Canadian Copyright Symposium 2008 – Speaker List Dissected

Howard Knopf is known to many Canadians as a lawyer who successfully defended the file-sharing lawsuits in Canada a few years ago. So, when it was discovered that he had been uninvited, there was general outrage in pro-consumer circles. So how does the symposium shape up now? ZeroPaid investigates.

A list of speakers and moderators were given in the program information (PDF), but perhaps the important point about this symposium is why it’s important. Many experts who keep an eye in Canada are aware that this symposium could shape future copyright policy in Canada.

Some were worried about whether there would be a balanced viewpoint ever since Howard Knopf was apparently ousted from the symposium before it began. So here is what we were able to find – and what we were able to find out about everyone mentioned in the draft was interesting indeed.

Jodi White is the president of the Public Policy Forum. We were able to find out the following about her:

Jodi is President of the Public Policy Forum whose mandate is to promote better public policy and better public management through dialogue among leaders from the public, private, labour and voluntary sectors. Her career combines experience in journalism, politics and government, the private sector and international affairs. She was a TV news reporter and a network radio producer at the CBC. Jodi was Chief of Staff to the Minister of External Affairs (1984 – 1988) and Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister (1993). From 1994 – 2000 Jodi was Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, at Imasco Ltd. in Montreal and President of Sydney House, a public affairs consulting firm.

Imasco Ltd. is:

Imasco Ltd., a tobacco, fast-food, and retailing company, is headquartered in Montreal, Canada in 1994 (NYT 7/29/94). Imasco is the leading Canadian tobacco Company in 1994

The person welcoming everyone and delivering the opening remarks is David Wilkins. He’s the ambassador to Canada from the United States. He is also very well known in Canadian circles as a pro-restricting copyright voice. Most recently, he commented about how the recent Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP) discussed copyright. As Michael Geist noted, he continues to advocate for “stronger copyright laws” in Canada.

Shortly afterwards, Perrin Beatty, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce would give a special address. In 1998, Beatty commented, “the Government in its capacity as regulator must help to sustain our cultural industries during a period of enormous change. For example, it has a vital role to play in the areas of copyright reform and spectrum allocation.”

Seems fairly neutral on the copyright front and Wikipedia appears to support this view-point:

Henry Perrin Beatty, PC (born June 1, 1950) is a corporate executive and former Canadian politician.

In 1995, the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appointed Beatty President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a position he held until 1999 when he became president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, a business association that promotes the interests of Canadian industry and exporters. In August 2007, Beatty left the CME to become president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Obviously, he wasn’t around when CBC started experimenting with BitTorrent, but he was a part of the CBC at one point clearly.

Next up is the first panel. The panel appears to be moderated by Doug Frith, Vice Chair of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association (CMPDA). The CMPDA is notably a Canadian lobbying arm of the MPAA.

Tom Corr is the Associate Vice President of Commercialization and CEO of the
Accelerator Centre, University of Waterloo Research and Technology Park. In 2007, an article pointed out that he would oversee the technology transfer and licensing office in the University of Waterloo. The article pointed to a website entitled “Intellectual Property Management Group” which contains the following:

IPMG plays a key role in assisting the UW research community in transferring technologies to industry for commercialization. This assistance includes insuring that adequate intellectual property protection is put in place and appropriate license terms are negotiated on behalf of the university and researcher.

Next on the panel is Michael Geist who runs his own blog which frequently is used by many experts, journalists and interested users alike as a large resource of information on various issues such as copyright, free speech, privacy and a host of other issues facing Canadians.

Finally on the first panel is Glen Bloom. Osler has a profile of him which says, “Glen Bloom has been a partner in the Ottawa office since 1985. He practices intellectual property law and litigation, primarily copyright, trade-mark and patent matters and frequently appears before the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Trade-marks Opposition Board and the Copyright Board. ”

He was quoted as saying, “Where we are way behind the U.S. is that there are now significant delays in the federal court, so that enforcement litigation in Canada is problematic because of the great delay. Whereas in the United States, the courts are very quick.”

Then we come to James Milway, Executive Director, Institute for Competitiveness and
Prosperity. He’s the moderator of the second panel and is described as an economist minded individual. Judging by some of the things we were able to find, he is also, of course, business minded. He has been quoted as saying, “In terms of business competitiveness, Canada is drifting in that we are not setting an environment that forces businesses to be as competitive as they can be.”

