Seven years, two governments, four bills, and more than 10,000 consultations later, Canada is one step closer to having an updated copyright regime as the House is set to pass Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act, at third reading when MPs return next week.
After a marathon 23 votes last Tuesday, MPs passed Bill C-11 at report stage, disappointing the opposition parties who tried to amend the legislation before it’s sent to the Senate.
“None of the amendments were passed either at report stage or during the committee which is unfortunate,” said NDP MP Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, Que.), who sat on the legislative committee which studied Bill C-11.
“There are some decent elements in the bill. We did need to bring it up to WIPO standards, as much for our performers as for our own protection, because there are treaties in place where work that’s performed overseas, the collection around remuneration of money is collected there and sent to our artists here. The most important thing for me is that it really sidesteps the creative members which is what copyright is made to protect and makes it easier for the business world to access our work for their use with as little remuneration as possible,” said Mr. Benskin.
This is the third bill the Conservatives have introduced since coming to power, and the fourth since the former minority Paul Martin Liberal government. It is identical to the last bill, C-32, which died on the Order Paper when the May 2 federal election was called.
The last time the Copyright Act underwent significant amendments was in 1997.
It will make a number of significant changes to bring it in line with international treaties. Among the changes, photographers and painters would gain first rights to their work commissioned by others; fair dealing—limiting exclusive rights to copyright holders—would be extended to education, parody and satire use; “time shifting” broadcast media would explicitly be allowed provided the show or performance was obtained legally; reproduction of copyrighted work for educational purposes will be technology neutral; internet service providers will be required to notify users that they may be infringing copyright if copyright holders alert the ISPs to it; and consequences for infringing copyright will be more severe—individuals will be liable for damage ranging from $500 to $20,000 for commercial use and non-commercial use damages range from $100 to $5,000.
One of the major changes to Canada’s copyright regime under this bill will be in the form of the introduction of “technological protection measures,” or, digital locks. In order for Canada to meet its World Intellectual Property Organization obligations, the Copyright Act must address the rights of creators to put locks on their work to prevent it from being copied without authorization.
Under the bill, individuals would be explicitly prevented from breaking these digital locks, even if the work or product was acquired legally. Creating and distributing software or devices to circumvent digital locks will also be illegal. Breaking digital locks would still be exempted for law enforcement and national security activities as well as for unlocking cellphones.
Under the bill, Parliament will have to do a review of the legislation every five years.
Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.), who also sat on the legislative committee which studied the bill, said he was “not happy” with the bill moving forward as is, especially because of the digital lock provisions.
“We’ve said so right from the beginning, but there you go, that’s what the majority government will do in this case,” Mr. Garneau said. “There’s probably some good in everything, but we’re very unhappy with the fact that they did not, and I think most consumers of digital products are unhappy with the fact, that they did not listen to what we said about digital locks.”
Mr. Garneau said consumers should have the right to circumvent digital locks for non-infringing purposes such as transferring from CD to iPod.
“We’re unhappy that they closed the door on that,” he said.
Industry Minister Christian Paradis (Mégantic-L’Érable, Que.) said during debate that it’s time to move forward on the copyright front. He noted that between bills C-11 and the previous C-32, there were 29 hours of House debate, 31 meetings, and more than 65 hours with 110 witnesses.
“We need to move on. What we want to eliminate is piracy. When people try to cheat and pirate material in the digital era, it will be prohibited. This legislation will comply with the international standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization. People expect that. The legislation needs to be updated. After so many hours of debate, it is time to move on,” he said.
Mr. Benskin told The Hill Times last week, however, that the “sweeping bill” was “rushed” and more importantly, the government did not listen to stakeholders.
“This is their argument for every single solitary bill they’ve put forth: we talked about it in 1792. It’s ridiculous. Yes, they did see hundreds of people and yes they did hear hundreds of hours of testimony. And they ignored each and every hour of that. It’s one thing to say, ‘I heard it,’ it’s another thing to say, ‘I listened to it.’ They have selective hearing,” he said.
“They listen to the business interests. They didn’t listen to the creative interests. Everyone from the sector, and I’ve worked in the sector for 30 years, I’ve fought for the sector for 15 of those 30 years, across the board, film, television, music, live performance and not a one, not a one told me that they were happy with the bill in its current form and those are the people it affects the most,” he said.
Mr. Benskin also noted that if the Senate does not amend the legislation, it could open the government up to some court challenges for more clarity surrounding issues such as educational exemptions.
“I can start a dance studio tomorrow and I’m teaching people how to be healthier and everything else. That’s an educational expense. I should not have to pay for the music. I should be able to download it for free and that’s it,” he said.
“So I think there’s going to be a fair amount of challenges over the next three or four years in terms of the application of the bill. It was so rushed, it’s such a sweeping bill and it was so rushed that there are gaping holes in it. I think we’ll be seeing the effects of that in the next little while,” said Mr. Benskin.
Mr. Garneau said that he is not holding hope that changes can be made in the Upper Chamber. “I point out that they have a majority there as well, but you never know, maybe there’s a rogue Conservative Senator but they seem to be sheep most of the time,” he said.
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, B.C.) noted that it’s been 22 years since Canada changed its copyright laws, and Bill C-11 is the right balance for creators and consumers.
“This is about what is in the best interests of Canada, Canadian consumers, Canadian creators and their rights, needs and obligations in a digital environment,” he said. “This is a balancing act. Certainly there are those who wish they had amendments a little different from the way our government has designed the bill, but we think we have an effective and responsible balance that will serve Canadians well into the future. … This bill is critical to the success of Canada’s digital economy. It works. Let us get it done.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
After a marathon 23 votes last Tuesday, MPs passed Bill C-11 at report stage, disappointing the opposition parties who tried to amend the legislation before it’s sent to the Senate.
