Stop the Propaganda / Feed the Truth » Copyright

Copyfight Attracts Local Attention

Michael Geist — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:43:46 +0000

The Tri-City News in Maple Ridge, B.C covers local Fair Copyright for Canada activity. NDP MP Dawn Black describes the bill as a "massive failure."

The Canadian Copyfight 2.0

Michael Geist — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:35:22 +0000

Last week, I delivered a talk to the Toronto Fair Copyright for Canada chapter that chronicled the Canadian copyfight and stressed how important it is for Canadians to speak out now on the Canadian DMCA. Audio and slides of that talk have been posted on Blip.tv and embedded below. A video version of the talk can be accessed at MDialog or at Google Video.

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 28: TPMs - Interoperability Exception, Linux and DVDs

Michael Geist — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:42:42 +0000

The emergence of open source software as a powerful alternative to proprietary software models has been an important business and societal development. Open source software is today widely used by consumers (e.g., Firefox browser) and businesses (e.g., Linux operating system, Apache web server). From a policy perspective, the Canadian government's professed goal is to create a level playing field so that the marketplace rather than laws will determine marketplace winners. It has opposed attempts to create policy preferences for open source (over the objection of some advocates and countries) instead favouring a more neutral approach.

Notwithstanding the claims of neutrality, Bill C-61 creates significant marketplace impediments for open source software. Achieving a level playing field requires interoperability so that differing computer systems can freely exchange data. The bill includes an interoperability provision at Section 41.12 which states that the anti-circumvention provisions do not apply to:

a person who owns a computer program or a copy of it, or has a licence to use the program or copy, and who circumvents a technological measure that protects that program or copy for the sole purpose of obtaining information that would allow the person to make the program and any other computer program interoperable.

The problem with this provision is that it does not extend far enough to maintain a level playing field.

The classic example involves the use of Linux as a consumer operating system (Ubuntu has become a popular version). Unfortunately, this operating system cannot officially play DVDs since most commercial DVDs contain a digital lock and the entity that controls the lock does not license the necessary locks to play DVDs on Linux. Programmers have developed alternatives, but all involve circumventing the digital lock, an act that becomes illegal under Bill C-61.

The interoperability provisions do not help address this issue, since DVDs may not be considered computer programs and many of the circumventing programs have functionality beyond playback of commercial DVDs. The net effect, as noted by the Canadian Software Innovation Alliance, is that Bill C-61 erects an enormous barrier to open source software adoption, thereby harming innovation and a competitive marketplace. The solution - as proposed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association in 2000 - is to create an exception the substantially broadens the interoperability exception.

Varsity on C-61

Michael Geist — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:40:05 +0000

The Varsity focuses on the effects of the Canadian DMCA on students.

Hamilton Chamber of Commerce Challenges National Chamber IP Approach

Michael Geist — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:27:39 +0000

As Copyright Watch recently chronicled, local Chambers of Commerce have been singing from the same songbook as Industry Minister Jim Prentice in letters to the editor on Bill C-61. This is consistent with the national Chamber, which earlier this year formed a new lobby group to push for copyright reform and issued a press release supporting the introduction of the copyright bill - complete with local quotes - within 90 minutes of the tabling of the bill.

Notwithstanding these lobbying efforts, a crack in the coalition has emerged. At least one chamber of commerce has decided that it wants to look at the bill with an eye to the impact on small and medium sized businesses. The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce had adopted a resolution that it is hoping to get the Ontario and Canadian Chambers of Commerce to adopt seeking studies on the impact that IP legislation would have on SMEs. The concern is that SMEs would bear the burden of enforcement directed at businesses. The Hamilton chamber argues:

The estimates of piracy used in support of the Canadian and Ontario policies are unsupported by verifiable Canadian data;
Most small businesses are not aware of IP issues and would likely be at a disadvantage if action were ever taken against them on any alleged IP infringement;
Small businesses would have a disproportionate increase in expenses in complying with the costs that the policies would create;
In Canada, many large owners of IP have ‘over-reached’ the protection that IP has given them to the detriment of small businesses;
The proposed change in laws does nothing to favour Canadian businesses;
Many IP users are funded by tax dollars (i.e. education, libraries, archives) and an increase in enforcement is likely to increase their costs, which will, in turn, lead to higher taxes which disproportionately affects small business.

