Topic
Bill C-11 likely to pass soon, but questions about what got left out linger.
Copyright reform bill likely to pass after 'multiple false starts.'
New site blocking powers? iPod tax? Various lobbying fronts make their final appeals to government.
Why? Mainly to satisfying US pressure, not Canadian public opinion.
Canada's top court to review five 'highly contested' copyright concerns in coming days.
The decade-long Canadian copyright reform debate is nearing a conclusion as the government is slated to hold the third and final reading for Bill C-11 this week. With a majority in both the House of Commons and Senate, the Conservatives are likely to pass the bill before Parliament takes a break for the summer.
The imminent passage of the bill is already being heralded as a win for creators, consumers, and businesses. There is certainly much to like -- expanded fair dealing, new consumer exceptions, caps on liability to prevent multi-million dollar lawsuits against consumers, and a balanced approach to liability for Internet providers among them. Moreover, the rejection of draconian provisions demanded by some lobby groups such as website blocking or penalizing Internet users with threats of lost access is a positive development.
Yet for many copyright watchers, the bill falls just short, providing a classic example of what could have been...
What if?
What if the government had not rejected concerns from groups representing the blind, who warned that the bill's digital lock rules will make it more difficult for Canadians with perceptual disabilities to access digital content?
What if the government had not rejected requests from leading cable companies such as Rogers and Shaw, who fear that the bill will block their ability to introduce network PVRs into the Canadian market and restrict innovative cloud-based computer services?
What if the government had not rejected requests from the Documentary Organization of Canada for a specific digital lock exception for documentary filmmaking, given that U.S. film makers benefit from such an exception and that Canadians will be placed at a competitive disadvantage?
What if the government had not rejected requests from many Canadian library associations, who argued that new digital inter-library loans provisions are unusable in light of requirements to establish onerous restrictions limiting the use of works?
What if the government had not rejected proposed amendments from NDP, Liberal and Green Party MPs to add flexibility to the digital lock rules so that concerns that the approach trumps fair dealing and education rights could be addressed?
What if the government had not rejected concerns from teachers, who lamented new distance learning provisions that include requirements to destroy lessons 30 days after a course concludes?
What if the government had followed the lead of innovative economies such as South Korea and Israel, which both recently adopted U.S.-style fair use rules that are often credited with forming the copyright engine behind cutting-edge business models?
What if the government had not rejected an amendment to require labeling of digital locks so that consumers would have advance warning of the restrictions that come with the products they purchase?
What if the government had not rejected a proposal from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences to eliminate crown copyright and give a boost to its open government data initiative?
What if the government had not rejected a plan raised by Project Gutenberg to create a legal safe harbour provision for the use of works where the copyright owner is unknown, thereby increasing digitization of Canadian materials?
What if the government had not rejected the advice of provincial ministers of education who called for an expansion of fair dealing to cover copies for classroom use as is the case in the U.S.?
What if the government had not rejected the Retail Council of Canada's recommendation to eliminate the iPod tax and thus avoid a hearing later this year on extending the private copying levy to microSD cards?
No cause for celebration
No bill is ever perfect and Bill C-11 is no exception.
Yet as the government touts its success in navigating the challenging copyright waters to pass a bill after multiple false starts, it might temper its enthusiasm by recognizing that provisions that lock out the blind, create disadvantageous barriers for creators and educators, and stifle innovation are not a cause for celebration. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
3
Login or register to post comments
Andrei Mincov
50 weeks ago
Heralded as a win for creators? Really?
Bill C-11 takes away many rights to control the use of the works and creates several unnecessary exceptions in addition to many existing unnecessary exceptions.
Many creators are in fact very unhappy that C-11:
- allows unauthorized mash-ups;
- creates immunity for ISPs in exchange for a meaningless "notice and notice" scheme;
- significantly cuts down statutory damages available to creators;
- introduces overly broad and unnecessary party and satire exceptions;
- significantly broadening the exception with respect to educational materials.
