Archive for the ‘c-32’ category

UK proposals to modernize UK Copyright Act released

August 3rd, 2011

The UK Government outlined plans earlier today to support economic growth by modernising the UK’s intellectual property laws. The Government accepted a number of recommendations made by Professor Ian Hargreaves in his report, Digital Opportunity: A review of intellectual property and growth in its response to Professor Hargreaves’ Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. The Government’s response can be found online at www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresponse.

The UK Government also simultaneously published a series of  other reports including: Next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act“Site blocking” to reduce online copyright infringementDraft-Sharing-of-Costs statutory-instrument, Impact Assessment for the Sharing of Costs Statutory Instrument, Digital Economy Act Appeals Process: Options for reducing costsInternational Strategy, and IP Crime Strategy.

C-32 Copyright Bill Described in WTO reports

June 24th, 2011

The Secretariat of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Government of Canada recently published reports on the trade practices of Canada. Each report contains a short summary of the provisions of Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act.

When Bill C-32 was tabled in the House of Commons the Government published Facts Sheets, FAQs, and a Backgrounder that summarized the Bill’s amendments. The Bill’s objectives were also described in its Preamble. The Government described the Bill succinctly for the WTO as follows:

UN report on internet disconnection flawed and contrary to jurisprudence

June 13th, 2011

Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom  of opinion and expression released a controversial report in which he stated he was

“alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet  access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the  concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright  infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three strikes-law” in France  and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.”

Throne Speech promises swift passage of copyright amendments

June 3rd, 2011

The Throne Speech delivered earlier today promises “swift passage of copyright legislation that balances the needs of creators and users.”  With a majority Government, the fourth try to amend the Copyright Act since 2005 will likely succeed where Bills C-60 (2005), C-61 (2008), and C-32 (2010) did not.

The copyright reforms are a long time coming. Canada has acknowledged since 1997 that it needs to adapt its laws to address digital technologies and the Internet. That year it signed the 1996 WIPO Treaties.Since then, at least 12 government, department, and committee reports have studied and made recommendations for reform to address digital issues.[1] So have Canadian businesses.[2]

C-32 and the BlackBerry PlayBook: A reply to Michael Geist

April 25th, 2011

Michael Geist’s recent blog post “The PlayBook Tax: Why the Conservative’s Copyright Plans Create a Hidden Cost for RIM’s PlayBook” makes the claim that “the Conservative plan for copyright reform (as found in Bill C-32) establishes a significant barrier that could force many consumers to pay hundreds in additional costs in order to switch their content from existing devices” to RIM’s BlackBerry PlayBook. He calls this a “PlayBook tax” and claims switching costs apply to “any digital content with a digital lock”.

The Liberal Digital Canada Plan and Copyright

April 11th, 2011

Earlier today, Marc Garneau and guest commentators Michael Geist and Steve Anderson had a live online chat about the Liberal Digital Canada Plan.  A transcription of the chat is available here.

The Liberal Digital Plan says the following about copyright:

Fair balance Between Creators and Consumers.

Digital technology offers many new opportunities, but enjoying content without compensating its creators shouldn’t be among them. At the same time, consumers should have freedom for personal use of digital content they rightfully possess. Liberals have worked to pass effective copyright legislation, including a private copying compensation fund instead of any new tax on consumers.

Rethinking notice and notice after C-32 (now C-11)

April 4th, 2011

Canada’s last three copyright bills, C-60, C-61 and C-32, attempted to curb illegal online file sharing by requiring ISPs to forward notices of claimed infringements to customers. Canada’s ISPs had advocated for this “notice and notice” process claiming it was effective. However, they never produced any empirical evidence or studies to back up their claims.

C-60, C-61, C-32?

March 25th, 2011

We will likely know later today whether Bill C-32 will suffer the same fate as its predecessors. A vote of non-confidence will kill C-32.

* Its now official. Liberal non-confidence vote passes 156-145. That’s it for C-32 and other Bills such as lawful access and the amendments to PIPEDA.

For more information about the Copyright Modernization Act or Bill C-11 or copyright reform, see Change and the Copyright Modernization Act.

What art copyrights and sandwhiches have in common

March 21st, 2011

Here is a video included in a blog How copyright infringement is like stealing my sandwhich. It is by an artist “to put copyright infringement into terms the average person can understand: lunch”. It is an interesting perspective given the recent testimony of Margaret Atwood at the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-32.

Margaret Atwood at the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-32

March 18th, 2011

Margaret Atwood appeared before the Parliamentary Committee reviewing Bill C-32 on March 10. Participating by teleconference she told the Committee why she was against expanding fair dealing to include education and why she thought doing so was unfair.

Howard Knopf, in a recent blog, To Margaret Atwood: Copyright and Cars Cannot Conflate, accuses Ms Atwood of not understanding what fair dealing is. He further accuses her of getting basic facts about law and economics wrong when said that depriving creators of their rights to authorize the uses of their works  is akin to theft.  Mr. Knopf’s accusations are both unfair and unfounded.