Digital Copyright Canada

On the evening of March 6, 2012 I attended an informal dialogue about bill C-11 at Oliver’s Pub, Carleton University. It was organized by School of Information Technology Associate Professor Ali Arya, who invited MPs from the C-11 legislative committee, Tamir Israel from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), and myself as guests to talk to students and faculty at Carleton. Hon. Geoff Regan, the Liberal MP on the committee, and Liberal Senator Wilfred Moore attended.

The following is the letter I sent today to my MP in Ottawa South. Please send letters to ensure your MPs are aware of your views, given committee moved to clause-by-clause on Monday. This is when we will learn what amendments will be tabled by each party, and the debate on whether bill C-11 will become better or worse will start.

Meera Nair posted a great article about misinformation on fair dealings.

"It is disappointing to read of the continued distortion of fair dealing through the call to action of The Writers’ Union of Canada and Access Copyright. But I am not surprised; it is much easier to provoke fear than to embark upon the longer journey of educating people."

By now many will have heard about the campaign by a group of lawyers to smear the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), making allegations about the process that was used to create a submission to government on Bill C-32 (now C-11).

Since he was directly mentioned as part of the smear campaign, Law professor Michael Geist has responded (National Post, his website). How you interpret these events partly come down to a matter of trust, and I believe we should afford far more trust to Mr. Geist clarity than the misdirection from these specific lawyers. (Update: Andrew Bernstein — Chair, CBA Intellectual Property Section responded)

The participants in this smear campaign are lawyers whose customers are increasingly building business models upon infringing other peoples rights (See my brief to C-11 committee). These lawyers, sometimes registered as lobbiests and sometimes claiming to represent themselves, have been working to legalize and legally protect these infringements.

We should offer these lawyers the same level of respect and trust that they might lawyers or executives at organizations like ISOHunt or the Pirate Bay.

Notes: Howard Knopf has provided links to relevant articles and submissions.

On the Matt Holmes Show at around 20:00 EST an interview I did with Mr. Holmes will air. We were speaking about the Bill C-11 committee, and some of the fun I've been watching for the past few weeks (and will be in the next few weeks).

I of course spoke about the most controversial thing in the bill (TPMs) and the most controversial thing that some of the more extreme witnesses want added to the bill (ISP liability + secondary liability/"enabler").

We spoke more generally than using the Copyright geek language. We chatted about who gets to decide who drives your car, and about violence in music, movies and video games. Listen to the show to see what that has to do with TPMs and SOPA.

Audio archives of the show are available (Look for March 8 Hour 2). I'm looking for feedback on one of the analogies used.

The ninth meeting of the C-11 special legislative committee was held on March 7, 2012.

They say laws are like sausages, and you should never watch either one being made. This last day of witnesses before committee moves to clause-by-clause consideration on Monday was likely the oddest day so far, but still very interesting to watch.

The eighth meeting of the C-11 special legislative committee was held on March 6, 2012.

The first panel offered similar themes from the Canadian Music Publishers Association (CMPA), the Audio-Visual Licensing Agency Inc (AVLA), and the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec (SPACQ).

CMPA started with the familiar argument on ephemeral recordings, going further to claim that Berne says you can't revoke a right that is currently being monetized.

As a reminder, the first meeting minutes has the details, with length of witnesses and clause-by-clause set at that meeting.

Mike Lake moved, — That the Committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Wednesday, March 14, 2012; that debate be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes per party, per clause, and five (5) minutes per party per amendment; and that if clause-by-clause consideration is not completed by 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 29, 2012, the Chair shall interrupt debate and put the question on all remaining clauses and amendments, as well as all other questions necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill forthwith and successively without further debate and shall report the bill back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

The "no later" than next Wednesday may be an earlier date, but I'll write on that as I find out. In any case, we have a maxim of 4 more days of witnesses.

I want to point people to a great post by lawyer Howard Knopf discussing an issue that has come up the last few days at committee. There are people who don't like that the Supreme Court of Canada 6-factor test from the CCH case doesn't prioritize the factors and place the effect of the dealing on the market as the primary (or possibly only) factor. Mr. Knopf deals with what the case actually says, and corrects some misinformation given about the situation in the United States.

Apologies that my post on todays meeting will be late. After committee this morning I met with Kennedy Stewart (NDP MP from Burnaby—Douglas) to discuss Bill C-11 and petitions, then a regular work day.

I then headed to Carleton University to a meeting with technology students, professors, Liberal MP Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, on the C-11 committee), Liberal Senator Hon. Wilfred P. Moore, CIPPIC staff lawyer Tamir Israel and myself.