The Hamilton Chamber expands on each of these concerns and issues five recommendations:

Verify the quantum of unlawful copying in Canada through the independent collection of statistics based on facts arising in Canada;
The impacts and benefits that any changes will have on all businesses in Canada including small businesses;
The financial and administrative burden that will be created for businesses - and especially small businesses - to ensure that they can successfully and inexpensively defend unsupported allegations of infringement;
A consideration of how IP enforcement regimes can - within international and national limits - favour and encourage Canadian businesses;
A consideration of how IP enforcement regimes will affect the costs of educational, archival and library uses of IP in Canada and how those costs paid by public funds can be reduced.

Sources indicate that the the Hamilton Chamber will present this resolution for debate in the fall by the full Chamber movement at its annual general meeting.

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 23: TPMs - No Exception for Obsolete or Broken Digital Locks

Michael Geist — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:27:32 +0000

The inclusion of a right to circumvent in the event that the TPM breaks or becomes obsolete should be relatively uncontroversial. The U.S. Registrar of Copyrights has included a specific exception that addresses this situation since 2000. The exception reflects the recognition that the continual evolution of technology places the investment that consumers make in entertainment and software products or that libraries make in materials at risk in the event that a TPM ceases to function or becomes obsolete. While products do not come with a guarantee to function forever, the law should not impair consumers and libraries that seek to circumvent techologies that are no longer supported and thus create a significant barrier to access to their property.

Despite the obvious, recognized need for such an exception, Bill C-61 does not address the issue. There is an limited exception for software interoperability, but that provision does not come close address the concerns associated with obsolete or broken TPMs. Given the frequent changes in technology, it is a question of when, not if, technologies become obsolete. The Canadian DMCA must anticipate these technological changes by providing a right of circumvention due to obsolete or malfunctioning TPMs.

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 22: TPMs - No Exception for Filtering Programs

Michael Geist — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:59:50 +0000

As part of the U.S. Copyright Office's DMCA rulemaking procedure (under which it identifies non-infringing uses that are hampered by the DMCA), the Office has twice issued an exemption for circumvention of filtering software programs in order to identify the list of sites included within the program. Filtering programs can be used to filter or block inappropriate material, yet the same programs have been subject to considerable criticism over concerns that they may be overbroad and block perfectly legitimate material. The only way for a party to ascertain whether their site is included on the block list is to access the lists contained in the software program, a process that typically requires circumvention.

In 2000, the Copyright Office found that an exception for filtering programs was needed. It reaffirmed the decision in 2003. In 2006, Seth Finklestein, the primary supporter of the "censorware" exception abandoned the fight for another renewal and the exception was dropped. The same concerns remain, however, which is why a clear exception for the circumvention of filtering programs is needed within Bill C-61.

Fair Copyright for Canada: The Friendfeed

Michael Geist — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:07:27 +0000

As the amount of online activity related to fair copyright in Canada grows, it is becoming increasingly difficulty to track everything. With that in mind, I've created a new Friendfeed channel for Fair Copyright for Canada. The channel currently includes aggregated blog postings, videos from YouTube, photos from Flickr, the Google Fair Copyright for Canada calendar, and bookmarks to relevant media coverage on Delicious. There are also two active search services that will gather blog postings and YouTube videos tagged FairCopyright4Canada. If you want your posting included in the feed, simply add the tag.

If this sounds useful, you can subscribe to the rss feed, bookmark the page, embed the feed on your blog, or become a member of Friendfeed and track it.

Murray on the C-61 Lowdown

Michael Geist — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:01:48 +0000

Queen's prof Laura Murray's recent talk on the C-61 lowdown has been posted online.

