Canada Says It Won't Attend Special 301 Hearing Because USTR Prefers Industry Allegations To Facts And Data

from the lobbyists-all-the-way-down dept

The US Trade Representative's annual Special 301 Report repeatedly points out how other countries are "failing" US IP industries by not doing enough to prevent piracy. The "name and shame" approach hasn't done much to curb piracy, although it has generated a few pressure points to leverage during trade negotiations.

Countries appear to be tiring of the annual shaming. Michael Geist reports the Canadian government has issued a rebuttal ahead of this year's Special 301 hearing.

I recently obtained documents under the Access to Information Act that confirm the Canadian government’s rejection of the Special 301 process. Canada will not bother appearing today largely because it rejects the entire process.

The two-page memorandum goes directly to the heart of the issue: despite Canada now having some of the world's toughest anti-piracy laws, the USTR continues to make the annual claim that the country could be doing so much more. The memo [PDF] puts it bluntly: the USTR represents no one but industry leaders.

Canada is on the "Watch List" of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) annual Special 301 Report, issued on April 21, This report discusses the adequacy and effectiveness of United States (US) trading partners' protection and enforcement of intellectual property

The Government of Canada does not recognize the validity of the process as the findings tend to rely predominantly on allegations from US. industry stakeholders rather than on objective analysis.

The particular point of complaint is Canada's continued inclusion in the report, despite its many anti-piracy efforts. The press release accompanying it goes even further in expressing its displeasure with the USTR's industry-favoring Special Report.

Canada considers the Special 301 process and the Report to be invalid and analytically flawed because the process relies primarily on US. industry allegations rather than empirical evidence and objective analysis. Canada has a strong regime for the protection and enforcement of lP rights that is fully consistent with its international obligations, including under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization's Trade-Related Aspects of intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.

Canada remains on the Watch List in 2016 despite recent significant achievements domestically in relation to reform namely, the passage and coming into force of the Copyright Modernization Act and the Combating Counterfeit Products Act. in previous years, the absence of such reforms was a central concern of the US. in relation to Canada's regime.

The Canadian Government also passed amendments to the Trademarks Act, the Patent Act and the industrial Design Act to make Canada's intellectual property regime consistent with key treaties (the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Agreement, the Nice Agreement, the Patent Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement). in 2015, Canada also completed its ratification of the 1991 Act of the international Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants Convention (UPOV 91).

It appears the Canadian government believes the 2017 Special 301 Report (due at the end of April) will continue to ignore Canada's IP protection capitulations advancements. And if the USTR is going to continue to name and shame without evidence or consultation of all affected stakeholders, there's really no reason for any foreign country to appear in its annual puppet show, much less continue to try to placate an entity that's never going to be satisfied.

Filed Under: 301 report, canada, copyright, special 301, special 301 report, ustr

USTR Will Listen To The Public On Creating Its 'IP Axis Of Evil' List?

from the let's-wait-and-see... dept

Among copyright experts and copyright policy folks, it seems widely recognized that the US Trade Rep's "Special 301" review process has been a massive joke. Last year, at an event discussing copyright, even folks from the US Copyright Office laughed off the Special 301 report. Historically, what it's been is the entertainment industry putting together a list of countries that don't have draconian enough copyright laws, and it gets the USTR to complain about them and put them on a "watch list" of sorts. Pretty much everyone who understands these issues knows it's a complete joke, but unfortunately there are lots of people who don't understand these issues, and it lets diplomats and politicians make laughable claims like saying that Canada is a hub for piracy -- and the press almost never questions where that information came from because it sounds all official.

So it's nice to hear that apparently the USTR is opening up the Special 301 review process to the public (slightly) in not just asking for written input, but also holding a public hearing for the first time ever (via Michael Geist). That said, I'm not convinced this will really make a huge difference. Since this is a discussion about what foreign countries are doing with their copyright laws that doesn't directly affect most of the American public directly (though we can be concerned about the fallout). So who's going to take part? The usual suspects form the industry will, asking for increased protectionism designed entirely to prop up their business models, rather than actually looking at a country's copyright laws. But will others really have enough to say? KEI plans to submit something, and does a good job cautiously praising the slightly more open process, but worrying about whether it will actually make a difference.

