NDP MP Charlie Angus introduced his promised Net Neutrality private member’s bill into Parliament today. Michael Geist provided a quick analysis of the bill’s provisions, which can be summed up to an emphatic “Oh, okay then.”

Naturally, the bill seeks to add transparency to the Canadian telecom framework, with a particular approach to the traffic shaping concerns which are at the basis of the debate.

Network operators shall not engage in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on their source, ownership or destination.

However, Geist points out that many-an-exception has been introduced to the quoted statement, such as “action to provide computer security, prioritize emergency communications, offer differentiated pricing or bit caps, anti-spam filters, handle breaches in terms of service, and to prevent violation of the law.”

Hm. The grey zones are still rather grey, as all these exceptions will have to be examined more closely to determine guidelines for applying them. Just the “handle breaches in terms of service” exception in itself is matter for greater definition, since terms of service are usually determined by the provider.

However, the truly excellent provision of the act asks for a more open Internet, allowing any devices to connect to the Internet without obstruction, and that user information be provided to the subscriber upon request, displaying information like connection speed, nature and limitations.

It’s a little underwhelming, but it’s still a very positive gesture. This is a baby-steps bill; it’s the first proposition its kind and thus must be perceived as an instigator for debate, reflexion, and study. Definitive provisions will come about only once the matter is taken seriously into account by our current government, which hasn’t been the case. Hopefully, the rest of the opposition parties will follow the NDP’s lead on this and will demand that discussion on the net neutrality issue become part of the Conservative agenda sooner than later.

NDP MP and digital rights crusader Charlie Angus announced today that we was going to propose a private member’s bill on net neutrality, to “enact rules to keep the internet free from interference by service providers.” That’s good news in a sense, but seeing that it is a private member’s bill, the chances that it would pass are minimal, especially considering the current government’s inaction in the situation. But, perhaps that’s exactly what we need to stir the pot…

Earlier this week, the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) called for Stéphane Dion and the opposition Liberals to join them in their campaign to support net neutrality legislation which will protect the privacy and rights of all Canadians using the Internet. No word about their participation yet.

In fact, no word on where they stand, period. It turns out the Liberals are just as nebulous as the Conservative government is on the issue. A quick search on the party’s official website turns up zero results for “net neutrality.”

Along the same lines, a search for “copyright” on liberal.ca produces a 2007 press release about the government’s under-funding of museums, without ever really talking about how projected copyright reform could seriously harm such institutions.

Then again, the Liberal position on copyright reform is becoming distressingly clearer if one takes Liberal Party’s Consumer Affairs critic Dan McTeague’s recent behaviour as a barometer. McTeague, who has a reputation for championing consumer-related causes, has been hobnobbing with DMCA-style legislation advocates, like CRIA and ACTRA, and pushing for tougher copyright legislation.

Moreover, McTeague’s apparently been swimming in their Kool-Aid, as he’s started adopting their skewed rhetoric, demanding that WIPO treaties be ratified, demonstration support for property rights of IP holders with claims of theft being theft, and promoting the risible assumption that Canada’s international reputation has been tarnished due to inappropriate legislation.

The NDP has spoken out clearly on both these issues, calling out Industry Minister Jim Prentice on different occasions to clarify the government’s intentions and how it would affect Canadians. The Greens are in there too. Where are the Liberals? Why haven’t they challenged the Conservatives on this issue? With a majority of Canadians clearly supportive of fair copyright legislation and net neutrality advocacy, their restraint is truly puzzling, although the most cynical of us will state that big business has the ear of the Liberals on this one as well; their silence telling of the unpopular position they are about to prop themselves onto.

Can the Liberals be trusted to do the right thing? Within the next six weeks, the Conservatives plan on dropping a new copyright bill. While it’s too early to know what the bill’s provisions are, the Liberals will be soon forced to position themselves. We’ll then see who’s looking out for who.

Did you know that Bell Canada is taking the CRTC to court for its decision that it should continue to allow third parties acces to their networks, for both phone and Internet access? That’s explains why they’ve been traffic shaping. They don’t want competition.

On the heels of the recent discovery that Bell Canada has been throttling their wholesale ASDL connections, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) has issued a cease and desist motion demanding that the telecom stop imparing “speed and performance of the wholesale ADSL access services that it provides to independent ISPs and other competitors.”

