Michael Geist, Centre for International Governance Innovation; USMCA Sends Canada Back to the Drawing Board on Copyright Law
"In the weeks leading up to the conclusion of the trade-pact
negotiations, most of the attention was focused on supply management and
the dairy sector, the threat of tariffs on the automotive industry and
the future of dispute-resolution provisions. Yet, once the secret text
was released just after midnight on Sunday, the mandated reform to
Canadian copyright law became more readily apparent.
Leading the way is a requirement to extend the term of copyright
protection from the current term of the life of the creator plus 50
years to the life of the creator plus 70 years. The additional years of
protection will effectively lock down the public domain in Canada for
two decades, with no new copyright expiry on works until 2040 (assuming
the agreement takes effect in 2020)."
Showing posts with label Canadian copyright law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian copyright law. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Canadian Musicians vs. Canadian Recording Industry Spokesperson; Michael Geist Blog, 10/25/09
Michael Geist, Michael Geist Blog; Canadian Musicians vs. Canadian Recording Industry Spokesperson:
"The government continues to play catch-up with the copyright consultation submissions (my submission appeared on Friday). It has just posted two interesting contrasting submissions: the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, actual Canadian musicians who warn against DMCA-style reforms and Don Hogarth, CRIA's communication person, who warns against people who warn against DMCA-style reforms."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4483/196/
"The government continues to play catch-up with the copyright consultation submissions (my submission appeared on Friday). It has just posted two interesting contrasting submissions: the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, actual Canadian musicians who warn against DMCA-style reforms and Don Hogarth, CRIA's communication person, who warns against people who warn against DMCA-style reforms."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4483/196/
New US Ambassador To Canada Kicks Things Off By Pushing For Bad Copyright Laws; TechDirt, 10/23/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; New US Ambassador To Canada Kicks Things Off By Pushing For Bad Copyright Laws:
"So it looks like the "timing" on Barrie McKenna's ridiculous Globe & Mail column spewing a bunch of recording industry propaganda wasn't so random after all. Just after it came out, the new US ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, made a point of scolding Canada for its copyright laws, and sticking by the decision to put Canada on the "watch list" in the USTR special 301 report. Once again, despite early suggestions that the new administration might actually take an evidence-based approach to intellectual property, it looks it's instead decided to simply act as an enforcer for Hollywood make believe. Too bad."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0233316649.shtml
"So it looks like the "timing" on Barrie McKenna's ridiculous Globe & Mail column spewing a bunch of recording industry propaganda wasn't so random after all. Just after it came out, the new US ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, made a point of scolding Canada for its copyright laws, and sticking by the decision to put Canada on the "watch list" in the USTR special 301 report. Once again, despite early suggestions that the new administration might actually take an evidence-based approach to intellectual property, it looks it's instead decided to simply act as an enforcer for Hollywood make believe. Too bad."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0233316649.shtml
Pro-Stronger Copyright Propaganda Shows Up In Canadian Press; TechDirt, 10/21/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Pro-Stronger Copyright Propaganda Shows Up In Canadian Press:
"Rob Hyndman points us to a column in Toronto's Globe & Mail by Barrie McKenna that is basically all of the recording industry's talking points on copyright, without even a nod to the views of the other side. It appears that most of the info is (surprise, surprise) based on a recording industry lawyer. It starts with a nice little moral panic about how file sharing sites are rushing to base themselves in Canada due to the country's supposedly lax copyright laws. Of course, that's ridiculous. Canada has very strong copyright laws already. What they don't have is a DMCA. That's what the industry wants. McKenna tries to bolster his claim that Canada has weak copyright laws with the following:
"Earlier this year, the Obama administration put Canada on its blacklist of shame - a "priority watch list" of intellectual property laggards, joining the likes of China, Russia and Venezuela."
Sounds nice, but incredibly misleading. The "blacklist of shame" that McKenna mentions, but does not explain, is actually the US Trade Rep's special "301 Report." Mention it to just about any policy maker (excluding those pushing for protectionist policies for a specific industry, of course), and you get an eye roll. It's not so much "the Obama administration" but industries with wishlists attempting to restrain trade in foreign countries by putting forth scary stories about what's happening in those countries. The USTR basically takes those industry-submitted reports and wraps them up into the 301 report. It's a joke. Most of the complaints in the report concern countries that actually are in perfect compliance with international treaties -- but which the industry still wants to go further.
Of course, given that McKenna's source is an industry lawyer, perhaps it's not surprising that such info wasn't shared. But, the next claims go from the just uninformed to the unbelievable:
"Canada, which has repeatedly promised but so far failed to deliver on copyright reform, isn't just out of step with the United States, but with much of the Western world."
This is simply untrue. Canada's copyright law is actually quite in line with most of the Western world, no matter what the entertainment industry suggests (and, you might think that McKenna would ask someone other than the person representing the industry that benefits from this). Furthermore, the line that Canada has "so far failed to deliver on copyright reform" is either blatantly misleading or simply ignorant of rather recent history. Canadian politicians have tried to push forth copyright reform, but due to a massive public outcry from people who actually understand how things like the DMCA cause all sorts of problems -- especially concerning free speech and consumer rights -- those politicians were forced to back down.
