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.

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

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

We already know that Prince really hates the Internets, and it seems his loathing is spreading. Seems like 1970s novelty act and measuring stick as to how old you are if you think it’s funny to dance to their songs, the Village People, are joining Prince in his lawsuits against The Pirate Bay and YouTube. Apparently, the wave of takedown orders on YouTube users who have been putting up mashups of nazis “dancing” to YMCA wasn’t enough. Guess they’ll be changing the lyrics to “It’s fun to enforce the D-M-C-A.”

If only the guys realised that viral was how their song was able to maintain some form of popularity since. Do they really think they’re getting a “public performance” cut everytime YMCA is played at a wedding? Or at high school sporting events? Or during rec time at Club Med?

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

Another strong voice has thrown its weight against Industry Minister Jim Prentice’s copyright reform bill. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which represents Canadian private television and radio broadcasters, has had a rather enlightened moment in regards to copyright reform. This is what the CAB president, Glenn O’Farrell, had to say:

“Rather than adapting their business models to the opportunities presented by evolving digital media, the [record] labels are engaging in what is essentially an abuse of the principles of the Copyright Act.”

Looks like Mr. O’Farrell and I share the same brain on this one: the recording industry wants to move into the 21st century by clinging to antiquated business models; shoot down technology instead of embracing it; regulate to make up for their lack of foresight. Could it be the recording industry is risking to sink broadcasters, who still are their most preferred promotional tool?

Michael Geist: Broadcasters Claim Copyright at the Breaking Point
Glenn O'Farrell - Stop the copyright pile-on

Following-up on something I mentioned last week, the Conservative government, who pledged for more transparency and accountability in government, has solidly messed up on their campaign promise to bring treaties to the House of Commons for debate before ratification.

Industry Minister Jim Prentice wants to get the Canadian version of the DMCA in so bad, that he refuses to place the WIPO treaty up for debate and will ratify it without any open discussion in the House.

From the article at The Hill Times:

According to the policy, this would mean that before the government introduces copyright legislation to implement two treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization, it is required to table the treaties in the House for debate and votes and hold a 21-day waiting period before introducing the copyright legislation.

However, the Conservative government´s copyright bill to implement the treaties has been sitting on the Order Paper and is expected to be introduced this week.

Moreover, Industry Minister Jim Prentice´s (Calgary Centre-North, Alta.) office confirmed last week that it intends to move ahead with the copyright legislation without first debating the treaties in the House.

Aside from the layers of hypocrisy this whole story unfurls, it’s obvious that Prentice doesn’t have the backbone to do it the right (ie: democratic) way: stand up to music and movie lobbyists from our country and the US to allow any level of copyright reform to be properly debated in Parliament. All this situation serves to prove is that Jim Prentice is the biggest tool of the entertainment industry in Canada today.

Prentice backtracks on treaty policy, copyright to be exempted
Prentice Backtracks On Treaty Policy

Blind people in Canada don’t like the idea of Jim Prentice’s copyright bill.

The Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, an organisation which serves to “increase awareness of rights and responsibilities, so blind, deaf-blind and partially sighted individuals can have equal access to the benefits and opportunities of society,” has issued a letter to the Industry Minister outlining their concerns about the copyright bill.

“For years, Canadians who are blind, deaf-blind and partially sighted have been seeking greater and not reduced access to print information, whether it be on websites or in print documents. We do, therefore, view with grave concern any move that might further restrict opportunities for providing copies of works in the individual’s preferred format.”

It’s entirely legitimate that they be worried.

Two More Opponents of Prentice's Canadian DMCA

Quick follow-up on an article I posted in some newsbits last evening.

NDP MP Charlie Angus has asked that that WIPO treaty be brought to parliament for debate before any ratifying and especially before any copyright legislation is put through.

WIPO is an agency within the United Nations, of which Canada is a member, whose purpose is to purpose “to encourage creative activity, [and] to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world.” Angus’ logic is that Canada should ratify the upcoming Internet treaties (which deal with online intellectual property worldwide) before passing any copyright bills before parliament.

The Conservative government recently followed through on a 2006 election promise pledging to table treaties in the House before ratification. As Michael Geist specifies: “The treaties will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum and given at least 21 sitting days for debate.” So, I guess you could say it’s time to “put up.”

What needs to be done is determine the pertinence of the WIPO treaties. After all, Angus does mention the archaic nature of the organisation in his press release, whose policies he claims are stuck in the 21st century. Not to mention that most intellectual property standard-setting has been shifted from WIPO to the World Trade Organisation.

So if Industry Minister Jim Prentice wants to put the Conservative’s pledge to the test, now would be the perfect time to do it.