Canadian Entertainment Industry Begins New Media Campaign For Draconian Copyright Laws

from the and-here-we-go-again dept

Every year, the entertainment industry pushes Canada to update its copyright laws -- which are already quite strict -- with some misguided propaganda about how Canada is a "piracy haven." Of course, the facts don't support that assertion, but the entertainment industry keeps insisting that it's the case, and that the only way to deal with this is through ever more draconian copyright laws to, as the entertainment top industry lawyers have falsely claimed, "bring Canada into the 21st century." After public protests and outcries prevented a few previous attempts at bad copyright law updates (basically written by the entertainment industry) from being put in place, last year, the government held various public consultations and asked for feedback. The written feedback was strongly against more draconian copyright law, but it looks like the industry has started up a questionable moral panic campaign as it gets ready to try again to push copyright law in the wrong direction.

It kicks off with an article in Canadian Business magazine (sent in by a bunch of you) which is so ridiculously one-sided as to be laughable. That article kicks off with a record label owner complaining that sales are down. You think? Maybe that's because you're selling obsolete plastic discs, rather than updating your business model. The label owner goes on to point out that others -- such as studio engineers are losing their jobs as well, and this is tragic. Sure, it's tragic, but when markets change, jobs change too. We used to be a nation of farmers, and now a tiny percentage of the population farms. The telephone company used to employ thousands of operators to connect your call, but technology did away with that particular function. Markets change, jobs change. It's no fun for those involved, but it's no reason to pass laws that you think will protect those jobs (even though they won't).

The article goes on to trot out the typical ridiculous stats and bogus claims from the industry, and the only attempt it has at anyone presenting the other side of the debate are some quotes from Michael Geist, who is introduced as "a media gadfly whose left-leaning views on the issue are openly disparaged by many in Canada's corporate sector." Uh, wow. Clearly, whoever wrote the article had no interest in hearing the other side of the story -- such as the evidence that the issue here is not copyright at all, but business model choices. The views on copyrights are not anti-business, as the article presents, but pro-consumer, which when done right is also pro-business. It's clearly a media hit job in anticipation of the next round of copyright debates.

Along those lines, a few folks have submitted a writeup by Canadian intellectual property lawyer Richard Owens, who claims that the public consultation on copyright in Canada last year was not fair because it was dominated by evil pirates and "shadowy organizations." Seriously. The article dismisses the public consultation because sites like TorrentFreak (which he mischaracterizes, ignoring that the site is a well-respected journalistic endeavor) encouraged people to make their views known, and that many of the submissions came via a submission system put together by the Canadian Coalition of Electronic Rights -- which he also mischaracterizes as "a clandestine group of mod-chip manufacturers."

However, as Michael Geist notes in his response to Owens, lots of special interest groups had form letter offerings available -- including the entertainment industry. But no one chose to use them. While form letters may not be the fairest system in general, the fact that there were form letter submission services for pretty much all points of view, it seems reasonable to assume that anyone on any side of this debate could have used one, and thus, the results are, perhaps, somewhat representative. Owens claims that many of the submissions were likely made by foreigners, but as CCER notes in its own response, it required a legitimate Canadian address, and it's unlikely that many faked such a thing. Even if a few did, it's unlikely that most of those submissions were from foreigners. Owens goes on to complain that many who submitted their views were "poorly informed," but reading through the details, it appears "poorly informed" just means "did not agree with Owens."

Amusingly, Owens also appears to cherry pick certain industry representatives to suggest that only they should have been able to comment on the issue:

We sampled twenty-five percent of the substantive individual Submissions, and of the professional authors, musicians, filmmakers, performers, photographers and designers, more than 90% were in favour of robust copyright protection as a means to secure their livelihood and protect their artistic integrity.

Uh, yes. If you ask those who have a law protecting them from competition, of course many of them will say that law is great and they want it strengthened. But that's got nothing to do with the purpose of copyright law. Copyright law is supposed to be about promoting overall progress (and, yes, I know that's the US version, but the general concept is true in Canada as well), and that means for both the public and for the content creators. To claim that only the content creators' views should be considered when discussing copyright is incredibly disingenuous.

