SamuraiLibrarian

Ever since the new copyright legislation dropped, I've been meaning to post. Trouble is, there's so much wrong with C-61, I didn't know where to start. Today, however, I received a reply to an email I sent to my MP, Nina Grewal. Here's that email, followed by my reply:

Dear Mr. Vernon:

Thank you very much for your recent correspondence concerning Bill C-61.

Last week our government introduced important amendments to the Copyright Act to bring it up-to-date with advances in technology. Our approach is in line with international standards. It should be clear, however, that it is a Made-in-Canada approach that will benefit all Canadians.

For consumers, it allows the recording of webcasts and television 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 sets 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.)

Canadian educators and students stand to benefit from uniquely Canadian reforms that would allow greater use of material posted on the Internet, the legal delivery of course material through 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 that is used in other markets, it better addresses peer-to-peer file sharing, and clarifies the responsibilities of ISPs online.

Our Made-in-Canada approach strikes a proper balance between all stakeholders. It 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 that operate in the digital environment. Its uniquely Canadian provisions recognize that we all have a stake in fair copyright laws.

I have taken the liberty of forwarding your correspondence on to the Minister of Industry, the Hon. Jim Prentice, whose department is responsible for Bill C-61 and who can better address your specific concerns with this proposed legislation.
Thank you again for writing and please rest assured that your concerns have been duly noted.

Sincerely yours,
Nina Grewal

Member of Parliament
Fleetwood-Port Kells

I tried to maintain an even tone in my response, even though my immediate response was to call bullshit on the clearly false assertion that C-61 is a "Made-in-Canada approach strikes a proper balance between all stakeholders." Here's my response:

Dear Ms. Grewal,

Thank you for responding to my correspondence regarding Bill C-61. I still feel, however, that there are grave deficiencies with this legislation, and I hope you will take the time to personally read and respond to my concerns.

Before I continue, I'd like to explain the context for my professional and personal concern with this bill. I'm faculty at a local college, and one of my graduate degrees is a Master of Library and Information Studies from UBC. The majority of my professional work is with post-secondary students with perceptual disabilities. I am also a father.

As college faculty, C-61 worries me in that it erodes "fair dealing," the copyright tenet on which research and study depends, by restricting the fair use of copyrighted material. Put another way, quoting a paragraph from a digitally locked research study should not be a crime and is indicative of this bill failing to account for dynamic context in which research and study happens. Students and instructors need the freedom provided by a strong "fair dealing" provision to interact with the world of ideas and produce cutting edge research, ideas and products.

C-61 will also turn my colleagues, academic librarians, into copyright police. As the Canadian Library Association states in it’s June 18th press release:

Bill C-61 ignores the fact that the 2004 CCH Supreme Court Judgment already allows Canadian libraries to do desktop delivery of interlibrary loan. Bill C-61 requires libraries to lock up interlibrary loans with DRM tools, something that most libraries would not have the resources to accomplish. Bill C-61 alone would force many libraries back to delivering interlibrary loan via paper copies. "On loaning of digital content, C-61 attempts to move Canada back to the 20th Century," says Mr. Roberts. "This is clearly not workable."

Here too the proposed legislation ignores the reality of the academic process: the research cycle can take years, and researchers must maintain their research sources for this period. It is unreasonable to expect that they will delete digital copies of journal articles within a week, and maintain only paper files, for to do so would be inefficient, environmentally unsound, and unrealistic in a digital work environment.

Additionally, as someone who works with students with perceptual difficulties (individuals who have difficulty navigating the written word because of a visual impairment, learning or cognitive disability, or physical handicap), I am also particularly troubled by the blanket anti-circumvention provisions included in C-61, which undermine the exemption for people with perceptual disabilities in section 32 of the current version of the Canadian Copyright Act, which states that:


The new blanket prohibition on reformatting locked content will criminalize the reformatting of materials legally purchased by disabled students, which they need not only to study, but to function in society and democracy. This bill unfairly targets people who already have a difficult time in life, making life harder for them.

For the sake of brevity I will list only one more concern for you: as a father I am gravely worried about fines that will be levied in cases of music downloads. Your colleague, Minister Prentice, has claimed that individuals will be fined a maximum of $500 if they are caught downloading copyrighted files. As such, the family of a child who downloads an album of a dozen songs would liable for $6000. Such a fine far outweighs the crime, and serves only to put money into the accounts of big corporations who are unable to change with the technological realities of the current day. Moreover, the usual method of download for copyrighted files, such as music, is via peer-to-peer technology, a system based on simultaneous upload and download. While the proposed fine for downloading is $500, the fine for uploading is $20,000, and as such the fine for acquiring the same twelve song album via a peer-to-peer network could be $240000, a fine that would destroy most Canadian families. I am very disappointed in this punitive and unfair fine structure, and am dismayed that the Conservative Party has privileged corporate interests over their stated commitment to Canadian families.

