Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights
 

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The USTR Special 301 Report has come under increasing criticism for being tired and out of date, being wrought with procedural and transparency issues and being a tool by which to bully foreign governments with.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.

After less than a month in office the new US Ambassador to Canada wasted little time re-hashing the stereotypical view of Canada and its supposed lax copyright laws. Speaking at a conference in Montreal on Canada-US relations, David Jacobson indicated that Canada deserves its position on the USTR’s Priority Watch List for not legislating copyright reforms dictated by the US (read: lobbyists, corporations).

Considering Mr Jacobson’s litigious past, he spent over 30 years at the prestigious Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, one shouldn’t be too surprised by his rhetorical salvo against Canada and its copyright laws. Canadians can expect more of the same from Mr Jacobson and his office. It just remains to be seen whether the Harper Government will choose to amend Canada’s Copyright Act in a manner consistent with Canadian’s views and ideals or the bullying tactics of US litigators, lobbyists and trade groups.

Sonnenschein’s Intellectual Property & Technology Practice includes an active and extensive international trademark and patent practice. The firm has established a network of foreign counsel—local intellectual property practitioners in countries around the world—who provide vast and wide-ranging expertise in the laws of the countries in which the firm’s clients conduct business, source manufacturing, distribute products or chase infringements and counterfeits.

It seems Mr Jacobson’s message is getting through to Canada’s monopolistic-like media outlets and their mis-informed editors. I would invite Mr McKenna and other interested readers to inform themselves with this well written piece at TechDirt. Or if you prefer a well researched piece containing actual statistics and numbers, read here.