An article in Le Devoir today has prompted quick reflex in the wild world of copyright. The article was written by prominent Quebec publishers and challenges federal government’s proposed educational exceptions for a copyright bill they plan to introduce this fall. The article’s authors believe the educational exception is too broad, and that people in educational institutions should have to pay for access to online content. But they also do something good — they call for consultations on the education exceptions. Howard Knopf wrote an article calling for the same thing earlier this week. As part of his analysis, he describes the two major problems with the intended bill:
The most obviously contentious problem would be excessive anti-user digital rights management and technical protection measures (DRM + TPM). These could serve to strangle much new technology and threaten basic access, the public domain, fair dealing and other users’ rights. This will particularly please the multinational recording industry, which also wants to have American-style mass litigation with high statutory minimum damages against ordinary Canadians for ordinary Internet activity involving music. All of this would be to preserve a dying music industry business model. Contrary to repeated and wrong assertions by lobbyists and even the Department of Canadian Heritage, Canada has no current international obligation whatsoever to enact such proposals or to implement, much less ratify, the controversial 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaties. Among the G-8, only the U.S.A. and Japan have so far ratified these treaties.
The other major misstep will likely consist of a superficially user-friendly special educational exception for use of publicly available material (”PAM”) on the internet. This unnecessary and misguided initiative would be a dangerous solution to a non-existent problem and could end up costing Canadians outside of academic institutions millions of dollars a year in short order–because the amended law would imply […] that everyone outside the educational tent is indeed liable for everyday use of the Internet that was previously free. The payments would likely go to the collective that calls itself Access Copyright and fall on internet service providers (Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, etc.), who would naturally pass them along to their customers. Only in Canada–pity.
Michael Geist discusses the political implications of the Le Devoir op-ed on his blog, and concludes:
Rather, the Le Devoir op-ed points in the right direction by noting that the government has not consulted on the education issue. Instead of hurriedly introducing a bill that will leave everyone unhappy, the Conservatives would do far better to launch a consultation or commission (as Howard Knopf suggested this week) on copyright. There may be value in looking decisive, but facing criticism from all three opposition parties in committee, in the House of Commons, and in the media will do little to help the Conservatives chances at a majority government.
Howard Knopf also responded to the article which called for a judicial copyright commission.
Olivier Charbonneau has submitted to Le Devoir (with the support of ASTED) an article in response to this morning’s piece; we’ll let you know when and where it’s available.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out both politically, and for copyright. Maybe some people (like Heritage Minister Bev Oda) should start receiving letters that request consultation prior to the passing of any new copyright legislation. We’ll keep you posted.
-SIO