Of course, the biggest problem with C-11 is that it does not answer the question WHY we have copyright laws at all. The idea that there can be a balance between the interest of authors (copyright owners) and users is as meaningful as an idea that there can be a balance between the interest of rapists and their victims.
I covered this in much detail in my review of William Patry's new book, How to Fix Copyright at http://www.mincovlaw.com/blog-post/how_not_to_fix_copyright
Andrei Mincov
Lawyer & Trademark Agent
Mincov Law Corporation
http://mincovlaw.com
Erin
50 weeks ago
Re: Heralded as a win for creators? Really?
Well, I wanted to respond point-by-point, but the 3000-character limit stifled me, so I'll just respond to the most extreme claim you make:
-----
The idea that there can be a balance between the interest of authors (copyright owners) and users is as meaningful as an idea that there can be a balance between the interest of rapists and their victims.
-----
While I get some amusement out of your comparison between the copyright regime and rapists (and yes, I realize you meant it the other way around,) there are two fatal flaws in your argument:
- Criminals still have rights, including rapists. Some of their rights get revoked _IF CONVICTED_, but they're still human beings and they still retain plenty of rights. I also emphasized that "if convicted" bit as its pretty important! Yet it appears that the copyright lobby would quite happily fore-go that constraint. Is it terribly hard to understand why average people would have a problem with that? It assumes guilt regardless of whether or not a person has ever infringed on any copyright.
- You argue between criminal and victim (using the term 'rapist' just to rile emotions, of course.) This argument would be valid if these copyright laws only applied to the copyright holder and the infringer. However, they do not. They apply to everybody. Your comparison would be more valid if it was between the victim and some uninvolved party having perfectly consensual and legal sex three blocks away. Of course, the valid rendition of the comparison is also useless for copyright lobbying, as would any other comparison be that tries to lump infringers and non-infringers together.
24percentmajority
50 weeks ago
An alternative analogy
Mincov. I read your blog. I'll see your ridiculous analogy and raise you one of my own.
What if a company came up with a great beer that everybody wanted. Somehow, the beer was free and they made all of their money off mug sales and advertisements on those mugs. The only way you could drink that beer was in beer company approved mugs that cost a fortune. They made up all kinds of crazy rules about how you could use the mugs. You couldn't cover up the logo or the advertisements. You couldn't lend your mug to your neighbour. You couldn't take the beer in the mug and use it to make some other food. You couldn't transfer the beer into a bottle to enjoy it at a later date. In short, you couldn't do anything with that mug that they didn't want and they would only sell you the beer if you agreed.
People got tired of this. Everybody really wanted the beer but the company insisted. Then, somebody figured out that they could just go on the internet and download the beer, and then put it in their own mug and do what they wanted. They wouldn't have to pay the company for their restricted mug. They had to search in strange places to find the beer now, and it was often infested with viruses or missing key parts. But they quickly realized that this almost-as-good beer was good enough. And they appreciated the ability to do whatever they wanted with the beer. If things had been reasonable in the first place, maybe they would have just kept buying the beer/mugs from the company? But boy did they adjust quickly! All of a sudden, the beer company wasn't making much money because their mug sales dropped. Somehow the beer found its way on to the Internet and people downloaded it and enjoyed it.
So, what did they do? Well, first, they complained about it. A lot. Then, they attempted to sue people for breach of mug contract. That didn't work so they commissioned a bunch of economists to come up with studies that proclaimed the beer company was losing the Canadian GDP on a weekly basis due to rampant mug piracy. Then, they met with the government behind closed doors and drafted legislation that made it illegal for people to download beer from the Internet. Not only that, they actually made up laws that punished the people that were still buying their mugs, but that happened to be doing some of the stuff that was outlawed in their mug contract. It wasn't enough that people had paid them money for their beer/mugs, they wanted to punish them for doing what they wanted once the transaction was complete. And force them to buy their new beer cans!
And they were shocked that people were upset! It was their beer. If people wanted it, it had to be on their terms. They had a right to force people to drink it exactly how they wanted. After all, they didn’t have to buy it, right?
http://24percentmajority.blogspot.ca/