Debate on C-48

Parliament yesterday debated, and passed second reading of Bill C-48, i.e.  the JumpTV bill.  For background:  Broadcasters in Canada are allowed to retransmit television signals.  You can put up an antenna, receive a signal, and rebroadcast it.  That is distinct from the situation in the U.S., where such an activity would be illegal; here, the originator of the signal has granted a "compulsory license" for retransmission, by the act of transmitting the signal on the public airwaves.  Well, JumpTV and iCraveTV received television signals, digitized them, and retransmitted them on the Internet, and the U.S. broadcasting industry got very concerned.  Does the compulsory retransmission license apply to the Net?  Does it apply if the retransmitter adds extra banner ads?  Should the retransmission be geographically limited to Canadian viewers?  Is that technically possible?  This was one branch of the copyright reform debate mentioned below; one branch which I did not take part in because I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other.  Bill C-48 is problematic because it doesn't really set down the rules for applying the retransmission license to the Net - it only says that the retransmission license applies in some way, but it'll be up to the Government to make up the exact rules, and set royalties.  At second reading, without knowing what the proposed regulations will be, I don't know that I can take much position on whether the rules are good; neither can Parliament.  The above-linked debate is interesting, though, as a glimpse into the different parties' positions on more general copyright issues.

• Ms.  Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) (sponsor of the bill):  makes a lengthy yay-rah, Canadian Culture is great, speech, with very little content directly relevent to the bill.  Manages to garble Marshall McLuhan's famous line about media and messages. 
• Mr.  Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance):  Flags the wishy-washy nature of the bill - good point.  Then goes on to some rhetoric about "property rights" and several uses of words like "theft" and "stolen" with respect to the actions of retransmitters like JumpTV. That rhetoric, of course, worries me, because it suggests that he'd take a similar line on the copyright issues of more interest to me.  Interestingly, he then goes on to speak out against the blank media levy - a position I agree with and wouldn't have expected to hear from this quarter. 
• Ms.  Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):  Big points for Ms.  Gagnon because she's the only Member who demonstrates that she (or her staff anyway) actually read the comment process submissions (she names and comments on specific submissions).  Predictably, comments against the "all one Canada" position of the Heritage Minister, with the usual "distinct society" rhetoric.  There wasn't that much actual content in her speech - it mostly consisted of pointing out that there are lots of competing interests here and we need to know just what the Government actually intends to do with the powers created by C-48.  Good point:  that Internet retransmission should fundamentally be subject to the same rules as other retransmission.  (Objections I've heard to limits on Internet retransmission should almost all be applied to all retransmission limits; I do think it's fair that the rules should be technology-neutral and that if we limit cable and radio-transmission operators, we should also limit Internet broadcasters.) A not so good point:  that some industries depend upon the ability to geographically limit their products.  It seems harmless enough for television because I just don't care about television, but someone who believes that might well come down in favour of DVD region coding.  Gagnon says, in translation, "Internet pirating must not occur at the expense of owners and creators."; that's a statement that worries me.  However, she also says several sentences about the importance of making works available, and highlights that copyright is a limited-time proposition.  Overall, I like this speech.  It's not perfect, but citing and paying attention to the public comments counts for a lot. 
• Ms.  Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP):  Content of speech is primarily in favour of fair dealing.  That's definitely a really good thing, although it's not as on-topic as the BQ speech.  This speech gives me hope that the NDP will be substantially on the same side as me when we get to the other copyright issues.  My first impression on reading this debate was that the BQ position was most clueful; I think now I'm going to revise that.  The BQ position seemed best-informed, but I like this NDP speech as being most congenial to my own opinion.  One worrying note:  she flags the fact that the CRTC chose not to regulate Internet content, and takes that as a reason why Parliament needs to intervene - which is okay logic if and only if you take it as given that the Net must be regulated one way or another, a proposition which I dispute.  She says, "We have a responsibility to deal with the inaccurate impression that the Internet is a lawless place."
• Mr.  Grant McNally (Dewdney--Alouette, PC/DR):  Uses this debate as a springboard to complain about "what is called the grey market and the black market in satellite transmissions" - i.e.  the same stuff that DirecTV is worried about, the idea that Canadians might somehow incite U.S. television viewers to watch satellite TV without paying for it.  Sympathizing with DirecTV on that is pretty much fatal as far as engaging my sympathy.  Although McNally doesn't say anything about this directly, it sure sounds like he'd be right behind a DMCA-style or even SSSCA-style prohibition on "circumvention devices".  See my response comment to DirecTV. 

Anyway, the time god willing I plan to write to each of these MPs to let them know what I think.  Let's hope for good things from the copyright reform process in the future.

[Debate on C-48]

Comments

Copyright © 2002, 2007 Matthew Skala
Updates to this entire site:
Updates to this category (broadcasting) only: