribution and storage -- including things like DVRs. Yes, because when you time shift that TV program, you're a thief and should have to pay extra for it. Beyond just being a "you must be a criminal" tax, this really seems like a way of double, triple or quadruple charging people for the same media. Say you buy a song on iTunes, which you've paid for. But then you also need to pay the levy to the ISP for distribution. So now you've paid twice. But then you need to pay a levy for your hard drive to store it. So that's three times. Oh, and then another levy on your iPod to transfer the song to that. So you've paid four times for the same song. That makes so much sense, doesn't it?

Filed Under: blank media, canada, levies, storage, writers guild
Companies: writers guild of canada

Canadians Get To Pay More Money For The Same Broadband

from the abuse-by-the-byte dept

In 2008 we noted how Canadian incumbent phone company Bell Canada began throttling smaller wholesale ISP traffic before delivery -- without bothering to tell anyone.  In short, Bell wanted to make sure that smaller, independent ISPs that were reselling Bell's bandwidth weren't able to offer services that were superior to their own throttled and capped DSL service. Independent ISPs complained, and Canadian regulators (CRTC) largely ignored them. Now reader Slatemass writes in to direct our attention to the fact that the CRTC has also approved another Bell plan to begin charging all (wholesale and retail) customers per-byte overages up to $1.13 per gigabyte. Needless to say, operators of smaller ISPs are rather angry:

"The rates are absolutely atrocious. How the hell are we doing above one dollar for extra usage?" said Rocky Gaudrault, president of Chatham, Ont.-based Teksavvy. "It's in the thousands of multiples beyond what the costs are." Gaudrault said Bell also continues to have an advantage over smaller ISPs in that it is able to offer superior speeds. The CRTC issued an order in December 2008 that gave wholesale ISPs access to the faster networks of phone companies such as Bell and Telus, but the federal government last year ordered the regulator to reconsider the decision."

To be clear: this shouldn't be confused with pure "billing by the byte." The low cap and high overage model (which Time Warner Cable tried -- and failed -- to impose in the U.S. last year) simply jacks up prices "thousands of multiples beyond what the costs are" on top of the already high flat rate price -- ensuring that consumers wind up paying significantly more money for the same service. Bell also wants to ensure resellers can't offer a flat-rate pricing model that could better compete with their expensive capped DSL services. Of course Bell couldn't get away with this kind of obnoxious pricing were there more competition -- but just like in the States, most Canadian customers lack the option to be able to vote with their wallets.

Filed Under: broadband, canada, competition
Companies: bell canada, crtc

It's Baaaaaack: Canadian DMCA Bill Expected Next Month

from the the-copyright-change-that-never-dies dept

You knew it had to happen sooner or later. The US (mainly via entertainment industry proxies) has been pushing Canada to introduce even more draconian copyright law for years -- despite the fact that, in many ways, Canada's copyright law is already much more draconian than US law (for example: no real fair use provisions). What the entertainment industry and (thanks to entertainment industry lobbying) the US government really want is for Canada to introduce its own version of the DMCA, with things like anti-circumvention clauses. There is no reason for this whatsoever. The claims that Canada is not in agreement with "international obligations" is simply false. It's a smokescreen used by lobbyists.

Back in 2007, under such pressure, Canada got ready to introduce its own version of the DMCA... though calling it "its own" was a misnomer, since it was basically written by US entertainment industry interests, and was... well... let's just say a "copy" of the US's law. Thankfully, after lots of protests from businesses and the public, the bill, C-61, eventually was shelved.

However, the pressure kept mounting and for a little while, it looked like Canadian politicians might not give in to entertainment industry pressure. The two politicians most involved in drafting new copyright laws, Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Tony Clement, both seemed to understand that a different, more forward-looking approach made sense. Following that, there were the very open public consultations on copyright in Canada, that allowed many, many Canadian citizens to express their concerns over how US-style copyright law would be immensely troubling (such submissions significantly dwarfed the calls for stronger copyright laws). Yet, as we noted just a few weeks ago, there appeared to be a well-coordinated media campaign that just so happened to pop up as the new bill was being finalized, that pushed for much stronger, US-style, draconian copyright laws.

So it should come as no surprise that reports are coming out that, indeed, despite all of the public concerns, Canada has decided, once again, to introduce a Canadian DMCA, similar to the US one in all its draconian provisions. Despite his earlier statements, apparently Heritage Minister Moore was on the side pushing for such a law, while Industry Minister Clement pushed for a more forward-looking law. Moore apparently won.

Once again, hopefully, public outcry from content creators, consumers, organizations and businesses will stop Canada from making the same mistake that the US has made, and which has resulted in repeated misuse to stifle creative expression and free speech, while holding back important innovation.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, dmca