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.

In what should come as little surprise to industry observers, Canada has again been placed on the USTR Special 301 Priority Watch List for 2010. Perhaps Canadians can take solace in the fact that we’re not in this alone, as all the countries’ populations on the Priority Watch List comprise of approximately 2/3 of the world’s population.

The specific wording of the Canada section of the report is much the same as 2009, with 2010 priorities being:

• Proceed with legislative copyright reforms to update Canada’s copyright laws.
• Address Internet piracy by fully implementing WIPO.
• Improve the IPR enforcement system to provide deterrent sentences and stronger enforcement powers, focusing on border enforcement.

2009 priorities were listed as:

• Promptly and effectively implement key copyright reforms.
• Strengthen copyright laws by implementing WIPO, ASAP.
• Curb the volume of infringing products and their distribution with stronger border enforcement.

At this point, the USTR likely feels like it is flogging a dead horse when it comes to Canada, however, this simply is not the case. As Michael Geist points out, Canada has already taken many steps to deal with the opportunities and challenges of the new digital economy including: declining piracy rates when compared to other Priority Watch List members, sales declines in the recording industry are not as sharp as those in other industrialized countries (i.e. US and Japan), enacting swift anti-camcording legislation, Canada has improved its IP standing with groups such as the BSA and some even have shown Canadian copyright laws to be stronger than the US in certain circumstances.

The USTR Special 301 Report has come under increasing criticism for being tired and out of date, being wrought with procedural and transparency issues and being a tool by which to bully foreign governments with. What’s further dis-heartening this time around is the USTR seemed to ignore the formal input by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (.pdf) whose submission highlighted the following:

CCIA opposes placing Canada on any Special 301 list in the company of nations that genuinely fail to provide adequate and effective protection. Canada’s current copyright law and practice clearly satisfy the statutory “adequate and effective” standard. Indeed, in a number respects, Canada’s laws are more protective of creators than those of the United States.

Canada has made clear its commitment to cultural creativity and to updating its copyright laws as evidenced in the 2008 and 2010 Throne Speeches. The resulting legislation is expected as early as June of this year. The CCER remains confident that the Ministers of Industry and Heritage will recognize the differences between unfair, heavily influenced international reports and Canada’s right to develop legislation that reflect the values, inputs and ideals of Canadian creators and consumers alike.

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.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3

In his presentation to the Heritage Committee on Canada’s digital future Michael Geist revealed that he was sent a leaked copy of the Canadian / European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) intellectual property chapter from an anonymous source. According to Geist the contents of this agreement represent not only a significant threat to Canada’s sovereign approach to policy development but the most comprehensive change to Canadian intellectual property law seen to date.

This (CETA) will fundamentally reshape not just copyright but patents and trademark as well. In many ways what the Europeans are demanding are that Canada alter its and almost mirror intellectual property laws in all areas to match what the Europeans have done.

UPDATE:
Michael Geist has posted the updated copy of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement IP draft chapter and the contents are quite troubling. The document outlines a laundry list of demands from the EU, which according to Geist, represents nothing less than a complete overhaul of Canadian IP laws including copyright, trademark, databases, patent, geographic indications, and even plant variety rights. Given the broad scope of these demands and the contentious nature of foregoing sovereignty in the name of economics it will be very interesting to see how this agreement plays out.

Breakdown of demands via Michael Geist:

Copyright

The EU demands include:

• compliance with WIPO Internet treaties
• extension of the term of copyright to life of the author plus 70 years (Canadian law currently at life plus 50 years)
• additional copyright term extensions for audiovisual works, anonymous works, and unpublished works
• term of copyright for broadcasts for at least 50 years (Canada wants to limit to wireless broadcasts, while EU wants it to cover everything)
• greater transparency for copyright collectives
• new resale right for works of art
• new exclusive right of fixation for broadcasts (Canada wants to limit to wireless broadcasts, while EU wants it to cover everything)
• new exclusive right for broadcasters for retransmission in public places (ie. new fees for bars and other public places)
• new distribution right
• extension of the reproduction right to performers and broadcasters
• extension of the communications right for performers, phonogram producers, film producers, and broadcasters.
• anti-circumvention rules including provisions against devices that can be used to circumvent digital locks
• protection for rights management information

These are all EU demands. The only Canadian request is a yet to be specified provision on camcording.

Enforcement of IP Rights
The enforcement IP rights section contains quite literally, pages of European law that the EU wants incorporated into Canadian law. It addresses everything from ISP liability to injunctions to border measures to damages provisions. The EU even wants new criminal sanctions added, but has yet to specify what those should be. There are no Canadian requests here. Rather, the EU wants Canada to discard its approach to the enforcement of intellectual property almost completely and simply adopt the EU model.

Trademarks

The EU demands include:

• Canada to comply with the Trademark Law Treaty (Canada wants only to comply with the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and to make reasonable efforts to accede to Madrid Agreement on
• international registration)
• Canada to change its procedure for registration of trademarks
• Canada to provide protections for well-known trademarks

Geographic Indications
Canada and the EU propose competing approaches for extending protections for geographic indications. This applies to a wide range of products including agricultural products, wine, spirit drinks, and foodstuffs. The EU’s plan is far more extensive with provisions on protection, enforcement, rights of use, and scope of protection. In fact, the EU even wants to create a Joint Committee on geographic indications charged with monitoring the rules between Canada and the EU.

Designs

The EU demands include:

• Canada to accede to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs
• new protection for designs
• new rights for registration of designs
• term of protection for designs of at least five years

Patents

The EU demands include:

• Canada to comply with Articles 1 – 16 of the Patent Law Treaty (Canada wants to “endeavour to accede” to the treaty)
• further protection for medicinal or plant protection
• additional protection blocking disclosure of pharmaceutical data that is submitted to regulatory authorities to third parties
• new data protection for plant protection

Trade Secrets
Canada demands that the EU adopt the Canadian protection for trade secrets.