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 13: Music Shifting Provision and One Copy Per Device

Michael Geist — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:53:20 +0000

Today's proposed reform comes directly from a reader of the blog who writes:

While I was reading your latest entry in "61 Reforms to C-61," I realized that the "one copy per device" limitation on "format shifting" as described in Section 29.22(1)(d)(i) makes a common practice of mine illegal - one that I don't believe has been touched upon yet. I rip (err, "format shift") some of my audio CDs in two different formats: a lossless encoding (such as Apple Lossless or FLAC) and a lossy encoding (such as AAC or MP3). I keep both copies in my iTunes music library on my computer. I use the lossy versions on my iPod shuffle and iPod touch where space is in short supply and the lossless versions on my iPod classic and Mac. Although only one copy usually exists on any of my iPods (although sometimes I'll accidentally get both versions with my Smart Playlists), both copies always exist on my Mac within iTunes as it acts as my sole repository.

I don't know if this is common or not, however, it is another example of how the strict requirements penalize purchasers of music. In this case, the law effectively limits users to a single format since making duplicate copies in different formats is forbidden. These examples do not involve commercial infringement but rather target individual, private uses, yet Bill C-61 scarcely differentiates between the two.

Copyright Watch on Prentice’s Parrots

Michael Geist — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:45:07 +0000

Copyright Watch notes the striking similarity between Industry Minister Jim Prentice's talking points and some letters to the editor from local chambers of commerce."

Kitimat Sentinal on C-61

Stop the Propaganda — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:43:32 +0000

"It's going to be a long, hot summer."

Toronto Gallery Features Exhibit Highlighting C-61’s Dangers

Michael Geist — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:37:45 +0000

BlogTO notes that the Edward Day Gallery in Toronto is currently exhibiting a new show called "Appropos," featuring appropriation art. The Gallery says:

The Appropos group exhibition is based on the work of artists whose use of imagery integrates existing popular culture products/icons. One of the purposes of the exhibition is to emphasize the crucial relevance of appropriation to contemporary visual artists and their studio practice. As revisions to Copyright Act legislation, known as the Act to Amend the Copyright Act, are currently underway by the Canadian government, there are valid concerns that the elements of contemporary artistic practice such as appropriation and "quoting" could potentially be outlawed by draconian legislation.

The exhibition runs until July 27th (thanks Rob).

Fair Copyright on the Menu at Prentice Stampede Breakfast

Michael Geist — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:09:48 +0000

The first photos have begun to appear online from this morning's Prentice Stampede Breakfast in Calgary. By early accounts, a strong crowd (including some media) attended with signs, t-shirts, and handouts to increase awareness of Bill C-61 and to have a chance to to speak directly with Industry Minister Jim Prentice. Photos online from Grant Neufeld (on Flickr) and on the Facebook event page. If you were in attendance, feel free to provide your thoughts in the comments.

Update: Coverage and photos of the event at NowPublic, Kempton Lam's Flickr photos, and bloggers (1, 2).

Grant Neufeld

A Producer’s Perspective on C-61

Michael Geist — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:33:16 +0000

Brad Fox lists three reasons why C-61 is "bad policy for both consumers and content producers."

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 10: Music Shifting Provision May Conflict With Computer Backup Systems

Michael Geist — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:41:56 +0000

The music shifting provision is careful to limit the number of copies that may be shifted to one per device. In particular, the provision (Section 29.22 (1)(c)) states that an individual may reproduce "the sound recording no more than once for each device that the individual owns, whether the reproduction is made directly onto the device or is made onto a medium that is to be used with the device." While the intent sounds reasonable - no more than one copy per iPod or personal computer - the reality of today's computing environment is that many users will unknowingly violate the law and not qualify for the provision.

