Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights
 

All reports indicate that a Bill to amend the Copyright Act will be introduced in the House of Commons this week, Thursday June 3, 2010 to be specific. It is fully expected that the Bill will include strict anti-circumvention provisions that would criminalize bypassing digital locks to access content, shift format or otherwise preserve consumer rights.

Furthermore, the Canadian Press is reporting that the Government is seeking the support of opposition parties to hold summer hearings on the Bill. Summer hearings would potentially minimize the number of voices heard on this Bill and may be a means of expediting the passage of this Bill into law. Given the latest poll results, it is highly unlikely the Liberals will rock the boat if there’s any chance that this could be a component to triggering an election they so clearly want to avoid.

Remember to send a letter to your MP with this online tool urging them to ONLY support a fair copyright reform bill.

UPDATE: The Canadian Copyright bill has been placed on the Notice Paper which means it could be introduced in the house as early as Wednesday June 2, 2010.

The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights has updated its online letter writing wizard in light of recent developments in the Canadian copyright reform front. This update is intended to address the Government’s seeming willingness to ignore the voices of thousands of Canadians and proceed with the introduction of anti-consumer copyright reform legislation in as little as 6 weeks. Legislation that goes in a polar opposite direction of what Canadians demanded during the consultation process.

Send your letter now and share this tool with your friends, family and co-workers. It is essential that we all speak up now while we have the opportunity.

In the summer of 2009 the Government of Canada held public consultations on copyright and Canadians engaged in these consultations at unprecedented levels demanding a balance between consumer rights and creator rights. According to Michael Geist, recent developments indicate that these extensive consultations were “little more than theatre”. A very disheartening development indeed.

Indications are that the PMO has had to step in and make a decision on the direction of copyright reform in Canada because the Minister of Canadian Heritage, James Moore and the Minister of Industry, Tony Clement could not come to a consensus. A consensus should have been an achievable outcome given the consultation results. It is further reported that the PMO has instead given the green light on moving forward with anti-consumer copyright legislation within the next 6 weeks. A Canadian DMCA would most likely appease the US Government as well as domestic and foreign corporate interest groups.

Information has also emerged over the span of the last month indicating that James Moore had reversed his balanced approach to copyright and begun arguing for a Canadian DMCA with strong protection for digital locks and a rejection of flexible fair dealing. Tony Clement on the other hand seems to have stayed the course by continuing to endorse a flexible approach to copyright reform that would withstand the tests of time and consider both consumer and creator interests.

The bill is not expected until June, but it will have dramatic repurcussions once introduced. First, the bill represents a stunning reversal from the government’s seeming shift away from C-61 and its commitment to a bill based on the national copyright consultation. Instead, the consultation appears to have been little more than theatre, with the PMO and Moore choosing to dismiss public opinion. Second, after adopting distinctly pro-consumer positions on other issues, Moore has abandoned that approach with support for what may become the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history. Third, the bill will immediately impact the Canadian position at the ACTA and CETA negotiations, where the bill’s provisions on anti-circumvention and ISP liability will effectively become the Canadian delegation position.

Indications are that this Bill will not be introduced until June but the time to act is now. The CCER has urged Canadians to speak out in the past only to have their voices ignored by the Government of Canada and for this we apologize. However, this is not the time to give up. If you have spoken out before then it is time to speak out again and again if necessary. There is clearly a range of opinions amongst MPs on copyright reform, some anti-consumer and some pro-consumer.

Your MP needs to know where you stand on the issue regardless of your views and even if you have already told them before. A physical letter or email message to your MP, the Prime Minister, James Moore, Tony Clement and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is what is needed right now. Also remember to join the Facebook group and the Facebook page and be sure to ask others do the same.

For those wondering what can be done, my only answer is to speak out now. Write a paper letter to your Member of Parliament and send copies to the Prime Minister, Moore, Clement and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. No stamp is required – be sure to include your home address and send it to the House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6. Once that is done, join the Facebook group and the Facebook page and be sure to ask others do the same. You may spoken out before, but your voice is needed yet again.