In the application filed late yesterday, CAIP has claimed that Bell’s actions have impacted performance “to the point where the quality of the service has been degraded beyond recognition.” It therefore seeks to curb Bell’s anti-competitive ways, but it also wants to “ensure the technological and competitive neutrality.”

Yes, they used the word “neutrality.” A word both the CRTC and the Conservative government would much prefer to do without.

The CRTC has long avoided getting involved in a true debate on the issue, but with the CAIP demanding their involvement they will have to set a precedent, in one form or the other.

As for the government’s stance, Industry Minister Jim Prentice refused to give a straightforward answer when the issue came up in question period on Wednesday, courtesy of NDP MP Charlie Angus. Angus asked:

“What steps will the Minister of Industry take to ensure that consumers who paid for access are not going to be ripped, that badly needed competition will not be squeezed off, and send a message to the telecom giants that they have no business monkey wrenching with the free flow of information?”

To which Prentice gave a brief and dismissive politispeak answer stating “[a]t this point in time we will continue to leave the matter between consumers on the one hand and Internet service providers on the other.” The simple fact that he did not outright condemn this action or, at the very least, express concern about it, is deplorably revealing of the Conservative’s position: being comfortable with the idea of letting telecoms manipulate Internet traffic as they see fit instead of looking out for the free flow of information.

The whole (albeit short) exchange can be seen on YouTube.

It’s equally deplorable to hear Prentice use the lack of Internet regulation in Canada as an excuse. After all, regulation in this matter falls under his jurisdiction, and he’s been rather chilly at the prospect of tabling any kind of legislation or spearheading a proposal. The government knows that Canadian public opinion is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the telecoms. And since lack of regulation allows the telecoms to have free reign over their networks, it’s sadly apparent that Jim Prentice and the Conservative government are more interested in protecting private interests than those of their citizens.

But as one of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies falls under attack by Canada’s largest ISP association, it will be very difficult from this point on for the government to not get involved. They will, sooner than later, be called to position themselves clearly in this particular issue, which will be quite telling of what the Conservatives have in store for net neutrality in the future.

Michael Geist: CRTC To Face Net Neutrality Issue as CAIP Demands Bell Cease and Desist Its Throttling Practices
Globe and Mail: Prentice mum on ISP throttling debate
NDP: Internet "throttling" a consumer rip-off
Broadband Reports: Bell Canada Redefines 'Satisfaction' and 'Fairness'
YouTube: NDP MP Charlie Angus on Net Neutrality

Remember last week when I posted a little article about the Conservative government blissfully cracking eggs all over its face after being on the receiving end of a copyright violation? Apparently the whole thing has been cleared up, as the Tories and Warner/Chappell Canada have come to a settlement about the government’s public use of the song For The Love Of Money by the O’Jays without having secured the rights beforehand.

And what are the terms of the settlement? Oh, those are secret. Super hush-hush. It’s an “internal party matter” says a Tory spokesperson. You understand.

So on top of this embarrassing screw up by Jim Prentice’s crew, the man who is overseeing copyright reform in Canada, the party which promised more transparency than previous administrations won’t go full disclosure on the situation. Way to go, folks: not only do I hope no public funds are going to pay for this “internal party matter,” but I really doubt the Industry minister and his minions have any idea how copyright works, seeing they can’t manage it in the field themselves.

Ottawa Citizen: Tories settle copyright dispute with music publisher

The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), a coalition of eleven Canadian public service employee unions, is demanding that the Conservative government open consultations on the need for legislation to protect Internet neutrality in Canada.

In a letter to Industry Minister Jim Prentice, the NUPGE deplores the lack of action taken by the government to protect the rights of a free and neutral Internet for all Canadians. It states that Comcast’s recent admission that it was blocking peer-to-peer traffic (after claiming it didn’t) should spur the Conservatives to act now before this type of situation becomes the norm.

As proof of concept, the letter mentions more “home-grown” traffic shaping occurrences, like the infamous case of Telus blocking access to its striking workers’ website, and Rogers’ statement that it engages in Comcast-like beahviour. The companies are breaking their own terms of usage without even a blink, and the fact that they can get away with it is clear that we need recourses to ensure that corporate interests do not interfere with our right to free and accessible information.

Irony, or irony: (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity.

But honestly, seriously: a press conference led by Jim Prentice himself used For The Love Of Money by the O’Jays in a video presentation, and nobody in the party thought about securing the rights. Thusly, Warner/Chappell Music Canada Ltd. slapped the Tories with a copyright violation notice.

