Jim Prentice vs Michael Geist
p2pnet news | Freedom:- Ottawa law professor and unofficial Internet analyst and spokesman Michael Geist has struck a very tender spot with Canadian industry minister Jim Prentice.
Geist is one of the most outspoken critics of Prentice’s plans to inflict a US-style Digital Millennium Copyright Act on Canadians.
Yesterday, Geist blogged Part I of A Week in the Life of the Canadian DMCA, posting >>>
Many people have written to ask for concrete examples of how the Canadian DMCA would impact everyday activities. In response, today I’m going to start a five part series of a typical Canadian family’s potential encounter with the law. The fictional family consist of:
Jim and Josee live in a Calgary suburb together with their three children Stephen (age 16), Rona (age 10), and Diane (age 4). Jim is the chief librarian at the National Energy Library, while Josee teaches media and communications at a local high school.
This post focuses on Jim. Soon after he arrives into the office on Monday morning, he is contacted by a researcher located in the field who asks him to track down an article and to email an electronic copy as soon as possible. Jim finds the article, scans and sends it via email. After work, he drops into the local HMV and purchases a DVD copy of the movie Juno. At home, he transfers a copy of the movie to his video iPod for viewing on an upcoming business trip.
If the Canadian DMCA becomes law, all of Jim’s copying activities arguably violate the law.
Jim’s act of scanning and distribution of the article should qualify as fair dealing. Apparently the government thinks it does not, however, since Bill C-61 contains a specific provision to allow librarians to digitize a paper copy on behalf of a patron. That provision only works if they take steps to ensure that the recipient does not transfer the digital copy to anyone else and only uses it for five days. Since those technical restrictions were not imposed on the researcher, this would not qualify (Section 30.2(5.01)). The ripping of the Juno DVD to the video iPod clearly violates the law. Prentice’s format shifting provisions are limited to videocassettes – DVDs are off-limits (Section 29.21). Moreover, ripping the DVD likely required circumventing anti-copying technologies, which under Bill C-61, would violate the law.
But Jim ain’t taking it lying down.
No Sir.
“Despite what Michael Geist would like readers to believe, we introduced important amendments to the Copyright Act on June 12 using a made-in-Canada approach that will benefit all Canadians,” he says angrily in a letter to the Toronto Star, declaring >>>
It was necessary to bring the act up-to-date with advances in technology.
Geist neglects to mention the benefits of our approach. For consumers, it allows the recording of webcasts and TV and radio programs to be enjoyed at different times; music to be copied on devices such as MP3 players; and the copying of books, newspapers, videos and photos into different formats. It also limits statutory damages at $500 for individuals if they infringe copyright for private use, provided the material is not protected by a digital lock. (Currently, statutory damages could be as high as $20,000 for a single infringement.)
Educators and students will benefit from uniquely Canadian reforms that would allow greater use of material posted on the Internet, the delivery of course material via the Internet and electronic delivery of materials loaned between libraries.
For Canadian Internet service providers (ISPs), our bill includes a one-of-a-kind “notice and notice” regime. Compared to the “notice and takedown” approach used in other markets, it better addresses peer-to-peer file-sharing and clarifies the responsibilities of ISPs.
Our approach promotes the protection of creators’ rights, and access by students and researchers. It means consumers can enjoy everyday uses of copyright material. And it provides fairness and clarity for industries in the digital environment. Its uniquely Canadian provisions recognize that we all have a stake in fair copyright laws.
Meanwhile, in Part II of A Week in the Life of the Canadian DMCA, Geist has Rona as a, “huge American Idol fan, faithfully watching each episode and buying CDs released by former contestants with her savings”.
He goes on >>>
Last January, Jim set the family’s PVR to tape and retain each episode to allow Rona to watch how the contestants progressed. That night, Rona records an Internet-only broadcast of American Idol highlights on her personal computer. She also asks her brother Stephen to transfer songs from her newest CD to her computer. The CD is copy-protected, but Stephen uses a circumvention program to transfer the music files.
If Industry Minister Jim Prentice’s Bill C-61 becomes law, all of these copying activities arguably violate the law.
Bill C-61 gives Canadians the right to record television shows with their PVR. However, the recordings may only be kept long enough to allow for the program to be viewed at a more convenient time. By retaining copies of earlier programs, Rona (or Jim) is likely violating the law. (Section 29.23 (1)(d)).
Rona’s recording of an Internet broadcast also violates the law. Bill C-61 explicitly prohibits recording Internet-only broadcasts (Section 29.23 (3)).
The copying of the music files also violates the law. The act of circumventing the copy-controls on the CD violate Bill C-61 (Section 41.1). Moreover, the much-promoted provision to allow users to transfer their music onto their device of choice doesn’t apply either, since one of the conditions is that users cannot circumvent a digital lock as part of the music transfer process (Section 20.22(1)(c).
Will Prentice continued to hold the interests of the feral corporate entertainment industry above those of the Canadians who elected him?
Stay tuned.
.
.Stumble It!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Hello,
I just want to clarify something. The following statement by Jim Prentice is quoted above:
“Despite what Michael Geist would like readers to believe, we introduced important amendments to the Copyright Act on June 12 using a made-in-Canada approach that will benefit all Canadians,”.
Does the introduction of important amendments on June 12 mean that these laws have been effective since that day? So I am now breaking the law for ripping a copy protected CD to my PC???
I need clarification also on “notice and notice” with regards to ISPs… what the hell does that mean?
Thanks to anyone who clears this up for me.