IP lawyer Richard Owens has gone on the offensive in a tirade (.pdf) criticizing the Canadian Government’s 2009 public consultations on copyright (“consultations”). The article appears to make several broad assumptions and subsequently questionable conclusions. These assumptions range from alleging that the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights (“CCER”) is a shadowy organization of criminals set on gaming a public political process on one hand to a group engaged in lobbying and other activities aimed at undermining the will of Canadians on the other hand. Why is Owens hitting the panic switch and slamming what potentially was the most successful government consultation to date as indicated by MP Cheryl Gallant (link)?

The participation was unprecedented and we welcomed the comments of rights holders, users, intermediaries and everyday Canadians. We know that Canadians are concerned with copyright and its implications in our increasingly digital environment. This was demonstrated by the thousands of Canadians who took the time to participate in one way or another.

Mr. Owens’ criticisms and accusations represent a direct attempt to discredit and silence the voice of thousands of Canadians who made submissions to the 2009 public consultations on copyright (english submissions, french submissions) using a form letter made available by the CCER. Submissions that may be the contrary view of Mr. Owens’ clients.

The CCER has acted with transparency since its inception. We have always fully disclosed who our coalition members are and what our position (.pdf) is on the future of copyright in Canada. Since the CCER’s position runs parallel with that of many Canadian consumers we have evolved from acting solely as a peer industry coalition to informally include the role of consumer advocate.

The opinions in this article are mine alone, and not those of any entity of which I am a part or which I represent. As a practising technology lawyer I represent organisations with varied interests in intellectual property laws and in regulation (or not) of the Internet. Among them are creators, and those who represent their interests.

Ironically, it appears Mr. Owens did not make a submission of his own to the public consultation he so vehemently criticizes throughout his article. It is difficult to understand why an individual passionate enough to independently invest as much time as was necessary to pen this article and to research and disseminate the substance and mechanism of the consultation never took the time to make known his vision for the future of copyright in Canada publicly.

Copyright and copyright policy are as Mr. Owens states “complex, difficult and counterintuitive” in nature yet copyright affects every Canadian in one way or another. Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians fail to even realize how their lives stand to be impacted by changes to Canada’s copyright regime and the minority that do and want to be heard are intimidated by the vast complexity of the issue. The CCER sought to bridge this gap with a letter writing wizard and help those Canadian’s who wanted to have their voices heard but were reluctant to do so because they feared that alone they could not effectively articulate their ideas and desires for future of Canadian copyright.

The template letter which is the basis for each submission is editable in its entirety allowing submitters to add, remove or modify any part of the letter’s content. The content of the letter itself is far from unreasonable and seeks changes to Canada’s copyright regime that are balanced and equally beneficial to consumers and creators. The eight key points of the template letter are as follows:

1. Oppose an all-encompassing prohibition on the development and manufacturing of circumvention devices and technologies, commercial trade of circumvention devices and technologies, the possession and/or utilization of any device or technology that can circumvent a TPM or DRM for a non-infringing purpose or otherwise lawful activity such as fair dealing, interoperability, time and format shifting.
2. Support an update to backup provisions to include the right to make an archival backup copy to all digital consumer products regardless of format or media.
3. Support a “notice and notice” approach when dealing with the liability of ISPs.
4. Support for limited statutory damages.
5. Support for technologically neutral legislation that does not integrate protection for specific technologies or business models.
6. Support the expansion and protection of fair dealing doctrine.
7. Support the preservation of the current term of copyright.
8. Support for transparency in the negotiations of ACTA to ensure that domestic copyright policy is not circumvented.

Each submission made using the CCER letter wizard is relayed through the CCER mail server to the official consultation email address and that of the Ministers responsible for the copyright file. The CCER also mailed a physical copy of every submission to the responsible Ministers. Mr Owens’ insinuation that because multiple submissions to the consultation originated from a single IP address belonging to the CCER they should be given less consideration or even disregarded as whole is severely misguided.

The majority of the Submissions came from a single IP address (through the CCER letter writing “Wizard”) and many of the Submissions were sent with non-verifiable, incomplete, suspect or anonymous identification.

This assumption would equate to the Government discounting or ignoring physical submissions mailed from within a single Canadian riding that may have been processed by the same local postal station. It is the view of the CCER and should be that of the Government that consultation submissions complete with name and address be considered attributable and representative regardless of origin IP address.