Right now, the Conservatives believe that the problem lies with the fact that it was broadcast on television, and since it was the news outlets covering the event who put the song on the air, it’s not their fault.

Conservative party spokes-man Ryan Sparrow declined to discuss the possibility the video violated Warner’s intellectual property rights.

“I’ve checked with our lawyers and our position is that we don’t comment on rumours of possible claims against the party.”

He said the video produced by the party was not an advertisement.

“The Conservative party has not released any ads containing the music in question,” he said.

However, anyone who has ever picked up a CD has seen the “unauthorized copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring or rental is prohibited” warnings printed on the jacket in tiny letters. And those words mean that you can’t use a song during a public event without permission, regardless of whether you’re broadcasting it or not. It’s exactly the same situation which happened to Mike Huckabee when he was asked by Boston to stop using More Than Feeling at his campaign events. Huckabee wasn’t using it in commercials, but he was using it in public events without the band’s permission.

Oh, how I’d love to hear the Tories utter the words “fair dealing” in this case…

Via Michael Geist

According to the The Songwriters Association of Canada, adding a $5 fee on your Internet bill would solve all legal issues pertaining to music downloading off P2P networks.

Their proposal is an amendment to the Copyright Act, which they call the Right to Equitable Remuneration for Music File Sharing. Simply put, everyone with an Internet connection plunks out an extra five bucks a month. The money is then managed by a consortium of artists, songwriters, music publishers and record labels, which would then redistribute the funds through a monthly license fee to creators and rights holders in Canada.

In return, P2P file sharing would be made legal across Canada and will render the need for DRM obsolete.

While I’m glad to hear some input directly from the voice of a creator’s association (rather than always from the business end), I’m not keen on the universal price hike for all users. It’s this “everyone’s potentially guilty” approach which drove the recording industry to its current tactics and it’s kind of heartbreaking that the songwriters association has the same basic attitude.

Not to mention some people like, well, my mom, will outright refuse to pay such a price considering they don’t even know what P2P is. To which I must agree. However, it would be comforting to know that songwriters would be on the recieving end of the cash. Then again, the cynical part of me leads me to believe that if ever a deal like this was put through, the actual songwriters would end up chewing on the smallest piece of the pie, as usual.

Realistically, a fee like this would undoutebly change my behaviour. If I’m paying a flat mounthly amount to allow me to download as much free music as I want, what’s my motivation to keep buying albums? This proposition has the potential to bury retail for good, so how will it affect the iTunes, Puretracks and Zuniors of the world?

Existing music sites like iTunes and PureTracks would continue to be licenced directly by Creators and rights holders and would continue to develop the attractive “value added” services and security features that keep them distinct from file sharing activities.

Something tells me Steve Jobs won’t enjoy the idea of being a “value added” service to the industry. And Apple will be only one of the opponents of such an amendment.

I’m quite unconvinced about the whole idea. Is this really the best solution to ensure music creators get their fair share?

TheStar.com : Could $5 a month save the music industry?
A PROPOSAL FOR THE MONETIZATION OF THE FILE SHARING OF MUSIC FROM THE SONGWRITERS AND RECORDING ARTISTS OF CANADA

Michael Geist has sources; his sources are telling him that a potent group of business associations and individual companies are banding together to oppose Jim Prentice’s DMCA legislation, and major players like Google and Yahoo! are adding their logos to the banner. The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright will stand for, among other things, expanding Canada’s fair dealing (i.e. fair use) rights and rational enforcement of copyright penalties.

Alongside the two search giants is an impressive collection of media and telecommunications players who are not going to sit by and let the music lobby get its way.

They include:

• Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB)
• Canadian Association of Internet Providers, a division of CATAlliance (CAIP)
• Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA)
• Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association (CWTA)
• Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
• Retail Council of Canada (RCC)
• Google
• Third Brigade
• Tucows
• Yahoo! Canada
• Cogeco Cable
• EastLink
• MTS Allstream
• Rogers Communications Inc.
• SaskTel
• Telus

The International Intellectual Property Alliance, mouthpiece of over 1,300 American media companies (including RIAA and MPAA members), can continue to pressure Canada into complying, but it’s obvious that our homebased interests will have nothing to do with DMCA-style legislation. So, moreso than ever, the Conservative copyright reform will have to prove if it’s out to protect the interests of Canadian companies, or those from abroad.

Michael Geist: Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright Speaks Out Against Canadian DMCA
Canada a top copyright violator, U.S. group says