Consider Macintosh users that actively use Time Machine to backup their systems (similar functionality exists for Windows machines). Their computers automatically make a second copy of everything on their hard drives, including MP3 files. This means that the user that shifts or transfers the songs on a CD to their personal computer automatically makes a second copy onto a medium that is used with the device. According to the strict terms of the provision, this may violate the law and render both copies acts of infringement. Users should be entitled to backup their systems without fear of violating the law. Once again, out of an abundance of caution (or overbroad internal negotiation), C-61 complicates a straightforward principle to the point that may leave many computer users offside the law. Simple solutions include a flexible fair dealing provision that would adequately address this form of copying or the removal of this limitation altogether given that the music shifting provision already features tight restrictions on further distribution.

MacKay Hears About Copyright

Michael Geist — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:33:45 +0000

Defense Minister Peter MacKay used his monthly column in The News to discuss Bill C-61. MacKay notes that copyright was a topic of discussion over the Canada Day weekend and then proceeds to offer the standard Conservative talking points on the bill.

Purported ACTA Wishlist Would Put DMCA To Shame

timothy — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:51:00 +0000

ulash writes "Ars Technica has an article about the (alleged) leaked 'wishlist' that RIAA submitted to the US government back in March of this year listing what they wish to see as a part of ACTA. The list includes such gems as forced filtering of materials by the ISPs, gutting the parts of the DMCA that provides safe harbor to the ISPs, and even restricting supplies of 'optical grade polycarbonate' in countries 'with high rates of production of pirated optical discs.' While the effectiveness of such a 'wishlist' on the law is not by any means objectively measurable, if one takes into account how *AA was instrumentative in the passing of DMCA, I think it is more than likely that they will get at least some of their wishes."

Is Canada cloning a lousy U.S. copyright law?

rabble.ca news — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:37:55 +0000

Last week Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josee Verner introduced Bill C-61, the long awaited revamped copyright reform bill. It's really a Canadian redraft of the ten-year-old U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

MPAA Scores First P2P Jury Conviction

Soulskill — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:59:00 +0000

An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA must be celebrating. According to the BitTorrent news site Slyck.com, the Department of Justice is proclaiming their first P2P criminal copyright conviction against an Elite Torrents administrator. The press release notes, 'The jury was presented with evidence that Dove was an administrator of a small group of Elite Torrents members known as "Uploaders," who were responsible for supplying pirated content to the group. At sentencing, which is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2008, Dove faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.'"

The Liberal Letter on C-61

Michael Geist — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:22:57 +0000

Earlier this week, I posted a letter from NDP leader Jack Layton that is sharply critical of Bill C-61. The language used in the letter is apparently being used by other NDP MPs. The same appears to be true for Liberal MPs. Several people have sent me copies with only minor variations on this standard response:

Thank you for your recent e-mail outlining your opposition to the Conservative Government's new Copyright Legislation. I appreciate the time you have taken to advise me of your position.

While the Liberal Official Opposition believes that updating the Copyright Act to address rapid changes in technology is important, the bill must strike the right balance between consumers and creators. This is a highly technical bill and we need to study it carefully before we can determine exactly how we will proceed.

Like you, we are also concerned about how this bill treats technological protection measures. It is important that these provisions not take rights away from Canadians. We need wide consultation with everyone - including consumers, artists and the business community - to ensure that we properly understand all of the impacts the legislation.

Once again, the Conservatives have failed to properly consult Canadians. We want to ensure that the final bill fosters innovation, fairly compensates creators and treats consumers with respect.

While the Liberals clearly don't yet have a firm position on this bill, there are three key points here. First, the party recognizes the lack of consultation. It should seek to remedy that by standing for broad consultations in the fall that give everyone an opportunity to speak out. Second, adopting a position that digital locks "should not take away rights from Canadians" means that they should support crucial changes to the anti-circumvention provisions that restore the right to circumvent for permitted uses, including fair dealing, time shifting, and format shifting. Third, they have not yet made the connection (at least publicly), but the Liberals can point to their Bill C-60 as the starting point for crafting better balanced anti-circumvention rules.

Documentary Organisation of Canada Speaks Out Against C-61

Michael Geist — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:39:36 +0000

The Documentary Organisation of Canada continues to speak out against C-61, warning in a letter to the editor that it will "bring an end to the concept of 'fair dealing' and open public debate in any electronic media."

