Gatineau copyright roundtable
p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- Ottawa law professor and Canadian activists was among the people at the copyright consultation roundtable in Gatineau, Quebec, yesterday.
Each person was given only between three and five minutes to make his or her point, he says.
The Korporate Kopyright Kartels were represented by the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America) and Access Copyright but, “the user perspective was well represented,” says Geist, stating:
“Indeed, there was a large consumer and education contingent that continually emphasized the need for more flexible fair dealing and the dangers of anti-circumvention legislation that is not linked to copyright infringement”.
Bekow is his synopsis »»»
- Serge Sasseville, Quebecor – welcomed C-61, need for digital copyright reform, support notice-and-notice for ISPs
- John Lawford, PIAC – danger of anti-circumvention without link to copyright infringement, legalize time and format shifting, notice-and-notice, possibility of lawful access creeping into copyright
- Jeremy deBeer, University of Ottawa – Canadian copyright law among the best in the world, market solution, fair dealing reform, businesses that think DRM will basis for business model won’t be in business for long
- Steve Wills, AUCC – Internet exception for education, anti-circumvention with link to copyright infringement
- Rich Theis, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations – anti-circumvention with link to copyright infringement, digital learning, library concerns
- Michael Geist, University of Ottawa
- Violet Ford, Inuit Circumpolar Institute – traditional knowledge concerns
- Paul Jones, CAUT – fair dealing, anti-circumvention with link to copyright infringement, statutory damages reform
- Mathew Johnson, Media Awareness Network – anti-circumvention and fair dealing not inhibit media education
- Brian Boyle, Canadian Photographers Coalition – photography provision
- Diana Nemiroff, Canadian Museums Association – exhibition right, costs to museums
- Rosalie Fox, Canadian Association of Law Librarians – licences overriding fair dealing
- Laura Murray, Queen’s University – fair dealing, anti-circumvention with link to copyright infringement
- David Keeble, Consultant – benefits in the value chain, monetize P2P, copyright tariffs based on consumption, not copying
- Roanie Levy, Access Copyright – fair dealing reforms inappropriate where collective licences available
- Nancy Morrelli, Association of Canadian Archivists – technological neutrality, restrictions on archiving
- Jay Kerr-Wilson, Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright – fair dealing, anti-circumvention with link to copyright infringement, limited regulatory intervention/levies, networks don’t play enforcement role
- Graham Henderson, CRIA – balance, clear and predictable rules, foster innovation, framework consistent with international standards
- Jessica Litwin, Canadian Conference of the Arts – no position taken
- Fran Kuttner, CNIB – specific reforms to perceptual disabilities provision
And here are Geist’s remarks in full »»»
Prepared Remarks
Copyright Consultation Roundtable, Gatineau, QC
July 29, 2009
Let me start by thanking both Ministers for the invitation and for conducting this consultation. Last summer, I wrote a 61 part series on fixing Bill C-61 and the very first entry focused on the lack of consultation, so I think this is a great first step.
There is so much to say – preserving the public domain, modernizing the backup copy provision, removing crown copyright, sticking with notice-and-notice for ISPs, reforming the statutory damages provision by distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial infringement, to name just a few.
But I instead want to pick up on Minister Clement`s opening challenge: how do we establish reforms that last?
I think there are three keys: technological neutrality, clarity and simplification of the Act, and flexibility. You`ve already heard from others in prior roundtables about the value of technological neutrality and the need for greater clarity so that Canadians can respect copyright by first understanding it.
Flexibility deserves some attention, however. I`m thinking about flexibility in three respects. First, recognize that it is flexibility that has allowed many copyright provisions to last for decades and to adapt to continually changing economic and technology environments. We`ve always had a certain amount of flexibility in the law – it leads to a bit of back and forth in the courts most recently in the CCH case – and there is a need to preserve that with the next round of reforms.
Second, recognize that flexibility in the law works for stakeholders across the spectrum. It is flexibility that allows the documentary film maker to complete their work, the artist or author to incorporate or build on the works of others, the student to complete their assignment, the teacher to engage lifelong learners, the researcher to explore new possibilities, and the business to launch new innovative new models.
Third, flexibility applies not only domestically but at the international level as well. The same challenges we face on the domestic front are only magnified at the international level in treaties. That means that those treaties – particularly the WIPO Internet treaties – are more flexible that is often appreciated. Compliance with those treaties can be achieved in many ways and following a single model – say the U.S. DMCA – is not needed to meet the standard.
So very quickly how does these principles for long-term reforms apply to the two toughest issues of the moment?
Fair dealing. We all recognize there is a problem with fair dealing – everyday activities like recording television shows or format shifting are not covered, artistic endeavours like parody are not covered, teaching activities not covered, and innovative businesses often can`t rely on the provision. C-61 went in the opposite direction of what I just proposed – it was technologically specific (VHS tapes, network PVRs), very complex (12 steps to record a television show, Internet exception for education) and very specific and lacking in flexibility. The solution – a much cleaner, simpler approach would be to add two words – such as- so that the current list of fair dealing would become illustrative rather than exhaustive and we would build in flexibility but not lose fairness. That would open the door to dealing with creator issues like parody, consumer issues like time shifting and format shifting, education issues like teaching, and business innovation concerns.
Anti-circumvention. This issue is unavoidable given the WIPO treaties. I think that recent experience – whether the Amazon deletion of books from the Kindle or Bell closing its online video store show the problems with DRM and the need to guard against DRM misuse. That said, I recognize the political reality and pressures. But in trying to address those pressures, C-61 went in the opposite direction of what I just proposed – it was technologically specific (banning distribution of devices), very complex (long, ineffective exceptions), and lacking in flexibility (beyond WIPO requirements, all circumventions – even for fair dealing, to protect privacy, research, etc prohibited). The solution – a cleaner, simpler, more balanced approach that links circumvention to copyright infringement as Canada did in C-60. With that approach, we would comply with WIPO, no need for specific references to technology, no long list of exceptions, and we would still target clear cases of infringement.
Stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 2009
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.
