Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights
 

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.

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.

The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights is proud to announce that Canadian video game developer Battlegoat Studios has become a coalition member.

BattleGoat Studios is a Canadian Software Developer committed to developing leading edge “Intelligent Strategy Games” for the PC…the team firmly believes that Strategy Gamers are looking for more sophisticated games that also remain fun to play. BattleGoat insists that their approach to development will always emphasize an accurate, heavily researched environment assuring players an entertaining and immersive gameplay experience.

Founder and lead developer George Geczy has been very open and frank when discussing copyright reform in Canada as evidenced by his Copyright Consultation Submission. As a successful and independent Canadian game developer, Geczy felt it imperative to directly address The Entertainment Software Association of Canada to make it clear that their anti-consumer views on copyright are not representative of BattleGoat Studios’ views or that of many other small and mid-size Canadian developers. Geczy continued:

Your comments and proposals completely disregard the final consumer – the video game purchaser and player – and the fact that they, too, deserve certain rights in a fair system. Rights
such as the ability to continue to play a game after a user’s system has been upgraded or replaced; the ability to backup a PC game to protect from system failure; the ability to continue playing a legally purchased game after a publisher goes out of business and the ‘authentication’ server is taken off line; and so on. Your insistence on anti-circumvention legislation for Canada is a direct assault on the very customers who buy video game products.

The addition of independent game developer, BattleGoat Studios, to the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights galvanizes the calls from Canadians for fair and balanced copyright reforms that maintain technologically neutrality. A reformed copyright regime that takes into careful consideration the rights of consumers as well as creators. A framework that will not be trumped by international trade agreements negotiated in complete secrecy without public consultation or consideration.

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.

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.

As promised the Canadian Government has put into place some details for its nationwide consultation on copyright modernization. The official website has been launched, ironically running on open source software, reminding one of the old idiom, actions speak louder than words. Not the most pleasing website ever seen, nor the most technically advanced, lets hope what it lacks in usability is made up for in content and effectiveness.

The website proves to be a decent clearinghouse for its calendar of events, most notably the Round Tables and Town Halls. While criticism is emerging regarding the closed-door, invitation only Round Table sessions, one can only hope the audio and video from these sessions will be released in their entirety to make up for this lack of transparency. Regarding the Town Halls, while Clement had indicated that the consultations would be coming to ‘a pasture near you’ turns out that unless your pasture backs onto Toronto or Montreal, the Town Hall will not be so near you and your only option will be an email submission or webcast participation.

Although the Conservative Government is to be commended for seemingly making an effort to consult on copyright, a number of concerns remain. For instance reports that the government intends on fast-tracking this legislation is very worrisome. There is word that the Government is looking to get a copyright reform bill signed into law before Christmas. Seeing as parliament will not be sitting again until Sept. 14, 2009 this bill would need to successfully navigate multiple readings and committee hearings in both the house and senate prior to being given royal ascent all in less than 3 months, whereas most legislation takes an absolute minimum of 6-8 months.

So the time is nigh to mobilize the troops. Be sure to post your responses/comments to the topics, register for the Town Halls (Toronto, Montreal) either the webcast or actually attending and submit your formal submission here. Time will tell if Clement and Moore are truly committed to doing things differently, however, if we all speak out we cannot be ignored.

Over a year ago, following the introduction of Bill C-61 we posted two videos to YouTube relating to Canadian copyright reform. These videos originally aired on the Business News Network formerly Report on Business TV. One video featured Canadian copyright scholar/expert Howard Knopf squaring off against Stevan Mitchell of the Entertainment Software Association (Howard Knopf Coming To The Defense Of Canadian Consumers – YouTube).

The second video featured professor Jeremy de Beer sparring with CRIA lobbyist, Barry Sookman over the implications of Bill C-61 (Jeremy de Beer & Barry Sookman On Bill C-61 – YouTube). On June 22, 2009 YouTube notified us that these videos had been removed citing a copyright complaint from The Business News Network. One of the notifications from YouTube:

We have received copyright complaint(s) regarding material you posted, as follows:

* from Business News Network about Howard Knopf Coming To The Defense Of Canadian Consumers
Video ID: YFFdSJ1R9ZE

Just a few days prior to our videos being pulled Jesse Hirsh tweeted that YouTube had just pulled one of his videos. A BNN clip which had Jesse taking on a CRIA representative (Jesse Hirsh on RoBTV Regarding BitTorrent – YouTube). What was happening? Was BNN demanding every clip posted on YouTube be taken down or were they targeting clips relating to Canadian copyright reform only? A quick search of YouTube would indicate the latter.

It has been one week since the takedown of three important clips relating to Canadian copyright reform and YouTube still has dozens of live BNN & ROBTV videos (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

Given the above evidence one can only assume that The Business News Network’s intended goal is to silence the debate surrounding Canadian copyright reform by suppressing the rebroadcast of clips which may be unfavourable for industry lobby groups. This also leads one to ask if BNN is acting at the request of a third party or at its own discretion. Since it is not evident that BNN is removing ALL of their content from YouTube and since we believe the clips we posted are part of a very important discussion we have reposted the videos:

---

UPDATE: Rose Noonan of the Business News Network has provided CCER with clear evidence that BNN is indeed targeting all YouTube content and not just that relating to the Canadian copyright debate. While this is a reassuring development it is at the same time troubling that in a time when many broadcasters are forging partnerships with YouTube BNN has chosen the forced removal of content.

Industry Minister Tony Clement hosted Canada’s Digital Economy Conference today which brought together 150 of the country’s most notable corporate leaders. Although the demographics of the invited group failed to even remotely represent that of Canada (only 1 of the 18 speakers was female) the event appears to have achieved its primary goal which was to lay the groundwork for a national digital strategy.

Clement vowed to move forward with several aspects of a digital strategy including privacy legislation, improved broadband availability and most importantly copyright reform. In his closing remarks Clement commented that much has changed since the introduction of Bill C-61.

When we look at where we were with Bill C-61 for instance on copyright just about a year ago or more than that and where we are now. I think it at least a somewhat different environment, public policy environment, in just the space of a year.

Most notably the Minister of Industry confirmed that he and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, James Moore will be dedicating at least part of their summer to consulting Canadians on copyright reform. The duo will be traveling to “a city, town, village and pasture near you”. In addition one can only hope that Clement and Moore will also consider using conduits such as Facebook and Twitter to consult all Canadians on copyright reform and how it stands to impact them as consumers and creators.

Clement has certainly talked the talk, it remains to be seen whether he will walk that walk on this one. There is little doubt some sort of iteration of Bill C-61 will be presented by the Conservatives this Fall, will they learn from the mistakes of the prior Bills and will there be fair and open consultations accessible to every Canadian?