FTC Shuts Down Canadian Domain Name Scammers

Michael Geist — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:38:16 +0000

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has shut down the illegal practices of Canadian operators who deceptively posed as domain name registrars and sent bogus bills to thousands of U.S. small businesses and nonprofit organizations.

Columnists Sound Off on C-61

Michael Geist — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:37:09 +0000

While I've been focusing on the many Canadian editorials criticizing Bill C-61, it is worth noting that mainstream media columnists are focusing on the issue as well. The Globe and Mail's Ivor Tossel covers the issue today, suggesting that "the bill seems doomed to failure." The article also includes a link to a podcast discussion of the issue. Craig McInnes of the Vancouver Sun writes that:

C-61 is about greed, not just rewards, about stifling the age-old enjoyment of sharing music with friends. It imposes a rigid black-and-white legal framework on a multihued, free-flowing landscape. It's about insisting on horse-and-buggy etiquette in an automotive age.

Catherine Ford of the Calgary Herald, in a piece titled Copyright Law Would Turn Millions Into Criminals, says:

While the purported beneficiaries of the new act are those artists, the real beneficiaries will be the companies who publish, control and market such work. With the possible exception of an original piece of art, all intellectual property are copied and distributed by someone other than the creator. It is these middlemen who will profit from digital locks, regardless of the hype about copyright protection.

Update: Matthew Claxton of the Langley Advance writes that "the copyright bill will makes us crooks", while Ron Petrie of the Regina Leader-Post talks about how the law "will make it hard to live in the past."

Angus and Prentice Face Off During Question Period

Michael Geist — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:29:04 +0000

Fresh off his Search Engine interview, Industry Minister Jim Prentice faced more questions during Question Period from NDP MP Charlie Angus.

Angus Reid Poll on Copyright Reveals Strong Opposition to C-61

Michael Geist — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:39:34 +0000

Angus Reid has just released a new poll of Canadian views on the new copyright bill. The survey finds that 39 percent of Canadians want their MP to vote against the bill, 32 percent in favour, and 29 percent are not sure. By province the numbers are even more revealing: 45 percent against in BC (25 percent in favour), 39 percent against in Alberta (36 percent in favour), 51 percent against in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (23 percent in favour), and 43 percent against in Ontario (23 in favour). The only provinces that favour are Quebec (43 - 31 in favour) and Atlantic Canada (50 - 30 in favour).

The demographic data is also interesting. Men oppose the legislation 49 to 33 percent, while women are split 31 - 29 in favour with the largest number (40 percent) unsure. 58 percent of those aged 18 to 34 are against (only 12 percent in favour), while those with college education (44 - 28 against) and university education (47 - 30 against) showing strong opposition as well. A few additional data points:

76 percent agree with the statement that the proposed amendments "are being introduced as a result of lobbying by the North American music market"
63 percent agree with the statement that the proposed amendments "will expose millions of Canadians to lawsuits by copyright holders"
66 percent agree with the statement that the are symbolic that "the government will not be able to enforce the new law"

If you are the Conservative party, which looks to younger males as a core constituency, this is not good news.

The First Week of the Fight Against Bill C-61

Michael Geist — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:45:41 +0000

It has now been one week since Industry Minister Jim Prentice unveiled Bill C-61. While the bill yielded the predictable voices of immediate support from lobby groups anxious to import the DMCA to Canada, it did not take long for the government's communication strategy to go off-the-rails (a none-too-impressive performance by Prentice at the press conference did not help). By virtually any standard, it has not been a good week for a minister who is often described in glowing terms as future leadership material. The media coverage has nearly universally criticized the legislation. A sampling of masthead editorials include:

Further, the online anger has surely exceeded the Minister's expectations:

over 8,000 people have used the Copyright for Canadians site to write letters to their MP and the Ministers
the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group has grown to over 69,000 members - that's 29,000 new members in a week
the local Fair Copyright for Canada chapters continue to grow at a remarkable rate. Toronto and Vancouver each have over 1,000 members, while Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa all have over 400 members each. Local events are breaking out everywhere (Calgary, Montreal, Edmonton) and Jim Prentice's Stampede breakfast on July 5th promises to be a must-attend event. Moreover, new local groups are being added daily including Hamilton, Guelph, Kingston, Okanagan, and Northern Ontario.