Filed Under: 301 report, copyright, public hearings, special interests, transparency, ustr

Pro-Stronger Copyright Propaganda Shows Up In Canadian Press

from the no-quotes-from-anyone-on-the-other-side? dept

Rob Hyndman points us to a column in Toronto's Globe & Mail by Barrie McKenna that is basically all of the recording industry's talking points on copyright, without even a nod to the views of the other side. It appears that most of the info is (surprise, surprise) based on a recording industry lawyer. It starts with a nice little moral panic about how file sharing sites are rushing to base themselves in Canada due to the country's supposedly lax copyright laws. Of course, that's ridiculous. Canada has very strong copyright laws already. What they don't have is a DMCA. That's what the industry wants. McKenna tries to bolster his claim that Canada has weak copyright laws with the following:

Earlier this year, the Obama administration put Canada on its blacklist of shame - a "priority watch list" of intellectual property laggards, joining the likes of China, Russia and Venezuela.

Sounds nice, but incredibly misleading. The "blacklist of shame" that McKenna mentions, but does not explain, is actually the US Trade Rep's special "301 Report." Mention it to just about any policy maker (excluding those pushing for protectionist policies for a specific industry, of course), and you get an eye roll. It's not so much "the Obama administration" but industries with wishlists attempting to restrain trade in foreign countries by putting forth scary stories about what's happening in those countries. The USTR basically takes those industry-submitted reports and wraps them up into the 301 report. It's a joke. Most of the complaints in the report concern countries that actually are in perfect compliance with international treaties -- but which the industry still wants to go further.

Of course, given that McKenna's source is an industry lawyer, perhaps it's not surprising that such info wasn't shared. But, the next claims go from the just uninformed to the unbelievable:

Canada, which has repeatedly promised but so far failed to deliver on copyright reform, isn't just out of step with the United States, but with much of the Western world.

This is simply untrue. Canada's copyright law is actually quite in line with most of the Western world, no matter what the entertainment industry suggests (and, you might think that McKenna would ask someone other than the person representing the industry that benefits from this). Furthermore, the line that Canada has "so far failed to deliver on copyright reform" is either blatantly misleading or simply ignorant of rather recent history. Canadian politicians have tried to push forth copyright reform, but due to a massive public outcry from people who actually understand how things like the DMCA cause all sorts of problems -- especially concerning free speech and consumer rights -- those politicians were forced to back down.

That's called informed democracy in action.

Oh, McKenna also claims that the last time the Canadian government tried copyright reform was in 2007. According to his bio, McKenna is based in DC, not Canada, but even down here in the States plenty of us were aware that Jim Prentice introduced copyright reform in 2008.

So, McKenna makes it out like Canada has no strong copyright laws (false), that it's laws are different from most of the western world (false) and that it hasn't tried to add more draconian copyright laws (false again). From there, he comes up with this bizarre justification for more draconian copyright law:

The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.

These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.

And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done.

Actually, you have Canadian record labels like Nettwerk, that are doing quite well, even as its CEO has declared that copyright is obsolete and should be done away with entirely within a decade. And the reason that those services can't be used in Canada isn't because the law is too lax, but because the laws are too strict, in terms of figuring out special licensing setups in each country. It's such a pain to get them licensed in a single country that the services have been forced -- against their will in many cases -- to block access in other countries like Canada.

Meanwhile, it's telling to note some of the things that McKenna conveniently left out. Like how about the private copying levy system up in Canada, which has made blank media ridiculously expensive, and which is supposed to be paying for all that "piracy." We don't have that in the US at all. Or what about the weak fair use/fair dealing laws in Canada? What about an understanding of the value of the public domain or the value of fan promotions? What about new business models that have shown that copyright isn't necessary to make money in the industry? What about the studies that have shown that file sharers tend to buy more music? All of that seems relevant... but when your only source is a representative of the industry looking to get laws passed in its own interest, is it any wonder they get left out?

Barrie McKenna got taken for a ride here by the recording industry. His writeup included multiple factual errors, significant errors of omission, and a gross misunderstanding of what's actually happening in the music industry these days.

Filed Under: 301 report, canada, copyright, propaganda