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.

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

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

Sides chosen in royalty tussle

• The RIAA wants to lower royalties paid out to the artists from the present rate of 9 cents per song — about 13% of the wholesale price — down to 8% of wholesale. What’s this about wanting to protect the artists, again?

Microsoft Misleads on Copyright Reform

• Microsoft says there are no laws in Canada to protect creators, despite receiving the highest statutory damages awards in Canadian copyright history.

IFPI Forces Danish ISP to Block The Pirate Bay

• The free and open Internet continues to slowly be choked as a Danish court has forced a major telecom to block all Internet access to The Pirate Bay BitTorrent tracker.

Educational Use of the Internet Amendment: Is it Necessary?

• Fascinating thoughts on just how many questions can be raised if the copyright law is amended for educational requirements instead of adjusting the legislation’s language from the get-go.

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.

Alleged movie pirate Geremi Adam misses Montreal court date, warrant issued

• What’s really sad is that he got busted for taping How To Eat Fried Worms and Invincible. At least go down for some good flicks.

U2 manager takes Internet providers to task

• I guess it’s classier to have your manager fire the shots.

Canadian MP - Debate WIPO Before Copyright Ratification

• Leave it to the NDP to keep the government in line.

Court delivers a blow to record companies on internet piracy

• A blow to record companies is a win for online privacy

Verizon: We don’t want to play copyright cop on our network

• It’s nice to know there’s still possibilities for filter-free surfing.

Copy a CD, owe $1.5 million under “gluttonous” PRO-IP Act

• $1.5 million for a ten-song CD, copied once? As the article wonders: “Sound fair? Proportional? Necessary? Not really, but that doesn’t mean it won’t become law.”

In the ongoing battle to keep Canadian copyright reform from turning into American-inspired, lobbyist-driven DMCA-style legislation, Michael Geist has made a series of principles, a “wishlist” if you may, which he feels need to be addressed by the government to ensure that copyright law does not undermine education, free speech, and our rights as Canadian citizens. Can’t say I disagree with him.

If you are new to this issue, are uncertain about certain aspects of it, or simply have a hard time understanding how it affects you and your rights, this is a perfect primer to get on board. Even for someone who has been following the situation, it’s a great way to keep things in perspective.

For instance, I didn’t know an infringing party can be fined up to $20,000 in statutory damages without any real proof of actual loss. Doesn’t that come across as a little more than excessive?

You can also join the Fair Copyright for Canada group on Facebook which have a bunch of useful links (some of which I have linked to from here) and some discussion as well.

Michael Geist - My Fair Copyright for Canada Principles
Facebook | Fair Copyright for Canada