The response from Industry Minister Jim Prentice? Letters to the editor that repeat already-tired spin about the bill being a "made in Canada" solution or an appearance on the CBC's Search Engine where he dodges questions and hangs up on the interviewer. Yet no one should rest on their laurels as powerful groups will fight to defend the Canadian DMCA. Letters, meetings, local events, and raising awareness remains absolutely critical. To that end, next week I'll be kicking off another series - 61 Flaws in Bill C-61. Each weekday from June 23rd until September 15th (the day the House of Commons is currently scheduled to resume), I'll point to a reason why Canadians should reject the bill and demand better.

The First Week of the Fight Against Bill C-61

Michael Geist — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:45:41 +0000

Further, the online anger has surely exceeded the Minister's expectations:

over 8,000 people have used the Copyright for Canadians site to write letters to their MP and the Ministers
the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group has grown to over 69,000 members - that's 29,000 new members in a week
the local Fair Copyright for Canada chapters continue to grow at a remarkable rate. Toronto and Vancouver each have over 1,000 members, while Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa all have over 400 members each. Local events are breaking out everywhere (Calgary, Montreal, Edmonton) and Jim Prentice's Stampede breakfast on July 5th promises to be a must-attend event. Moreover, new local groups are being added daily including Hamilton, Guelph, Kingston, Okanagan, and Northern Ontario.

Vancouver Sun, Ottawa Citizen Slam Canadian DMCA

Michael Geist — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:18:53 +0000

Two of Canada's leading papers have issued masthead editorials critical of the Canadian DMCA. The Vancouver Sun doesn't pull any punches in its review of Bill C-61:

the amendments are draconian. While Prentice attempted to sell them as a balance between the rights of content creators and consumers, it's clear that consumers - and in many cases, creators - can only lose should the new regime become law.

The editorial concludes:

The fact that the bill relies on the American method is not just a coincidence, either, as it is almost entirely the result of the intense pressure U.S. authorities placed on Ottawa. In contrast, there was precious little public consultation during drafting of the proposed law. Prentice claims that the bill is a "win-win," though it's not entirely clear who will win. What is clear is that if the bill becomes law, all consumers, and many content creators, are destined to lose.

The Ottawa Citizen, meanwhile, laments that "enforcement will be difficult, if not impossible, and it will limit uses of digital material that have nothing to do with piracy." It concludes that:

the proposed copyright bill could have some unintended consequences. University professors worry the new legislation tips the balance so far in favour of industry interests that it will unnecessarily limit use of digital data for educational purposes. Canadian courts have said that copyright legislation is meant to protect the rights of artists and creators, and that's an important goal. But copyright legislation is not meant to interfere with private study or education, or to obstruct the dissemination of useful information.

It has always been considered acceptable for, say, students or professors to copy and quote a paragraph of a copyrighted book in a footnoted paper. The new legislation appears to make the digital equivalent of such practices risky, meaning that users would not be able to use a clip from an encrypted video. Cutting such a wide swath into use of digital material will do more harm than good.

U.S. Consul-General Claims Canadian Copyright Weakest in G-8

Michael Geist — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:16:10 +0000

The U.S. may have gotten its Canadian copyright bill, but that hasn't stopped officials from continuing their campaign of unjustifiably slamming Canadian law. This week U.S. Consul-General Lewis Lukens told a conference audience that "Canada's current [intellectual property rights] protection may well be the weakest of any G-8 country, partly because it has failed to ratify and implement well-established international Internet treaties." In stating the G-8, Lukens is claiming that Canadian law is weaker than those in Russia.