Today the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights joins a growing list of organizations representing creators, innovators, educators, students and consumers to form the Fair’s Fair Coalition. In a public letter to Industry Minister Tony Clement and Heritage Minister James Moore the Fair’s Fair Coalition asked that the first priority of any legislation to amend the Copyright Act should be to transform fair dealing from an artificially narrow defence into a flexible tool to better accommodate Canadians’ expressive and innovative values in a digital age.

We call on the Canadian government to amend the Copyright Act to clarify that:

1. any dealing that may qualify for the defence so long as it is fair, and
2. the enumerated categories of dealings are illustrative of potentially fair dealings, rather than exclusive categories of qualifying dealings.

Tree truths counsel the wisdom of this amendment:

1. Flexible fair dealing advances copyright law’s policy objectives in a digital age.
2. Flexible fair dealing advances Canadian values.
3. Flexible fair dealing is consistent with Canada’s international obligations and the policies of Canada’s major trading partners.

Flexible fair dealing represents the simplest and most comprehensive means of addressing many of the long-recognized short-comings of Canadian copyright law in a technologically neutral way. Flexible fair dealing will fix Canada’s parody problem, at long last legalize fair consumer practices such as time-shifting and consumer backups, and offer greater security to innovators and creators, such as documentary film-makers, who build on the works of others. “The change we ask for is simple and equitable: what’s fair is fair, and should also be legal“.

Yesterday’s Throne Speech clearly indicated that the Government plans on “strengthening laws governing intellectual property and copyright“. When we see the words strengthen and copyright in the same sentence we automatically think of legislation that sacrifices the rights of consumers, creators and researchers in favour of specific technologies and business models. After all, Canadians are well within the realms of sanity to react so sceptically given previous attempts at copyright reform, specifically Bill C-61 (The Canadian DMCA).

However, along comes the Minister of Industry himself indicating our dire assumptions may be presumptuous. Following the Throne Speech, Tony Clement appeared on CTV’s Powerplay and offered a glimmer of hope to balanced copyright reform sceptics. When asked if moving forward on copyright reform was a tradeoff for putting the “buy American” issue to bed Clement responded:

I’ve been pretty clear to the Americans and in my public statements that we are moving ahead with copyright reform. The key is, from the American perspective, they want us to be part of WIPO, which is an international treaty on protecting intellectual property. We don’t have a problem with that, but we’re going to do it in a made-in-Canada way. We’re not just going to take what the Americans are doing or what the Europeans are doing. We are going to fit it to the Canadian context and I think that is the right thing to do.

Given this refreshing dialogue, it appears that Tony Clement may actually fully understand the copyright file and the implications that modernizing the Copyright Act will have on Canadians. Hopefully Clement can parlé his encouraging views into legislation. It is going to be an uphill battle especially given the immense amount of lobbying that will be taking place in Ottawa over copyright. In fact it would appear that the industry lobbyists have already resorted to pulling out their big guns for this showdown:

Surprise memo of the month from my staff: “U2′s manager Paul McGuinness wrote you. Bono wants to talk to you about copyright”

A tweet from James Moore (the second half of the copyright reform file) this morning indicates that he received a request from U2′s manager to speak with Bono about copyright. Yes, the same Bono that wrote the infamous New York Times op-ed about saving the world by ratcheting up protection for intellectual property.

Yes Canada, it’s like déjà vu all over again. This Government has once again committed themselves to tackling this pesky copyright thingy. In today’s Speech from the Throne it took Governor General Michaëlle Jean just 14.5 minutes out of 60 some-odd minutes to mention copyright and the direction this Government will take to update Canada’s Copyright Act:

To fuel the ingenuity of Canada’s best and brightest and bring innovative products to market, our Government will build on the unprecedented investments in Canada’s Economic Action Plan by bolstering its Science and Technology Strategy. It will launch a digital economy strategy to drive the adoption of new technology across the economy. To encourage new ideas and protect the rights of Canadians whose research, development and artistic creativity contribute to Canada’s prosperity, our Government will also strengthen laws governing intellectual property and copyright.

In terms of copyright and its implications, this was essentially a carbon copy of the Speech from the Throne delivered by this same Government on Nov. 18, 2009.

With approximately 100 sitting days scheduled for the House of Commons to be in session before the summer recess, one gets the inkling that Canadians are going to see an Act to Amend the Copyright Act hit the Order Paper and most likely First Reading before the MP’s retreat to the summer BBQ circuit.

When it comes to copyright reform in Canada battle lines have been clearly drawn, on the one side we have the ‘blame Canada’ corporate lobbyists, shills and lawyers versus those of sound mind, i.e. consumers, esteemed members of academia, lawyers with sound reasoning and tech industry coalitions. Just who truly has the ear of Government will remain to be seen in the next 100 days and beyond. However, if Bill C-60 and Bill C-61 are any indications consumers are going to be in for a rough ride as distributors will continue to push for locked down content and legislation to protect their imposed locks.

Even if this government comes to its senses and crafts a truly balanced copyright bill, Canada, and the rest of the developed world for that matter, have the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) looming over their heads. This secretly negotiated trade agreement represents a particularly vile form of policy laundering that if enacted, threatens to override Canada’s domestic copyright policy, reformed or otherwise. ACTA seeks to provide an unprecedented level of control to ISP’s, pseudo-law enforcement and content distributors to dictate how, when and where consumers can access content and associated products in the high tech economy. Yes, folks be afraid, be very afraid.

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.”