Sara BannermanSara Bannermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11355971832152796211noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125
Updated: 1 hour 7 min ago Canadian implementation of copyright treatiesI posted recently on the possibility that ACTA could prolong the process of Canadian copyright reform, and about the average period of time, historically, that it has taken to reform Canadian copyright law. If we look at specific examples of efforts, on the part of Canada, to implement international copyright treaties, there are a few examples:
The Berne Convention, first implementation: 38 years Canada was signed on to the original Berne Convention, which is still the cornerstone international copyright treaty today, by the British in 1886. However, it took Canada 38 years to implement the Berne Convention. After being brought on board by the British Imperial government, Canada decided the Berne Convention didn't fit in the North American context. It was viewed as a European treaty; the Americans weren't part of it. It therefore wasn't until 1924 that Canada finally implemented what by then was the 1908 revision of the Berne Convention. The 1928 revision of the Berne Convention: 3 years. Canada implemented the 1928 revision of the Berne Convention in short order, in 1931, granting moral rights and broadcast rights in copyright works. The 1952 Universal Copyright Convention: 10 years. Canada took 10 years to ratify the Universal Copyright Convention, which it did in 1962. It took 10 years because Canada couldn't decide whether or how to change Canadian law in order to implement the convention. After waffling about for 10 years on a possible copyright overhaul, Canada decided that no change to the actual law was necessary in order to meet the standards of the UCC, so that made the process, in the end, relatively quick. The 1971 Revision of the Berne Convention: 22 years. Canada implemented the 1971 (current) revision of the Berne Convention (which it had not originally signed) in 1993 in order to comply with NAFTA. Canada then formally acceded to the convention in 1998. On average, that's 18 years. Implementation takes place more quickly if either no reform to domestic law is required or if the changes required are relatively uncontroversial. If however, the changes required are controversial, or if a significant overhaul of the copyright act is contemplated - as in the current case of contemplated copyright reform - implementation in Canada can take much longer. Average length of copyright reformI noted recently that ACTA could actually slow down copyright reform in Canada. That made me wonder, how long does copyright reform in Canada take, on average?
Reform 1: 36 years . Canada's first copyright act was put in place in 1868, just after Confederation. Attempted overhauls began with bills introduced in 1888 and 1889, but these failed or were blocked by the British. Only minor revisions were made until a completely new act came into effect in 1924. Reform 2: 34 years. Canada began to contemplate copyright reform again in 1954, when it created a Royal Commission to investigate copyright and other forms of intellectual property. This was followed by a major study by the Economic Council of Canada that came out in 1971. All of this studying didn't amount to a major copyright reform until another round of consultations that culminated in the reform of 1988. Reform 3: 9 years. The next phase of Canadian copyright reform took place in record time, and was done in 1997. On average, that's 26 years. Reform 4: 13 years and counting. If history is any guide, Canadians should be expecting a new copyright act somewhere around 2023. ACTA & Copyright ReformWhile Canadian delegations work with other countries to negotiate ACTA, Canadians await the next round of attempted copyright reform. The last two copyright bills, C-60 and C-61 died with changes of government. While parts of the first Liberal bill was seen to some extent to be acceptable, elements of the Conservative C-61 bill were fiercely opposed.
From recent reports it seems as though ACTA would block Canada into a corner on certain aspects of copyright reform, undermining the Canadian notice-and-notice regime for ISP liability and Canadian proposals for DRM circumvention laws, for example. What will be the effect of ACTA on Canadian copyright reform? The effect of ACTA on Canadian copyright reform depends on how the negotiations go. The goal of the Canadian delegation negotiating ACTA will likely be to preserve policy space for Canadian copyright lawmaking, and to negotiate an ACTA that will enable a Canadian copyright bill that is acceptable to Canadians and passable in Canadian Parliament. If the delegation succeeds, and a flexible ACTA that Canadians are comfortable with is the outcome, then we have little to worry about. This, for the moment, seems unlikely. If the delegation does not succeed, and the ACTA that is finally agreed by negotiating parties contains elements that seem unsavory from the Canadian perspective or that would cut off policy options that the Canadian government wants to preserve, then Canada has the option to refrain from signing the treaty. This has happened in the past. When the 1967 revision of the Berne Convention was signed, Canada was in the middle of a copyright policy overhaul. Because of this, after participating in the negotiations, Canada did not sign the revision, which never came into effect anyway. Similarly, Canada negotiated actively but did not sign the 1971 revision of the Berne Convention - which remains the current revision of the treaty - , and avoided acceding to that revision of the convention until 1998. Canada also negotiated actively but did not sign the 1971 revision of the Universal Copyright Convention. Again, this was due to the desire, on the part of the Canadian government, to allow Canadian policy options to remain open for the domestic decision-making process to take place. If Canada signs an ACTA that contains controversial elements from the Canadian perspective, things could go one of two ways. Policymakers and interest groups may accept that the field of policy options has narrowed, that Canada has committed to certain policies, the debate around copyright reform may be encompassed within new terms, and several options that were once controversial will have been pre-decided via the international process. Effectively, domestic policy-making procedures will have been circumvented, and any new Canadian copyright act will fall within the parameters set by ACTA, perhaps passing more easily because some of the controversial elements have been taken out of the debate. Alternately, copyright reform could become even more difficult. Those groups who are in favour of the policy options contained within ACTA will have a stronger argument as to why Canada should include those elements in any new act, while opponents will criticize the government for having short-circuited the domestic process. They will argue that Canada should not implement ACTA. At the same time, the Canadian government will be under more pressure from other parties to the ACTA to implement. This situation could lead to an even longer period of indecision and difficulty in Canadian copyright reform. update: see Blayne Haggart's post on this same topic update 2: see Blayne Haggart's post on how ACTA could slow copyright reform in Mexico E-books: A Checklist for ReadersThe EFF has published an excellent checklist of questions to ask if you are considering buying an e-book or e-reader. It seems to me that many of the answers to these questions are, for the moment, somewhat depressing. This makes it all the more important that such questions should be asked.