That's called informed democracy in action. Oh, McKenna also claims that the last time the Canadian government tried copyright reform was in 2007. According to his bio, McKenna is based in DC, not Canada, but even down here in the States plenty of us were aware that Jim Prentice introduced copyright reform in 2008.
So, McKenna makes it out like Canada has no strong copyright laws (false), that it's laws are different from most of the western world (false) and that it hasn't tried to add more draconian copyright laws (false again). From there, he comes up with this bizarre justification for more draconian copyright law:
"The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.
These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.
And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done."
Actually, you have Canadian record labels like Nettwerk, that are doing quite well, even as its CEO has declared that copyright is obsolete and should be done away with entirely within a decade. And the reason that those services can't be used in Canada isn't because the law is too lax, but because the laws are too strict, in terms of figuring out special licensing setups in each country. It's such a pain to get them licensed in a single country that the services have been forced -- against their will in many cases -- to block access in other countries like Canada."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/0252526618.shtml
"Rob Hyndman points us to a column in Toronto's Globe & Mail by Barrie McKenna that is basically all of the recording industry's talking points on copyright, without even a nod to the views of the other side. It appears that most of the info is (surprise, surprise) based on a recording industry lawyer. It starts with a nice little moral panic about how file sharing sites are rushing to base themselves in Canada due to the country's supposedly lax copyright laws. Of course, that's ridiculous. Canada has very strong copyright laws already. What they don't have is a DMCA. That's what the industry wants. McKenna tries to bolster his claim that Canada has weak copyright laws with the following:
"Earlier this year, the Obama administration put Canada on its blacklist of shame - a "priority watch list" of intellectual property laggards, joining the likes of China, Russia and Venezuela."
Sounds nice, but incredibly misleading. The "blacklist of shame" that McKenna mentions, but does not explain, is actually the US Trade Rep's special "301 Report." Mention it to just about any policy maker (excluding those pushing for protectionist policies for a specific industry, of course), and you get an eye roll. It's not so much "the Obama administration" but industries with wishlists attempting to restrain trade in foreign countries by putting forth scary stories about what's happening in those countries. The USTR basically takes those industry-submitted reports and wraps them up into the 301 report. It's a joke. Most of the complaints in the report concern countries that actually are in perfect compliance with international treaties -- but which the industry still wants to go further.
Of course, given that McKenna's source is an industry lawyer, perhaps it's not surprising that such info wasn't shared. But, the next claims go from the just uninformed to the unbelievable:
"Canada, which has repeatedly promised but so far failed to deliver on copyright reform, isn't just out of step with the United States, but with much of the Western world."
This is simply untrue. Canada's copyright law is actually quite in line with most of the Western world, no matter what the entertainment industry suggests (and, you might think that McKenna would ask someone other than the person representing the industry that benefits from this). Furthermore, the line that Canada has "so far failed to deliver on copyright reform" is either blatantly misleading or simply ignorant of rather recent history. Canadian politicians have tried to push forth copyright reform, but due to a massive public outcry from people who actually understand how things like the DMCA cause all sorts of problems -- especially concerning free speech and consumer rights -- those politicians were forced to back down.
That's called informed democracy in action. Oh, McKenna also claims that the last time the Canadian government tried copyright reform was in 2007. According to his bio, McKenna is based in DC, not Canada, but even down here in the States plenty of us were aware that Jim Prentice introduced copyright reform in 2008.
So, McKenna makes it out like Canada has no strong copyright laws (false), that it's laws are different from most of the western world (false) and that it hasn't tried to add more draconian copyright laws (false again). From there, he comes up with this bizarre justification for more draconian copyright law:
"The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.
These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.
And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done."
Actually, you have Canadian record labels like Nettwerk, that are doing quite well, even as its CEO has declared that copyright is obsolete and should be done away with entirely within a decade. And the reason that those services can't be used in Canada isn't because the law is too lax, but because the laws are too strict, in terms of figuring out special licensing setups in each country. It's such a pain to get them licensed in a single country that the services have been forced -- against their will in many cases -- to block access in other countries like Canada."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/0252526618.shtml
The (legal) music fades out for Canadians; Globe and Mail, 10/20/09
Barrie McKenna, Globe and Mail; The (legal) music fades out for Canadians:
The world has gone digital but legitimate download sites shun Canada in part because of licensing problems
"There are good reasons for Canada to embrace reform - and not only because the Americans and Europeans are pushing Ottawa to do it.
The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.
These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.
And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done.
That hurts Canadians, and most people don't even know it's happening."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/the-legal-music-fades-out-for-canadians/article1330240/
The world has gone digital but legitimate download sites shun Canada in part because of licensing problems
"There are good reasons for Canada to embrace reform - and not only because the Americans and Europeans are pushing Ottawa to do it.
