So the Canadian government has issued a "statement" on copyright reform, as the latest step in the consultation process I've been following since Summer 2001. Many people (Slashdot, Michael Geist in the Toronto Star and in his blog, p2pnet.net, CIPPIC, and so on) seem cautiously optimistic. That's more or less how I feel, too. Here's a summary of the short document, and some comments. [2201 words...] (7 April 2005)
Submission of Matthew Skala to the Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Industry Canada, and the Copyright Policy Branch, Canadian Heritage, in response to the June 22, 2001 discussion papers. (6 April 2005)
I was at first inclined to disregard the reports I saw of this report, because I thought it was the same thing as the interim report I've already read and commented on. But it isn't, it's new, and it's fairly horrifying. Specifics below. [327 words...] (2 June 2004)
My backlog includes plenty of Canadian proceedings that I'm overdue to comment on here, but today I took a break anyway and watched the first segment (just over 2 hours) of the Webcast of the above-linked hearing. This was a hearing before the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, about HR 107 - the "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act" which would overturn some of the worst aspects of the DMCA. Lots of high-powered people were there, including Lawrence Lessig and Jack Valenti; seeing them on Internet television was kind of neat because until now, I've only ever encountered either of them in print. [1578 words...] (12 May 2004)
Here is an 11-page document (HTML or PDF format available from the linked page) in which the Ministers of Canadian Heritage and of Industry report to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage their proposals for the next stages of the Section 92 copyright review process. It's rather disappointing. They basically go through the things that WIPO wants us to do, reporting them as (paraphrase) "Issue: We must give DRM some legal backing. Solution: Create legal backing for DRM." No discussion of whether, in fact, we really do need to give DRM legal backing; nothing about the possibility of not ratifying WIPO at all. No discussion of liability for linking. The opposing viewpoints that were already only barely represented in the Section 92 report, are not represented here at all. About the best things I can say about this document are that it allows for the possibility of notice-and-notice on ISP liability, and it doesn't propose new copyrights for databases or "traditional knowledge". This is not a consultation document and I'm not sure who one ought to complain to about it, but some of us are putting together a petition and when I know more about that, I'll post about it here. [Status Report on Copyright Reform] (31 March 2004)
Students from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic have been attending the Heritage Committee's meetings and will be posting their notes on Lex Informatica, probably faster than the evidence goes onto the Parliamentary Web site. Here's the first set of notes, covering the October 23 meeting where the Committee heard from the Canadian Photographer's Coalition; the Canadian Library Assocaition; the Writers' Union of Canada, Periodical Writers Association of Canada, League of Canadian Poets and the Playwrights Guild of Canada; and DAMIC: Droit d'auteur multimedia internet copyright. [Notes from October 23 Heritage Committee meeting] (5 November 2003)
So, it's been twenty days since I last posted here. Sorry about the delay; combination of schoolwork and work on my submission to the Heritage Committee. I sent it in on the deadline (the 17th) and have heard nothing since. Unfortunately, I think that means they aren't planning to call me as a witness, at least not at this stage. Recent postings from Philippa Lawson to the Digital Copyright Canada mailing list (16 October, 24 October) suggest that they aren't really calling any public-interest kinds of witnesses at this stage, and that's unfortunate; but we can still hope that they'll call me, or at least some people representing positions similar to mine, in the more detailed hearings next year. [231 words...] (27 October 2003)
The October 7 and October 9 (linked above) meetings of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage featured Mr. Bruce Stockfish (Director General, Copyright Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage) and Ms. Susan Bincoletto (Director, Intellectual Property Policy, Department of Industry) giving introductory presentations on what the Departments want out of the copyright reform process. They were still very much talking in generalities at this point, but it's worth at least a skim. I was pleased that Ms. Bincoletto at least mentioned several of the points I consider most important, and in a way that indicates she's aware of some of the things I want her to be aware of. For instance, she said on TPM protection): [304 words...] (27 October 2003)
It took me a while to get this online, but here at last is the submission I sent in a week and a half ago, summarizing my position and trying to convince them that I'd be a good witness to call. The main link is to a PDF file; if you're suitably equipped you may also be interested in my LaTeX source and BIBTeX database. I generated the PDF using pdflatex and the url and hyperref packages, and was amazed at how well the results turned out (I hadn't used those packages in any serious way before). The margins are still a little screwed up, but the hypertext links are perfect. It's good software. [Submission to the Heritage Committee] (27 October 2003)
This is it, folks - the Heritage Committee has announced that it'll be studying copyright reform, and is calling for those interested in testifying or submitting briefs, to send in summaries. Deadline for the summaries is September 15. This is the next cumulative step in the copyright reform process; see my DMCA de Canada page for lots more resources, and this Web log for information that hasn't made it onto that page yet. [Heritage Committee to conduct study on copyright] (19 June 2003)
