Digital Copyright Canada

From the Throne Speech delivered earlier today:

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.

This speech takes as an assumption the very thing politically debated and inadequately studied, which is the link between "stronger" Patent/Copyright law (stronger meaning tilted in favor of incumbent copyright holders) and the encouragement of new ideas, research, development and artistic creativity. The reality is that PCT is to creativity and innovation like water is to humans: too little and you dehydrate and die, too much and you drown and die. We are already drowning and the government has threatened in the throne speech to throw more water at us.

I received the following response from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to my submission to the ACTA consultation.

I find it frustrating that they continue to try to misdirect critiques with a suggestion that it is premature to speculate about any specific measure. My critique is primarily based on the lack of disclosure as well as the merging of entirely unrelated areas of policy (Counterfeiting, "piracy"/de-minimus infringement, Internet/etc issues). These problems were only confirmed by the response, something that is definitely not reassuring.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) tipped their hand a bit in this years submission to the “Special 301" report process. While they again attacked Canada for having strong copyright law that is different than the USA, the most telling was their opposition to policies encouraging legally free of charge Open Source in their submissions for Brazil, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Encouraging legally free software is by far the best policy instrument to reduce software copyright infringement for the less financially rich countries and individuals of the world. For the vast majority of the worlds population the only viable options are to infringe royalty-based software or switch to royalty-free alternatives. The fact the IIPA is encouraging countries to have policies which increase infringement rather than have people switch to competing software is telling about their actual goals.

This is consistent with what past Microsoft business group president Jeff Raikes previously stated, "If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else".

In an article for The Mark I suggest that we shouldn't blame Google when music blogs are shut down, since it’s the major record labels that are to blame.

Leave it to the FSF to initiate the only coverage of the iPad that sees it as I see it. (See: The Register)

I received an email from the Defective by Design campaign that started:

"Today, Apple launched a computer that will never belong to its owner. Apple will use Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to gain total veto power over the applications you use and the media you can view."

They then reference a petition. Not sure how useful a petition to Mr. Jobs that questions his entire business ethic could be, but it does make for a useful educational tool. If you are a Canadian and agree that the owners of technology should be the ones who hold the keys, and not a third party, then sign our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights which is tabled in parliament and can actually have influence.

By now you will have read many articles derived from the statements made by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer at Google about China.

The primary issue that Google was bringing up was a simple and not politically hot one. Companies need to know that the government of countries they are trying to do business in will have laws and enforce them against those who attack the physical or virtual infrastructure of these businesses.

Many of the comments and articles about this incident suggested Google was trying to protect online free speech. I do not buy that argument in this case.

Read full article on IT World Canada's blog ...

Charlie Angus has sent a letter to International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan challenging him to explain how ACTA will impact Canada's domestic copyright policy. Full text of letter is on Charlie's website.

According to an article in the Hill Times by Harris Macleod, the Conservative government intends to reintroduce Bill C-6, on consumer product safety, in its original form. Bill C-6 was supported by the opposition parties in a form that eroded property rights and gave too much power to bureaucrats without judicial oversight. This was amended by the Senate to make less bad, but these amendments would be wiped out by the ongoing procedural games from the Conservatives. (See earlier article)

Government House Leader Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, B.C.) said of this bill and Bill C-15, "On those two in particular I would be seeking unanimity to proceed with them at an accelerated rate".

The Prime Minister announced changes to the federal ministers. (CBC) The important thing for us is that the Ministers of Industry, Heritage are the same.

The Minister of International Trade is now Peter Van Loan, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs remains with Lawrence Cannon. It can be argued that these ministers, and not Industry or Heritage, actually have the primary responsibility for Copyright law given Copyright is primarily set in trade and treaty negotiations.

Earlier this week I listened to (MP3) an interview of Margaret Atwood by Spartan Youth Radio reporter Madeline Lemire. I found I agreed with some of the views of Ms. Atwood. This surprised me because I was aware of some of her views on Copyright, and because of this I had become wilfully ignorant of her work. I did not want to financially support someone I felt was a political opponent.

Read full article on IT World Canada's blog >>