In the end, it's clear that Canadians are gearing up for yet another fight over copyright law, and the early media campaign is beginning. It starts with bogus stories with little basis in fact, combined with weak attacks on the public who oppose such draconian laws. Hopefully, Canadian politicians will see through such charades quickly.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, entertainment industry

Could Copyright Hold Back iPad Sales In Canada And Elsewhere?

from the ah,-licensing dept

As it's become clear that the iPad is more of a "content delivery vehicle" than an interactive device (and there's nothing wrong with that), people are quickly discovering how regional licensing issues and copyright may hold the device back in some areas. Apparently, as the device gets ready to launch in Canada, there are concerns that there won't be very much content available for it. All that content that US companies rushed out to help "save" their businesses? Well, a lot of it isn't licensed in Canada, and so the store of content available up there is likely to be greatly limited.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, ipad

Canadian Supreme Court To Hear Case Over Liability For Linking To Defamatory Information

from the linkety-link dept

You may recall that a few years back, Canadian politician Wayne Crookes started suing a whole bunch of sites, including Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo and MySpace, just because of postings on those sites that Crookes felt were libelous. Whether or not the comments actually were defamatory was a big open question, but a bigger issue was why he was suing the service providers, rather than those actually responsible for the comments. Some of those lawsuits got tossed out on a jurisdictional technicality, but Crookes then also sued some others, claiming libel for just linking to a site that was potentially libelous as well. One of those sued was Jon Newton, the operator of P2Pnet.net, a site that many of you read. Newton had linked to the stories in question, but did not repeat was written in them or offer any commentary -- and yet Crookes claimed that just the links were defamatory.

Thankfully, both the district court and the appeals court said that just linking was not defamatory, but the reasoning was a bit odd, and left some potential issue open. Now, as a bunch of folks have submitted, the Canadian Supreme Court is gearing up to take on the issue. There are really two questions here: whether or not the initial link is defamation, and secondarily, whether or not it becomes defamation if you refuse to take down the link after being alerted to it being defamatory.

In the US, Section 230 of the CDA protects website publishers in both cases. In Canada, the law is not at all clear on this issue, and there's a very real threat of a pretty massive chilling effect if the Supreme Court decides that linking (or even refusing to take down a link) can constitute defamation. Hopefully, the Supreme Court agrees that merely linking should never be seen as defamation -- and preferably, the Canadian Parliament makes this doubly clear by putting in place some basic safe harbors as well.

Filed Under: canada, wayne crookes
Companies: google, myspace, wikipedia, yahoo

But I Thought Counterfeiting Movies Ran Rampant In The Wild West Of Canada?

from the reality-bites dept

If you only listened to the entertainment industry spokeslobbyists, you might think that Canada had no copyright/anti-counterfeiting laws at all. Europe is pushing for massive changes to Canadian copyright law via CETA, and the US entertainment industry insists that ACTA is needed to to drag Canada into the 21st century. Clearly, the laws must not exist. Except... Canada already does have copyright/counterfeiting laws in place, and they seem to work pretty well. Anshar points us to the news that existing laws were used to seize over a quarter of a million counterfeit DVDs. So, what, with CETA or ACTA it would have been half a million?

Filed Under: canada, copying, dvds, movies

EU Keeps Pushing Canada To Make Massive Changes To IP Law, With No Concern For User Rights

from the if-not-acta,-then-ceta dept

While everyone's been focusing on ACTA, there are other (falsely named) "trade agreements" that are being discussed as well. Last year, we mentioned one that has mostly flown under the radar, involving the EU pressuring Canada to change its copyright laws, for the "Canada - EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement" (CETA). Canada has come under some criticism for having copyright laws that the entertainment industry doesn't feel are "strong enough," and it looks like CETA is yet another attempt to change that.

Michael Geist reports on a recent leak of parts of CETA, and it's pretty extreme. As Geist notes:

The breadth of the demands are stunning -- the EU is demanding nothing less than a complete overhaul of Canadian IP laws including copyright, trademark, databases, patent, geographic indications, and even plant variety rights.

Jamie Love also has a nice analysis of the leaked documents, where he notes some of the rather telling language choices -- especially compared to the existing TRIPS agreement that concerns intellectual property. For example, in TRIPS, there's talk of balance and user rights, such as this statement in the objectives:

Objectives
The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

As for CETA? The objectives are noticeably one-sided:

Objectives
The objectives of this chapter are to:
(a) facilitate the production and commercialization of innovative and creative products between the Parties; and
(b) achieve an adequate and effective level of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Yes, this is what is happening to intellectual property law these days. Now that the industry folks have basically taken over the process, they're pretty much throwing any semblance of the supposed "bargain" between creators and society out the window, and doing their best to turn intellectual property law into a purely one-sided deal, for the benefit of producers only.

Filed Under: canada, eu

Angus Proposes iPod Tax... Balanced With Greater Fair Dealing Protections

from the is-it-a-trade-worth-making? dept

As was expected, Canadian MP Charlie Angus has introduced a bill that would expand Canada's "you must be a criminal" blank media tax (they prefer "levy," but it's a tax) to iPods and other media players. However, to "balance" that out, he's also proposing a change to copyright law that would make Canada's "fair dealing" laws more flexible. Expanding fair dealing is definitely a necessary and important move, but it seems unfortunate that it appears to be coupled with this idea of taxing people just because they might make use of unauthorized content.