The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.
These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.
And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done.
That hurts Canadians, and most people don't even know it's happening."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/the-legal-music-fades-out-for-canadians/article1330240/
Canada deserves spot on U.S. naughty list due to lax copyright laws; Canadian Press, 10/22/09
Canadian Press; Canada deserves spot on U.S. naughty list due to lax copyright laws:
"The new U.S. ambassador won't apologize for his country's decision to scold Canada for its lax copyright laws by placing it on a priority watch list.
David Jacobson says Canada may be America's closest friend and neighbour, but that shouldn't exempt it from respecting copyright laws that protect artists, entertainers, authors and software developers.
He suggests stronger legislation would be mutually beneficial as it will encourage innovation in both countries.
Jacobson made the comments at a Montreal conference on Canada-U.S. relations.
Wendy Noss of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association says Canada sticks out in a bad way on this naughty list which includes countries like China, Algeria, Pakistan and Russia.
She says Canada has failed for more than a decade to amend copyright laws to deal with the digital age, leaving creative industries at a loss when it comes to fighting piracy."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hKHhpEtc-DndLRhdv6OVaN8zupJw
"The new U.S. ambassador won't apologize for his country's decision to scold Canada for its lax copyright laws by placing it on a priority watch list.
David Jacobson says Canada may be America's closest friend and neighbour, but that shouldn't exempt it from respecting copyright laws that protect artists, entertainers, authors and software developers.
He suggests stronger legislation would be mutually beneficial as it will encourage innovation in both countries.
Jacobson made the comments at a Montreal conference on Canada-U.S. relations.
Wendy Noss of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association says Canada sticks out in a bad way on this naughty list which includes countries like China, Algeria, Pakistan and Russia.
She says Canada has failed for more than a decade to amend copyright laws to deal with the digital age, leaving creative industries at a loss when it comes to fighting piracy."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hKHhpEtc-DndLRhdv6OVaN8zupJw
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Deadline looms as opposition mounts to Google Book Settlement; National Post, 9/3/09
Mark Medley via National Post; Deadline looms as opposition mounts to Google Book Settlement:
Canadian authors debate whether to opt out
"Google's mission statement is at once both ambitious and admirable: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Keeping with that spirit, in 2004 the Internet giant launched what became known as Google Book Search -- "an enhanced card catalogue of the world's books" -- and began digitizing the collections of several libraries and universities, including Oxford and Harvard. It would allow users to search through a massive online library and view sections of the books, ranging from snippets to the entire text. More than seven million titles -- perhaps as many as 10 million -- have been scanned thus far. There was just one problem: Google didn't receive permission from the books' copyright holders. A class-action lawsuit and years of negotiations ensued, leading to the landmark Google Book Settlement reached last October. Authors, publishers, agents and lawyers have spent much of the last year analyzing the complex agreement and trying to figure out what it means for them. It's a quest to disseminate knowledge or a deal with the devil, depending on which side you're on. But one thing is clear: Opposition is growing more vocal in advance of tomorrow's deadline to opt out of the controversial agreement.
"If a complete stranger came and took your car without permission and took it for a drive, what would you call that?" asks Katherine Gordon, one of several Canadian authors leading the charge against the settlement. "It would be theft. So how is this any different?"
On Tuesday, Gordon and several other Canadian authors launched an online campaign opposing the settlement, taking Google to task for "blatant disregard for Canadian legal copyright ownership" and accusing them of keeping authors in the dark, leaving "millions of authors ... unaware their rights will be seriously compromised after Friday.""
http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=1957311
Canadian authors debate whether to opt out
"Google's mission statement is at once both ambitious and admirable: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Keeping with that spirit, in 2004 the Internet giant launched what became known as Google Book Search -- "an enhanced card catalogue of the world's books" -- and began digitizing the collections of several libraries and universities, including Oxford and Harvard. It would allow users to search through a massive online library and view sections of the books, ranging from snippets to the entire text. More than seven million titles -- perhaps as many as 10 million -- have been scanned thus far. There was just one problem: Google didn't receive permission from the books' copyright holders. A class-action lawsuit and years of negotiations ensued, leading to the landmark Google Book Settlement reached last October. Authors, publishers, agents and lawyers have spent much of the last year analyzing the complex agreement and trying to figure out what it means for them. It's a quest to disseminate knowledge or a deal with the devil, depending on which side you're on. But one thing is clear: Opposition is growing more vocal in advance of tomorrow's deadline to opt out of the controversial agreement.
"If a complete stranger came and took your car without permission and took it for a drive, what would you call that?" asks Katherine Gordon, one of several Canadian authors leading the charge against the settlement. "It would be theft. So how is this any different?"
On Tuesday, Gordon and several other Canadian authors launched an online campaign opposing the settlement, taking Google to task for "blatant disregard for Canadian legal copyright ownership" and accusing them of keeping authors in the dark, leaving "millions of authors ... unaware their rights will be seriously compromised after Friday.""
http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=1957311
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)