Apology

I realize that I’ve been writing a lot about this Canadian Copyright reform debacle, and that this might be approaching tediousness to some people.  I admit that I’m passionate about this issue and do have a tendency to rant.

For those of you growing tired, I’ll apologize and assure you that I will be blogging about other topics soon.

Jim Prentice’s letter of lies

Apparently, in the wake of introducing the copyright reform bill today, Jim Prentice and Josée Verner (Heritage Minister) sent out the following letter (or email, depending on how you receive your correspondence):

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.

What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?

Specifically, it includes measures that would:

* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the “statutory damages” a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

I’m going to jump in here and reference Michael Geist’s aformentioned “check the fine print“:

As expected, Prentice has provided a series of attention-grabbing provisions to consumers including time shifting, private copying of music (transferring a song to your iPod), and format shifting (changing format from analog to digital).  These are good provisions that did not exist in the delayed December bill.  However, check the fine print since the rules are subject to a host of strict limitations and, more importantly, undermined by the digital lock provisions.  The effect of the digital lock provisions is to render these rights virtually meaningless in the digital environment because anything that is locked down (ie. copy-controlled CD, no-copy mandate on a digital television broadcast) cannot be copied. As for every day activities like transferring a DVD to your iPod - those are infringing too. Indeed, the law makes it an infringement to circumvent the locks for these purposes.

Back to the Prentice email:

* implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;

* clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and

* provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.

What Bill C-61 does not do:

* it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

Hold on!  Jumping in again.  Take a look at “what Bill C-61 does not do”  That’s technically true.  This bill does not empower border agents to seize our ipod or laptop at border crossings.  BUT…this is a deliberate obfuscation.  Prentice knows about the ACTA treaty in discussion, so he’s not out and out lying, he’s misdirecting.  Which, to me, is still a lie.

Back to the last of the points in the email:

What this Bill is not:

* it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

This tactic was anticipated by Geist in the “Talking Points” post I referenced before.  Specifically:

Canada is currently fully compliant with its commitments since signing a treaty does not mandate ratification.  Further, the government will speak about “implementation” rather than “ratification” since this bill will still not allow Canada to fully ratify the treaties and sticking to implementation will enable the government to delay meeting its commitment to debating international treaties before ratification. Finally, there is great flexibility within the WIPO Internet treaties such that the Canadian approach could easily be far more balanced and still allow for eventual ratification.

Nice to see that the government is predictable in its efforts to lie to Canadians.  But then, did you expect any different?

We were right to be concerned

A copyright reform bill that was created without consulting Canadians is not a “made in Canada” copyright reform bill.

This is not a “Made in Canada Copyright Reform Bill”.  It is pretty clearly stamped with “MADE IN USA”, and shows how deeply this conservative government is in the pocket of US interests, when they should be focused on Canadian interests (because…y’know…they are supposedly elected by Canadians).

Here’s my little message to the Opposition Parties:

No more rubber stamps for this government!  Its high time you picked an issue and stuck by it.  Don’t object to this bill but not show up on voting day just so you don’t topple the government.  THIS IS WORTH TOPPLING THE GOVERNMENT OVER!

Grow a pair.  And do what this government has shown itself to be incapable of doing and stand up for Canadians.

Update: Michael Geist has chimed in with his analysis of the fine print.  Its a must read.  Also important reading material: Geist’s prediction on what Jim Prentice’s talking points are likely to be (which he then goes on to debunk).

C-Day

Hey Canadian Copyright Watchers!  Today’s the day.  The Canadian government announced that the copyright reform bill will be tabled today.  This is in keeping with their rumoured commitment to their constituents - the US copyright lobby to introduce the bill before the summer break.  Since the House of Commons breaks for what is rumoured to be an extended break tomorrow, this is pretty much their last chance to introduce the bill.

They are going to drop this bill and run.  Chances are they will try to lay low, hoping that the furour that will follow will blow over during the summer.  Hopefully the summer will also help the Opposition parties to grow a few pairs and learn that this is something worth toppling the government over.

Apparently the spin for this copyright reform is “Made in Canada Copyright Reform”.  Michael Geist has repeatedly pointed out that the government has not consulted with Canadian groups regarding this bill, but instead has chosen to meet with US interest groups (RIAA, MPAA) and ignore the many voices of Canadian groups and individuals who have loudly voiced their objections.  Which makes “Made in Canada Copyright Reform” a misnomer: this copyright reform was made in America.

Let’s see what happens today…