The validity of personal information is another aspect of the consultation brought into question by Mr. Owens. Each submission via CCER required that a Canadian address and postal code be provided, foreign mailing address were not accepted. If the sender provided false contact information along with their submission they could have just as easily done the same in a unique email or physical submission. Therefore, the information must either be assumed to be valid or the information needs to be back-checked by the Government for validity prior to being made public. Perhaps future government consultations could employ the inclusion of a unique identifier such as a SIN number referenced against a submitter’s name to ensure information validity.

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.

Creators and their distributors are generally more inclined to operate under the doctrine that stronger more robust rights protection is better and therefore necessary so Mr. Owens’ findings are unsurprising. What is revealed in this manipulation of consultation data is that without the submissions sent using the CCER letter wizard there is very little representation of the average Canadian consumer, arguably the most important group in the equation. The opinions of these Canadians deserve to be heard and not simply swept aside and discredited as they bring balance to the debate and a new perspective.

To ensure a high volume of Submissions, the CCER arranged for online forums of “modders” and BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing communications protocol) information sites to encourage their readers to submit the form letter. The majority of the readership of these forums is, of course, non-Canadian.

The elaborate conspiracy that Mr. Owens alludes to between the CCER and “various BitTorrent” sites is simply not true. The CCER made press releases relating to its position and various sites picked up on this and proceed to link back to the CCER letter wizard. Some sites even employed geo-targeting to ensure that only Canadian visitors were served links and or content relating to the CCER. The CCER has no formal affiliation, agreement, or for that matter any interest in any “BitTorrent site”.

Instead of unfairly demonizing the CCER and generating the impression its letter writing wizard threatens the copyright consultation process, the CCER believes all interested parties would do well to focus the debate on amending Canada’s copyright laws for the better. A constructive and cooperative debate would better serve all Canadians and would bring about copyright laws and guiding principles that strike a balance whereby the rights of consumers and creators are considered.

As if the pressure from US based lobby groups and trade organizations like the USTR and the MPAA wasn’t threatening enough to Canadian sovereignty, it now appears that the European Union has decided to throw its weight around in an effort to influence Canadian policy. Canada and the EU are in the midst of negotiating the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The virtues of such Agreement are being bestowed by Industry Canada as:

Liberalizing trade in goods and services could bring a potential 20% boost to bilateral trade and GDP gains of up to $12 billion (or €8.2 billion) for Canada by 2014. A CETA with the EU could deliver commercial benefits across many goods sectors, including aerospace, chemicals, plastics, wood products, aluminum, fish and seafood, light vehicles and automotive parts, and agriculture products such as wheat, beef, and pork; it could also deliver benefits across services sectors such as transportation, engineering and computer services. The study also shows potential for enhancing the relationship in areas such as investment, labour mobility, regulatory cooperation, environment, and science and technology.

However, as the omnipresent Michael Geist and The Wire explain, the devil is in the details. While this new trade agreement may indeed be beneficial to boosting bilateral trade and providing all the economic advantages that come with it, it also provides a conduit to shaping and influencing Canada’s domestic IP polices. A recently leaked document outlines plans for increased political pressure against Canada and dismisses the 2009 consultations on copyright as a “tactic to confuse”.

Now a second document has leaked, though it is not currently available online. The Wire Report reports that an EU document dated November 16, 2009, features candid comments about Canada and the EU strategy. The document, called a “Barrier Hymn Sheet” leaves little doubt about the EU’s objective:

“Put pressure on Canada so that they take IPR issues seriously and remedy the many shortcomings of their IPR protection and enforcement regime…”

The document states that the trade negotiations are a “unique opportunity [for Canada] to upgrade its IPR regime despite local anti-IPR lobbying.” It includes an assessment of recent copyright reform efforts, noting that two bills have died due to “political instability.” The document adds that the copyright reform process was revived in 2009 with the national copyright consultation, but notes dismissively it may have been a “tactic to confuse.”

CBC’s This Hour Has 22 Minutes offers its take on Canadian copyright reform as they explore the historical struggle between technology and the content industry.

Unfortunately the search function on the official Government website for copyright reform has been broken since the day the site launched. The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights is proud to announce the launch of its own copyright consultation search tool aimed at filling this void.