I hope you agree that the goal of copyright legislation is to facilitate the fair circulation of ideas, to foster the innovation, and therefore develop an educated, aware and engaged citizenry. C-61 will not fulfill these goals, and will instead favor the economic goals of foreign interests over the rights of Canadian citizens. The lack of public consultation on this matter is as deeply troubling to me as the ignoring of the negative example of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) on which--despite misleading claims to the contrary--is a clear analogue to C-61.

I implore you to encourage your party to remove this bill from the table, and consult with Canadians, for we are not "consumers," as your colleague Minister Prentice so often refers to us, but we are "users" and "creators," and we have the right to a balanced approach which C-61 does not offer.

Sincerely,
Ryan Vernon

CC: Prime Minister Harper
Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry
Josee Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage
James Rajotte, Chair of the House of Commons Industry Committee


I wonder if I'll receive a response... If I do I'll be sure to post it, with commentary.

Labels: Copyright

Not long ago I received a response to an email I sent to Nina Grewal regarding proposed changes to Canadian copyright law:

Dear Mr. Vernon:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding possible amendments to the Copyright Act. This matter has attracted considerable public attention and has led to letter writing campaigns organized by organizations such as Digital Copyright Canada to influence public policy makers.

The development of digital media and digital communication technologies has fostered a revolution in the manner that we seek entertainment, communicate with others, and otherwise express ourselves. Because of the obvious problems created by the fact that digital content is easily reproduced and distributed, revisions to the law have become necessary to clarify the scope and substance of protection of intellectual property rights, particular the copyright, in the digital age.

The Government of Canada is in the process of considering revisions to the Copyright Act in order to ensure that Canada's copyright framework remains relevant in the rapidly changing digital environment.

There is an expectation that Canadian legislation will mirror laws passed in the United States (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998) and the European Union (European Union Copyright Directive, 2001). Both of these laws were put into place to ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms treaties adopted in December 1996. Canada signed these treaties in 1997, and is, therefore, like those jurisdictions also obliged to implement legislative changes demanded by the treaties.

The Government of Canada wants to protect the rights of creators and rights holders while at the same time striking the proper balance between their rights and those of consumers. In drafting new legislation, the government is taking into account the concerns of all interested parties and wants to ensure that every aspect of reforming the legislation will be properly analyzed. We are also looking at measures under taken by other countries and will determine if they are suitable for Canada. Once all of this is done the Industry Minister will introduce a bill in the House of Commons. This will likely occur early in the New Year.

Thank you again for writing on this important matter. Please rest assured that your opinions have been duly noted.

Sincerely yours,

Nina Grewal
Member of Parliament
Fleetwood-Port Kells

I'd like to go through a few points here...

Firstly, Ms. Grewal's statement that "[t]his matter has attracted considerable public attention and has led to letter writing campaigns organized by organizations such as Digital Copyright Canada to influence public policy makers" is inane. I know this. I sent her the email. It seems to me that she's just lifted the paragraph from a briefing paper. This suggests she doesn't actually know what's going on, and moreover that she can't even plagiarize effectively.

(This would be a good time to point out how sketchy her husband's activities were when he was an MP. Given her intimate relationship with this obvious shyster, it boggles my mind that she got reelected. )

Secondly, that "[t}here is an expectation that Canadian legislation will mirror laws passed in the United States (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998) and the European Union (European Union Copyright Directive, 2001)" seems to confirm our worst fears. The DMCA, for example, is garbage: it criminalizes music fans, it restricts the ways in which legally acquired content can be used, it prevents hardware owners from using their hardware in the ways they want, and it prevents the development of new technology. As Cory Doctorow writes, "The US's approach to enforcing copyright in the digital age has resulted in 20,000 lawsuits against music fans, technology companies being sued out of existence for making new multi-purpose tools, and has not put one penny into the pocket of an artist or reduced downloading one bit. The USA stepped into uncharted territory in 1998 with the DMCA and fell off a cliff -- that was reckless, but following them off the cliff is insane."

Thirdly, there's nothing in Ms. Grewal's letter about consultation. It seems her party is too busy kowtowing to corporate lobbyists to even bother consulting with the electorate.

Anyway, we're now "early in the New Year..." I wonder how this is going to pan out. I guess we'll have to see how if the house can navigate a potential vote of non-confidence.

Labels: Copyright

Check out Online Rights Canada's new action alert, "Support Balanced Copyright Reform."

As they say, "Copyright reform legislation may be on the horizon. Tell your MPs to keep it balanced!" I wrote a letter to my MP... You should too.

Labels: Copyright