Sorry about the delay posting this - it actually came out about a week ago, but there are a lot of things demanding my attention at the moment. Anyway, this is the second part of the Heritage Canada DRM/TPM study (first part came out in April) by Dr. Ian Kerr, Alana Maurushat, and Christian S. Tacit; 73 pages of detailed legal analysis and recommended reading for us in the copyright trenches. [Canadian Heritage study on Technological Protection Measures: part II] (16 June 2003)
This evening I'll be on the bus to Ottawa. I'm attending the Ottawa Linux Symposium, mostly to visit with my Ook Brothers. Unfortunately, the conference is scheduled right on top of the G-8 summit protests. The organizers of said protests have refused to condemn violence, and a lot of folks are boycotting them as a result. The above link is to an interview with Russell McOrmond, one of my copyright contacts, (they spelled his name wrong in the article) about the protests and violence and so on. [202 words...] (24 June 2002)
I spent the last three days attending the copyright consultation meeting in Ottawa, which is why I haven't posted any updates here. Now I'm working on writing a report, similar to the one from Toronto. That'll be posted here when it's ready. [280 words...] (13 April 2002)
I spent today at the IC/HC copyright meeting in Toronto. Right now I'm pretty much completely exhausted, but a report will follow as soon as possible (probably within a day or two), and will be linked from here. (26 March 2002)
Russell McOrmond of the canada-dmca-opponents mailing list met with some representatives from Heritage Canada on the 19th, and here's his report. This was preparatory to the upcoming Ottawa consultation meeting, and includes some interesting comments on things Heritage Canada would like to see brought up in the debate. [Report from Ottawa] (24 March 2002)
Alan Truesdale went to the copyright consultation meeting in Montreal, and here's his report. Next stop is Toronto, and I'll be at that one. [Report from Montreal] (22 March 2002)
Brother Representative of the Edifying Fellowship has filed his report from the Vancouver copyright reform meeting last Friday. [Report from Vancouver] (18 March 2002)
The above link is a summary, from someone who was there, of what happened at the Halifax copyright consultation meeting on the 8th. The Edifying Fellowship is hoping to be in attendance at the next one (Friday the 15th, Vancouver), and I'll be leaning on them to file a report also. [Report from Halifax] (10 March 2002)
See item below about the official announcement of these meetings. Today's link is a short announcement I wrote and am distributing widely. The powers that be have finally sent me details on how to sign up for the meetings. In the case of the Halifax meeting, they want people to register in the next two days, so time is sort of of essence there. These meetings are important; read up on the issues, and attend! [Consultation meetings on digital copyright issues] (3 March 2002)
OK, kids, this is what I actually started this web log for. The government is having consultation meetings to seek public input on proposed reforms to Canadian copyright law. A lot of people think this is the critical "to DMCA or not to DMCA?" question. Important stuff. Attend if you care, and you should care. See also my page o'stuff about this reform process. [DMCA de Canada consultation meetings!] (19 February 2002)
Also in Thursday's Hansard: the government said they wanted to proceed to debate the copyright bill today. Tomorrow, if I'm not too wiped out from staying up for the anime showing, I'll talk about the results of that debate. Today, I'll mention that they talked about S-7, a Senate bill to amend the broadcasting act (link to discussion, above). This one isn't quite as hot as copyright, but it's a bill to help intervenors in CRTC broadcasting review processes get reimbursed for their expenses. That sounds like a good idea to me, speaking as one who has filed interventions myself from time to time. [Broadcasting and copyright] (1 February 2002)
This is from October 10, 2001, but I didn't hear about it until today. As you ought to know, there's ongoing litigation about a novel by Alice Randall called The Wind Done Gone (TWDG). A large part of TWDG is essentially the story of Gone With The Wind (GWTW) re-told from the slaves' point of view. It apparently makes GWTW look like racist tripe. So - is that copyright infringement? The first court to hear the case thought so (technically, that "there was a likelihood of success on the merits"), and granted a preliminary injunction against publication of TWDG. The new decision disagrees, highlighting (among other important points) that copyright law should never be used to prevent criticism, and the "damage" that a critic does by revealing flaws in another work is not actionable. Naturally, that's of special interest to me in light of the cp4break affair. More documents about TWDG on the Houghton Mifflin Web site. [Preliminary injunction vacated in The Wind Done Gone] (2 January 2002)
The phone companies, surprisingly, are good guys; DRM creates monopoly concerns; if DirecTV is in such dire straits, why isn't ExpressVu?; maybe it's time for fair use to be an affirmative right. (1 January 2000)
As Smith says, copyright holders who use anti-copying technology should forfeit their payments from the blank media levy; as Henshaw says, such tech doesn't respect first sale by design, not by accident. (1 January 2000)
![[Ad box removed; this image serves to flag pages that need to be updated in my log file.]](/i/boxremoved.png)
![[RSS syndication file]](/i/rss.png){kind=small}
![[OPML file]](/i/opml.png){kind=small}