Our copyright consultation search engine is currently limited to searching official submissions however we plan on adding the ability to search submissions and discussions independently as well as viewed cached pages of the Government website in the coming days.

With less than 5 days remaining in the Canadian Government’s consultations on copyright reform (ends Sep 13, 2009) all Canadians are encouraged to speak out this crucial issue now while the opportunity exists. To that end the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights has updated its position on copyright reform in Canada (PDF). This position statement has also been formally submitted to the consultations on copyright reform.

The CCER physically mails a copy of every letter submitted via our letter wizard to each of the ministers responsible for copyright reform in Canada

TorrentFreak has posted an article entitled: Prevent Canada from Becoming a Copyright Police State. In this article, Ernesto details how the old guard of corporate interests and lobby groups are threatening to direct copyright legislation in such a way to protect their antiquated and outmoded business models.

Well, TorrentFreak appears to have struck an especially sensitive chord amongst Canadians as the CCER has seen a tremendous boost in its Letter Writing Wizard submissions. Less than 24 hours ago @copyrightcanada tweeted “We’ve received over 1000 formal submissions!” Since this tweet went out CCER has received more than 1300 submissions to the official consultations on copyright via our letter writing wizard, more than doubling the number of submissions to the Government consultations on copyright thus far.

Although it is the middle of summer, and the Government’s Copyright Consultation website has not been well advertised and the Round Tables have been criticized as closed door and imbalanced, the opinions and passion of average Canadians cannot be ignored.

As a consumer of digital media and electronics you stand to be greatly impacted by changes to Canada’s copyright regime. Fortunately, the Government wants to hear from consumers and creators alike so that the interests of all Canadians can be taken into account. Until September 13, 2009 you can participate in the recently launched government consultations on copyright by visiting www.copyrightconsultation.ca and registering for an upcoming townhall meeting, webcast or by making a submission via email.

If we do not voice our concerns en masse we run the risk of having a draconian system of copyright rules imposed upon us. Imagine living in a country where corporations dictate how you consume information and media and utilize technology. Canadians need to speak out against such proposals and push for greater flexibility in the law to provide a balanced, fair approach on digital reforms. To that end, Michael Geist has just launched www.speakoutoncopyright.ca. The site is designed to inform and help foster greater participation by bringing together online discussion (ie. the Twitter #copycon stream), postings, videos, news reports, etc.

The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights has also updated its letter wizard allowing you to easily submit your concerns in both official languages directly to the government copyright consultations as well as those minsters responsible for modernizing Canada’s Copyright Act.

En tant que consommateur de médias numériques et électroniques, vous serez directement affectés par les changements du régime de droit d’auteur canadien. Heureusement, le gouvernement désire entendre la voix des consommateurs et des créateurs, afin que les intérêts de tous les canadiens soient pris en compte. Jusqu’au 13 septembre 2009, vous pouvez participer à la consultation publique sur les droits d’auteur que le gouvernement vient de débuter, en visitant le site http://droitdauteur.econsultation.ca. Vous pouvez aller en personne dans les assemblées publiques ou être présent durant les diffusions en simultané sur le web, ou à tout le moins exprimer votre position par un message ou email.

Si nous n’envoyons pas un message clair au gouvernement en exprimant notre opinion, nous risquons de nous faire imposer un système de droits d’auteur draconien: Imaginez vivre dans un pays où les corporations seraient en mesure de dicter comment vous pouvez utiliser vos médias et les technologies qui s’y rattachent…. Les canadiens doivent se lever pour s’opposer à l’approche proposée dans la réforme des droits d’auteurs, et exiger des lois flexibles pour un obtenir un juste équilibre. À cette fin, Michael Geist a fait le lancement du site www.speakoutoncopyright.ca. Ce site ontient une foule de renseignements et encourage les participants à discuter en ligne (par le flux Twitter #copycon), rapporter des nouvelles, écrire des commentaires, poster des videos, etc.

La coalition canadienne pour les droits numérique a aussi mis à jour la lettre que vous pouvez envoyer en français ou en anglais, directement au comité de consultation des droits d’auteurs et aux ministres responsables de la modernisation des droits d’auteurs canadiens.