So the first panelist is Marc-Antoine Jamet, President, Union du fabricants from France. He appeared in China Daily:

Marc-Antoine Jamet, president of the Union of French Manufacturers, yesterday urged the two countries to deepen co-operation to fight counterfeiting.

“This is a problem, not only in China and France, but also globally,” said Jamet. “Only with closer co-operation, can the interests of both Chinese and French enterprises be well protected.”

It also appears as though this persons organization filed a complaint with prosecutors against eBay as well. Here’s a source that cites this:

‘There is a continent which makes the fakes, which is China, and there is a continent where they are sold, and that is the Internet,’ Marc Antoine Jamet, chairman of Unifab, said. The main focus is eBay, with which Unifab has held more than a dozen meetings in the last two years. ‘We think eBay is perfectly capable of policing its site, but they offer to take action only after the fact,’ Jamet said.

Mukesh Gupta, Director of Strategic Relations, Tata is the second panelist of the second panel. While we really couldn’t find anything solid that would hint at a position, we were able to find Tata on Wikipedia which states that the Tata Group is “a multinational conglomerate based in Mumbai, India. In terms of market capitalization and revenues, Tata Group is the largest private company in India. It has interests in steel, automobiles, information technology, communication, power, tea and hotels. The Tata Group has operations in more than 85 countries across six continents and its companies export products and services to 80 nations. The Tata Group comprises 98 companies in seven business sectors, 27 of which are publicly listed. 65.8% of the ownership of Tata Group is held by the charitable trust of Tata.[2] Companies which form a major part of the group include Tata Steel, Corus Steel, Tata Motors, Tata Consultancy Services, Tata Tea, Tata Power, Tata Communications and the Taj Hotels.”

Next on the panel is Jacob Glick. He’s from the Canadian Policy Council of Google Inc. Now, Bill Patry who is a known blogger on intellectual property around the world is also from Google inc, but he’s not on the panel. According to a Wiki from ICANN, “Prior to joining Google, Jacob was Legal and Policy Counsel, and then General Counsel, Director of Policy Development and Corporate Secretary at CIRA. [...] Jacob is called to the Bar of Ontario. Before coming to CIRA, he practiced law as an Intellectual Property litigator at McCarthy Tetrault LLPin Toronto, representing a wide variety of companies and individuals in technology, internet and intellectual property related matters.”

Interesting, but he has a blog where he comments:

Here in Canada, where there is an ongoing debate about how to best implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty, Google has joined with a number of other Canadian and international companies who have a shared vision of balanced copyright. The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright has issued a two-page position paper calling for a “balanced ‘package’ approach for a strong Canadian copyright regime.” Admittedly not the snappiest title, but even so the document includes an important list of issues that the Canadian government ought to consider as integral to copyright reform.

The coalition’s proposed package of reforms includes, among other things, expanding Canada’s fair dealing provisions – permitting commonly accepted uses of copyrighted works including: parody, mash-ups, time-shifting and place-shifting. More importantly, the coalition is calling for fair dealing to be made more flexible. Canada’s current approach to fair dealing ossifies the tiny and exhaustive list of exceptions to copyright and as such stifles cultural and technological innovation.

Obviously, this shows a little more clearly where he actually stands on the issues.

Finally on the panel is Matthew Herder, Visiting Professor, Loyola University Chicago and advisor to The Innovation Partnership (TIP) In a paper (PDF) co-authored with E. Richard Gold entitled “Intellectual Property Issues in Biotechnology: Health and Industry”, there was this comment made “Innovation will, moreover, not cease to occur without IP [Intellectual Property] rights, and not simply because of non-economic motives to invent or governmental subsidies.”

Another interesting note was the following:

Even if we are willing to accept that IP rights (especially patents) provide a necessary incentive for biotechnology companies to engage in the R&D process, it is unmistakably clear that they are insufficient incentives to address the particular health and industrial needs of the world’s poor. To be precise, IP rights, as incentives, fail in two key respects. First, they fail to provide sufficient incentive to develop products that are particular to many developing countries. Between 1975 and 1996, for example, merely
1% of new drugs were designed to treat so-called “tropical diseases”. Second, IP rights fail to incentivise the optimisation of existing products and devices for delivery and use in developing country settings. In the health care field, this latter shortcoming, without detracting from the importance of developing treatments for tropical and other “neglected diseases”, is clearly the more pressing issue. “It is”, as Kevin Outterson exclaims, “the poor themselves who are neglected, rather than just their diseases”

After that panel, there was a special keynote by Dr. Michael Shapiro of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The most that could be found was the following (a summary of a publication this person wrote):

“The aim of the Center is to explore a roster of cultural issues that affect the nation’s well-being — issues that should be on the horizon of policymakers, public and private, and at a national, state and local level… This issue paper provides an overview, historical analysis and legal implications of copyright law for the creative sector and cultural organizations.”