Filed Under: canada, charlie angus, copyright, fair dealing, ipod levy, ipods, tax

Surprising: Charlie Angus Proposing iPod 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax In Canada

from the why? dept

Every few months or so we hear about proposals in Canada to extend Canada's blank media tax (they prefer "levy") to MP3 players, such as iPods. The Canadian Private Copying Collective has tried to do this multiple times and had the courts strike it down multiple times. These levies make little sense. They massively increase the price of certain products (studies have seen 90% of the cost of blank CDs going to the levy) and, despite claims to the contrary, the money collected really doesn't help many musicians. Hell, even the recording industry isn't a huge fan of the idea, because it's afraid such a levy will get people thinking that file sharing any music is now "legal."

So, it's a bit of a surprise to see that Canadian Member of Parliament, Charlie Angus, who's generally considered one of the sharper folks on copyright issues, is now putting forth legislation for a Canadian "you must be a criminal" tax on MP3 players. The article suggests that it won't get very far, and Angus doesn't seem to be explaining why he's putting this forward, but it is odd. The idea of such a tax is incredibly unpopular with Canadians, and you would think that Angus, of all people, would recognize that.

Filed Under: canada, charlie angus, copyright, ipod levy, ipods, tax

Unwilling To Compete, Canadian Booksellers Association Tries To Block Amazon Distribution Center

from the competition-north-of-the-border dept

jprlk was the first of a few of you to send in the news that the Canadian Booksellers' Association is apparently so afraid of competition from Amazon, that it's asking the government to block the company from building a distribution center north of the border. Apparently, they're relying on some ridiculous rules about "foreign ownership," which is really an excuse to screw Canadian citizens by making things more expensive by limiting competition. The "moral" claim (one we've heard before in other contexts) is that Amazon shouldn't be allowed in Canada because it "won't promote Canadian authors" enough. Of course, the real reason they're afraid is that Amazon will likely be cheaper, which would actually benefit Canadian citizens and authors, by making it easier and cheaper to buy the books of those Canadian authors.

Filed Under: booksellers, canada, competition
Companies: amazon, canadian booksellers association

Tech Company Lobbying Group Explains The Importance Of Letting Countries Make Their Own Policy Decisions On Copyright

from the good-for-them dept

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents a variety of big tech companies, including Microsoft, Google, eBay, Oracle and others, has come on strong lately as a defender against the ridiculous and unnecessary expansion of overly aggressive copyright law. This is good news -- seeing as some of the companies it represents haven't always seemed so enlightened on the subject. I was lucky to meet with some CCIA folks about a month ago, and they definitely seemed to recognize that a more draconian copyright policy actually does much more harm than good to the companies whose interests they represent. You may recall that it was the CCIA, a few months back, that put out the marvelous report that used the same exact methodology that the big pro-copyright lobbyists have used to claim the "size" of the economic impact on copyright, to point out that the economic impact of fair use trumps that by a wide margin.

So it's great -- if not surprising -- to see that the CCIA's filing to the USTR for the Special 301 report (pdf) actually matches much of my own filing, though from a more legalistic perspective (and focuses on Canada). The key points are the same, however: the Constitutional basis for copyright has never been that "more is better," but that we should be seeking the most effective ways to "promote the progress." Second, it notes that countries should be free to make their own policy decisions on copyright law, rather than being pressured into them by the US. It further notes that the USTR Special 301 process shouldn't be focused on legislative and policy issues, but merely enforcement of the law. Unfortunately, it's gotten far away from that.

There were a ton of great filings to the USTR that I've seen already, and hopefully the USTR really does pay attention to those beyond the usual crew of entertainment industry and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, to recognize that this issue is a lot more complex than it has, at times, been treated in the past. Still, it's great to see a group like CCIA add its important voice to the discussion, too.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, special 301, ustr
Companies: ccia

Bell Canada Will Give You A La Carte Cable Channels... But Only If There's Real Competition

from the otherwise,-you're-stuck dept

We've had plenty of debates on this site about a la carte TV channels. A few years back the FCC put out a report that explained, pretty clearly why mandating the ability of users to pick and choose what TV channels they wanted in their cable package would cost more -- even if the FCC later changed its mind under pressure from "family values" groups who wanted to be able to stop having to pay for "bad" channels to get the wholesome channels. Lots of people like the idea of a la carte channels, falsely believing that they're "paying for channels they don't want." Our position has always been that it's bad policy to mandate a la carte TV offerings, when it's happening naturally in the marketplace -- mainly due to pressure from competition.

So it's interesting to see, up in Canada, that Bell Canada has apparently started offering a la carte pricing... but only in territories where it has real competition. Otherwise, you're stuck with bundles.

Once again, as with net neutrality and metered broadband, we're seeing a situation where the real issue is often a lack of competition in the marketplace, and the answer isn't necessarily to force a particular policy on providers, but to figure out ways to encourage more real competition, such that these other issues take care of themselves.

Filed Under: a la carte, cable, canada, channels, competition
Companies: bell canada