Canada: Stronger in 22 WaysCopyright lawyer Howard Knopf spoke to Search Engine about 21 ways (+1) that Canadian copyright law is stronger and more restrictive than American law. Canada suffers much abuse from the US - especially where American-dominated IP lobby groups are running the show, as they so often are - and even, unfortunately, in respectable Canadian publications like the Globe and Mail. Canada's representatives and Canadian commentators would do well to memorize these 22 points, rather than be caught speechless the next time Americans choose the term 'backwater' to refer to their closest trading partner.
Listen to Knopf here. Google Book Settlement and CanadaHoward Knopf has made some comments on the Google Book Settlement and has made note of several questions that Canadians should be asking. He points out that "most of the bells and whistles of the Google Books database will presumably not be available in Canada with respect to most of the database." Although Canadian copyright owners are included in the settlement class, and thus copyright owners could benefit from the proceeds of the settlement, none of the proposed benefits to users, such as institutional access to the database in Canadian libraries, free terminals to access the database in public libraries, or individual subscriptions, will be available to Canadians. Google will confine the services proposed under the settlement to the United States, where American copyright law applies. Canadians will be left viewing snippets of what American users can access fully.
For those interested in reading more, see Jonathan Band's article; especially page 264 on the service provision outside the United States. E is for expensiveAn article in the New York Times on Thursday notes that the prices of ebooks are slated to go up. Customers are outraged. One customer is quoted as saying "$14.82 for the Kindle version is unbelievable." Try $315:
What ACTA means for Canada: FewerDavid Fewer writes a guest post for the Electronic Frontier Foundation on "What ACTA means for Canadians." According to him, there are concerns "with ACTA’s potential to undermine Canadian sovereignty over domestic intellectual property policy and the Canadian values they express."
He notes that ACTA is a threat to Canadian policy solutions that include the Canadian notice-and-notice regime for ISP liability and Canadian proposals for DRM circumvention laws. He concludes, Both ACTA and the Canada-EU trade discussions threaten to displace domestic control over IP policy. While it might be said that it is better for Canadian negotiators to be at the table influencing developments than left on the outside looking in (like the rest of us), it might be better for Canada to walk away from the entire process. Participation merely threatens to lend the process a legitimacy that, from Canadian eyes, it currently lacks. E is for evilE-books aren't evil necessarily. They can be a convenient way to read, and digital books will make an enormous wealth of literature and knowledge available. But there are some important downsides. Here's a summary.
There are a number of great benefits to e-books, especially from an academic perspective:
World Fair Use Day-International aspectsEvents were held in Washington DC this week to celebrate World Fair Use Day. Canadian filmmaker Brett Gaylor noted that the name of the day is a bit of a misnomer, since only the US and Israel have "fair use" provisions in their law; the Canadian counterpart, and the principle in many countries around the world, is called 'fair dealing'. Michael Geist makes an important note on this today. Many of the discussions at the Washington events were focused on fair use in the US, but international aspects arose on a few occasions.
