Digital Copyright Canada

Today I was invited to speak along with David Fewer from the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC). (Transcripts, audio/video and minutes are all online.)

CIPPIC was established at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law in the fall of 2003, and has offices in the law building at the University. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the law professors, law students and other staff at both the University of Ottawa Technology law and CIPPIC for all the help they have offered me over the years.

Along with David Fewer from the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), I will be on a panel this morning in front of the Bill C-32 legislative committee.

I included what I will be saying as my opening remarks was included in the introduction section of my brief to the committee.

It is interesting that Liberal MP Dan McTeague has continued his public dispute on his own blog with law professor and Canada research chair Michael Geist.

I will let people read the various court documents and decide their own views on what Mr. Geist and Mr. McTeague are saying, but do wonder if drawing attention to this dispute is in Mr. McTeague's best interests given he could be in an election campaign soon.

While watching CTV's Question Period this morning, I started to think about how politicians would feel if we applied some of the same logic to election law as some seem to think is valid in copyright law. I sent out a few tweets on comparisons with isp-liability (Notice-and-take-down, 3-strikes, appeal process, Notice-and-notice).

I would hope to think that nobody would claim that copyright infringement is more serious than election law violations in a democratic society. It is interesting that there are calls to make the remedies in copyright far more immediate and in many cases far more severe.

Thursday was Radio Broadcaster day, with the morning and afternoon sessions being witnesses from the radio broadcasting industry talking about exceptions relating to temporary reproductions for technological purposes and ephemeral recordings exception (Modifications to sections 30.71-30.9).

I don't have any skin in this specific game. I am not a broadcaster, and don't listen to music on radio. I very occasionally listen to CBC news in the morning, and have some radio shows I listen to as MP3's (audio blogs), but I'm not an audience for the type of broadcaster being discussed.

It is also hard to be seen as sympathetic to broadcasters generally. The way the broadcasters are spinning this, including in their "Local TV...err. Radio matters" attack ads, is disgusting and dishonest.

Today was a music industry day, with the morning session being representatives of the recording industry ("makers of sound recording"), and the afternoon session being music composers and their publishers.

The story in the morning was very familiar: The sky is falling -- look at how bad it is (spin the wheel of alleged misfortune) -- and something must be done. Bill C-32 is "something", so clearly it will stop the sky from falling. It must be passed, and we should stop talking about it.

I was sent a link to some interesting Canadian Copyright debate related cartoons by Rob Labossiere. While I liked the cartoons, something said in the text around the cartoons caught my eye even more:

But it will be a shame if Bill C-32 is never passed, for two reasons, neither of which ironically has to do with the substance of it.

I saw something similar last evening when law professor Jeremy de Beer tweeted a link to a Globe and Mail article, adding "So now any new law is better than no new law?? Sad.".

I just completed a transfer of money from Rogers to OpenMedia.ca. As part of my cable package I had a "Customer Choice Package" for $10.95 a month, which I just called and cancelled. I then logged into OpenMedia.ca's matching funds drive and donated a little under what I would have paid Rogers for the rest of the year and clicked on the $100 Sustainer option.

The 14'th meeting of the C-32 special legislative committee saw 2 sets of associations from the film distribution sector in the morning, and then 4 sets of associations involved in the film and television production sector. As with previous meetings there was complaints about how the meetings have been organized, given it isn't fair to have the same 1 hour for 2 fairly similar associations as it is for 4 more different associations.

Most of the witnesses for the 13'th meeting of the C-32 committee had a compatible policy focus. They were representatives from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Canadian Association of University Teachers, Campus Stores Canada, Canadian Association of Research Libraries and Canadian Federation of Students. Each represent creators and users of copyrighted works, and some of what are often called "owners" (non-creator copyright holders). As such they had a relatively balanced view compared to some of the other witnesses.