“None of the amendments were passed either at report stage or during the committee which is unfortunate,” said NDP MP Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, Que.), who sat on the legislative committee which studied Bill C-11.
“There are some decent elements in the bill. We did need to bring it up to WIPO standards, as much for our performers as for our own protection, because there are treaties in place where work that’s performed overseas, the collection around remuneration of money is collected there and sent to our artists here. The most important thing for me is that it really sidesteps the creative members which is what copyright is made to protect and makes it easier for the business world to access our work for their use with as little remuneration as possible,” said Mr. Benskin.
This is the third bill the Conservatives have introduced since coming to power, and the fourth since the former minority Paul Martin Liberal government. It is identical to the last bill, C-32, which died on the Order Paper when the May 2 federal election was called.
The last time the Copyright Act underwent significant amendments was in 1997.
It will make a number of significant changes to bring it in line with international treaties. Among the changes, photographers and painters would gain first rights to their work commissioned by others; fair dealing—limiting exclusive rights to copyright holders—would be extended to education, parody and satire use; “time shifting” broadcast media would explicitly be allowed provided the show or performance was obtained legally; reproduction of copyrighted work for educational purposes will be technology neutral; internet service providers will be required to notify users that they may be infringing copyright if copyright holders alert the ISPs to it; and consequences for infringing copyright will be more severe—individuals will be liable for damage ranging from $500 to $20,000 for commercial use and non-commercial use damages range from $100 to $5,000.
One of the major changes to Canada’s copyright regime under this bill will be in the form of the introduction of “technological protection measures,” or, digital locks. In order for Canada to meet its World Intellectual Property Organization obligations, the Copyright Act must address the rights of creators to put locks on their work to prevent it from being copied without authorization.
Under the bill, individuals would be explicitly prevented from breaking these digital locks, even if the work or product was acquired legally. Creating and distributing software or devices to circumvent digital locks will also be illegal. Breaking digital locks would still be exempted for law enforcement and national security activities as well as for unlocking cellphones.
Under the bill, Parliament will have to do a review of the legislation every five years.
Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.), who also sat on the legislative committee which studied the bill, said he was “not happy” with the bill moving forward as is, especially because of the digital lock provisions.
“We’ve said so right from the beginning, but there you go, that’s what the majority government will do in this case,” Mr. Garneau said. “There’s probably some good in everything, but we’re very unhappy with the fact that they did not, and I think most consumers of digital products are unhappy with the fact, that they did not listen to what we said about digital locks.”
Mr. Garneau said consumers should have the right to circumvent digital locks for non-infringing purposes such as transferring from CD to iPod.
“We’re unhappy that they closed the door on that,” he said.
Industry Minister Christian Paradis (Mégantic-L’Érable, Que.) said during debate that it’s time to move forward on the copyright front. He noted that between bills C-11 and the previous C-32, there were 29 hours of House debate, 31 meetings, and more than 65 hours with 110 witnesses.
“We need to move on. What we want to eliminate is piracy. When people try to cheat and pirate material in the digital era, it will be prohibited. This legislation will comply with the international standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization. People expect that. The legislation needs to be updated. After so many hours of debate, it is time to move on,” he said.
Mr. Benskin told The Hill Times last week, however, that the “sweeping bill” was “rushed” and more importantly, the government did not listen to stakeholders.
“This is their argument for every single solitary bill they’ve put forth: we talked about it in 1792. It’s ridiculous. Yes, they did see hundreds of people and yes they did hear hundreds of hours of testimony. And they ignored each and every hour of that. It’s one thing to say, ‘I heard it,’ it’s another thing to say, ‘I listened to it.’ They have selective hearing,” he said.
“They listen to the business interests. They didn’t listen to the creative interests. Everyone from the sector, and I’ve worked in the sector for 30 years, I’ve fought for the sector for 15 of those 30 years, across the board, film, television, music, live performance and not a one, not a one told me that they were happy with the bill in its current form and those are the people it affects the most,” he said.
Mr. Benskin also noted that if the Senate does not amend the legislation, it could open the government up to some court challenges for more clarity surrounding issues such as educational exemptions.
“I can start a dance studio tomorrow and I’m teaching people how to be healthier and everything else. That’s an educational expense. I should not have to pay for the music. I should be able to download it for free and that’s it,” he said.
“So I think there’s going to be a fair amount of challenges over the next three or four years in terms of the application of the bill. It was so rushed, it’s such a sweeping bill and it was so rushed that there are gaping holes in it. I think we’ll be seeing the effects of that in the next little while,” said Mr. Benskin.
Mr. Garneau said that he is not holding hope that changes can be made in the Upper Chamber. “I point out that they have a majority there as well, but you never know, maybe there’s a rogue Conservative Senator but they seem to be sheep most of the time,” he said.
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, B.C.) noted that it’s been 22 years since Canada changed its copyright laws, and Bill C-11 is the right balance for creators and consumers.
“This is about what is in the best interests of Canada, Canadian consumers, Canadian creators and their rights, needs and obligations in a digital environment,” he said. “This is a balancing act. Certainly there are those who wish they had amendments a little different from the way our government has designed the bill, but we think we have an effective and responsible balance that will serve Canadians well into the future. … This bill is critical to the success of Canada’s digital economy. It works. Let us get it done.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
No comments:
Post a Comment