Panelists at a discussion on ACTA Monday night noted the importance of exporting not only protections for copyright holders, but also the exceptions and limitations to copyright that ensure copyright law encourages innovation, that it is balanced, that it reflects how people want and need to use works, and that it is respected. They expressed concern that ACTA, if it focuses only on ratcheting up the rights of copyright holders without focusing also on exceptions and limitations, might set a narrow path going forward that would be detrimental to not only balance in copyright around the world, but also to the current and future flexibility of American law. See Rebecca Tushnet's' blog for more of the discussion. At a lunchtime discussion with Peter Jaszi and Anthony Falzone, I asked the question: should fair use be internationalized, and if so how? The discussion was blogged here ("Sarah Bannerman from GWU"). The panelists gave a thoughtful response, expressing caution about exporting a US-based approach and fears that the harmonization process might actually impose limits on the flexibilities and limitations that countries can include in their law. However, they also noted, as did the panelists Monday night, the importance of including balance and room for limitations and exceptions in any harmonization process. World Fair Use Day-Intenational aspectsEvents were held in Washington DC this week to celebrate World Fair Use Day. Canadian filmmaker Brett Gaylor noted that the name of the day is a bit of a misnomer, since only the US and Israel have "fair use" provisions in their law; the Canadian counterpart, and the principle in many countries around the world, is called 'fair dealing'. Michael Geist makes an important note on this today. Many of the discussions at the Washington events were focused on fair use in the US, but international aspects arose on a few occasions.
Panelists at a discussion on ACTA Monday night noted the importance of exporting not only protections for copyright holders, but also the exceptions and limitations to copyright that ensure copyright law encourages innovation, that it is balanced, that it reflects how people want and need to use works, and that it is respected. They expressed concern that ACTA, if it focuses only on ratcheting up the rights of copyright holders without focusing also on exceptions and limitations, might set a narrow path going forward that would be detrimental to not only balance in copyright around the world, but also to the current and future flexibility of American law. See Rebecca Tushnet's' blog for more of the discussion. At a lunchtime discussion with Peter Jaszi and Anthony Falzone, I asked the question: should fair use be internationalized, and if so how? The discussion was blogged here ("Sarah Bannerman from GWU"). The panelists gave a thoughtful response, expressing caution about exporting a US-based approach and fears that the harmonization process might actually impose limits on the flexibilities and limitations that countries can include in their law. However, they also noted, as did the panelists Monday night, the importance of including balance and room for limitations and exceptions in any harmonization process. World Fair Use DayPublic Knowledge invites people around the world to organize events on January 12 2010 to celebrate World Fair Use Day. [more]
Dear All, On January 12, 2010, Public Knowledge, based in Washington D.C., US, will host the World’s Fair Use day – an event that will bring together artists, innovators, and policy advocates to celebrate fair use. I am writing to request your help in spreading the word about the event. Also, it would be great if you could organize your own events celebrating the many benefits of fair use or similar copyright limitations and exceptions. The idea is to have co-ordinated events in different parts of the world all organized under the same theme. The events don't have to be on the same day. If you let us know about your event, we will help spread the word about it. To give you a better idea about our event, here’s a link to the event website: wfud.info In a few days, we will put together a party packet providing ideas about the types of events you can organize. Of course these are just suggestions and anything you do to celebrate fair use would be great. We would also be delighted if any of you can attend our event. If you are interested in pursuing this further, please contact my colleague, Mehan Jayasuriya, who is organizing our event at mehan@publicknowledge.org. Please don’t hesitate to contact Mehan or me if you have any further questions. Thank you. Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative Public Mexican copyright developmentsBlayne Haggart, Canadian scholar in Mexico, has a new post on hot-off-the-press developments in Mexican copyright. Mexico has the longest copyright term in the world: life + 100 and could, if developments continue, be a world-leader in other strong copyright measures as well. Haggart reports that a new copyright coalition has formed in Mexico that will work to increase copyright measures, recognition, and enforcement. Haggart points to low levels of internet penetration in Mexico as one reason why user rights movements haven't taken off in the country. As Haggart says, regarding the low levels of Internet penetration, "this won’t always be the case; as more Mexicans go online, they are likely to become more aware of how they are affected by copyright law."
Mexician copyright developmentsBlayne Haggart, Canadian scholar in Mexico, has a a href="http://blaynehaggart.blogspot.com/2009/11/in-mexico-creators-and-industry-are.html"new post/a on hot-off-the-press developments in Mexican copyright. Mexico has the longest copyright term in the world: life + 100 and could, if developments continue, be a world-leader in other strong copyright measures as well. Haggart reports that a new copyright coalition has formed in Mexico that will work to increase copyright measures, recognition, and enforcement. Haggart points to low levels of internet penetration in Mexico as one reason why user rights movements haven't taken off in the country. As Haggart says, regarding the low levels of Internet penetration, span class="arnegro14""this won’t always be the case; as more Mexicans go online, they are likely to become more aware of how they are affected by copyright law." /spandiv class="blogger-post-footer"img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1588536543599320397-585732972477184569?l=sarabannerman.blogspot.com' alt='' //div
|
ActivitiesFind your Electoral District and MPNavigationOther key sitesUser loginSearchOther search...
Digital Copyright Canada BLOG
Online Rights CanadaIf you appreciate Online Rights Canada's work, please consider making a donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. |