Digital Copyright Canada

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Darryl Moore wrote:

> I think the problem must be that Kapica somehow does not see WIPO 
> ratification as necessarily leading to DMCA style laws.

  There is a good history of the treaties and the DMCA in "Digital
Copyright" by Jessica Litman.  The short-form is that the extremist special
interest policy came first in the USA and it couldn't be passed easily
domestically.  The same special interests (USPTO, USTR, and the industries
they represent)  then pushed a version into WIPO.  They then claimed that
the DMCA implemented WIPO, when in reality it simply implemented their
extremist agenda that had been opposed earlier.

   WIPO treaty ratification doesn't have to be as bad in Canada as it is
in the USA.  The problem is that there is a disconnect between the
comparatively moderate policy suggestions coming from the departments
(there are those in this forum that will challenge this) and the extremist
positions being put forward by the Canadian MPs in the Heritage committee.

  As an example of the problem, please take a close look at
recommendations 4+5 to see what this is recommending be levied.
  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836

  Please don't be distracted by the reference to educational institutions,
as this is really a way to set a precedent on what is and is not royalty
free, a precedent that is a radical change of how the Internet has worked
thus far.  To put it in terms that Lawrence Lessig would have used in his
book "Code and other laws of cyberspace", this is a radical rewrite of the
constitution of the Internet without even considering inviting the
original constitutional authors or any citizens to comment.

  What is to be levied is really two new things:

  a) When someone forgets to put a license of any type on a page, assuming
that it will be royalty free like everything else on the Internet that is
not behind a password or other "membership required"  interface.  This
would normally not be a problem as the copyright holder isn't asking for a
royalty, but in this case it is not the copyright holder but a collective
society that is (invalidly, but unfortunately not illegally) asking for
the royalty payment.

  b) When a copyright holder deliberately violates the implied royalty
free license of the password-free part of the Internet and puts a license
on their page that claims to require a royalty to "copy" (which with
electronic communications really means "access").  Since there is no
password or other mechanism to verify membership or that the person agrees
to the royalty, you have already "copied" the page by the time you are
told that you have to pay a royalty.  I see this as a scheme to induce
copyright infringement, a technique that the Heritage committee should not
only not be supporting, but should be under investigation by the
Competition Bureau.

  That is the translation of recommendation 5.  You then look at
recommendation 4 which says "extended license".  This means that a
collective society that claims to represent the majority of copyright
holders for a class of works can collect for all copyright holders in that
class.  What should have been an obvious problem is that there is no
collective society that can legitimately claim to represent the majority
of copyright holder on the password-free Internet as this is an *ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT* group than those who publish in traditional media like books,
magazines and newspapers!

  Does the Heritage Committee know this?  No.  Do they care to learn?  As
indicated by who they invited to the committee hearings, the answer on
this is also no.  They think they know, and are going to ram through their
misconceptions without even bothering to ask anyone who would know.

> Other than his line about DMCA being a "much more draconian piece of
> legislation than the WIPO called for", this other article of his is well
> done.
> 
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/?articleID=4031

  This is why we need to send letters to him to ensure that he is made
aware of what is really happening in parliament.  These are people who are
unaware of the technologies they are proposing radical regulations of, and
thus far uninterested in talking to people who could educate them as these
are people different than the incumbent industry associations.

  They have been carrying out their "consultations" as if this was still
the 1980's and the changes to the world that the Internet brought never
happened.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Code is Law: how software code regulates the activities of citizens,
 and acts similar to law.  How do we ensure transparency/accountability?  
 http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/life-of-hacker.html#code=law
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Digital Copyright Canada

Re: [d@DCC] Globe update: Hurry up and ratify WIPO

All Canadian Citizens are "Rights Holders"!