The third panel was moderated by David Stewart-Patterson, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Council of Chief Executives. He made the following comments (PDF) in 2002 during another consultation:

The CCCE believed that the biggest single barrier to greater efficiency is that the public health system is organized in a way that fails to make the most effective use of the people and money it does have. They said the private sector could make a real contribution to improving health care on a number of fronts. They thought innovation could be encouraged by pursuing broader policy thrusts, such as strong intellectual property
rights.

The first panelist on the third panel was Nik Nanos, President and CEO of Nanos Research. A report suggested that this person conducted a poll which suggests the following:

While the survey results suggest Canadians are also very supportive of the protection of intellectual property rights for those who make discoveries or inventions or create unique products, that support is again strongest in the industrial heartland of Ontario and in Quebec.

The survey found 52.1 per cent of Canadians “strongly support” protection of intellectual property rights. That strong support ranged from a high of 63.8 per cent in Quebec and 54.2 in Ontario to only 43.8 per cent in Western Canada and 44.2 per cent in Atlantic Canada.

The second person on the third panel was Richard Gold, profesor and Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, McGill University. He made an interesting note in 2002:

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) awarded Myriad Genetics the first of its BRCA1/2 patents in October 2000. This largely went unnoticed until Myriad’s lawyers began sending out cease and desist letters to provincial health authorities. For example, Ontario received a letter from Myriad on May 31, 2001, requesting it to stop providing genetic testing services in respect of BRCA1/2.

The reaction from Ontario was swift and forceful. During the summer of 2001, then-premier Harris called for the federal government to intervene to prevent gene patenting. At a premiers’ conference, he promised that Ontario would provide a study of the issue and report back in January 2002.

Finally on the panel was Morgan Elliott, Executive Director, Global Policy and Government Affairs, Cisco Systems Canada. He very recently had some comments posted in The Hill Times which contains the following:

It is ironic that pro-regulation net neutralists who advocate an open and unfettered internet are the ones calling for government intervention and regulation to spur development. The rapid evolution of the internet has turned traditional business models on their heads with consumers’ now driving innovation. But with the explosive growth of the internet and the ongoing expansion of networks to meet demand, service providers should remain free to engage in pro-competitive network management techniques to alleviate congestion, ameliorate capacity constraints, and enable new services.

A keynote was made by James Rajotte, MP and Chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. It just so happens that Russell McOrmond met up with the MP and made the following note, among other things, “Our conversation partly fell because I didn’t really understand a key question he had. He was asking how, in a model without DRM or the support of major labels, would a musician sell a CD. Since I see both DRM and major labels as being a hindrance, not a help, to selling music (in any form, from downloads to tangible media), I couldn’t give a satisfactory answer his question.”

There were then breakout sessions towards the end which were described as, “sessions, participants will build upon the day’s discussion by developing a comprehensive series of recommendations to improve Canada’s IP framework. These recommendations will be presented to Industry Canada to support development of IP aspects of Canada’s Science & Technology Strategy.”

The life sciences session was moderated by Dr. Judy Erratt, a Gowlings partner. The most that could be found is this about Gowlings:

Gowlings is a leading Canadian law firm offering a diverse range of services to help domestic and international organizations achieve their business objectives. Recognized for excellence in business, advocacy and intellectual property law, Gowlings provides dedicated industry expertise in a number of sectors including energy, infrastructure, life sciences, financial services and technology. The Firm combines traditional legal services with innovative solutions in areas such as transfer pricing and tax, government relations and occupational health and safety, to provide business entities with a competitive advantage.

Moderating the IT session was Marc Seaman, National Director, Public Affairs of Microsoft Canada. It appears as though he has been active in the Canadian governmental process and was quoted as saying in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in December of 2007:

Mr. Chair, Canada has one of the highest piracy rates in the western hemisphere. Our piracy rate is approximately 33%—and this is specifically of Microsoft products. Thirty-three percent of all Microsoft software in Canada is pirated or counterfeited. This compares with about 21% in the United States. Obviously it’s not as significant as it is in parts of Asia, but as I mentioned, in the western hemisphere, Canada is one of the weakest nations as far as protection of those types of rights is concerned.

The loss to the economy from that is quite significant, both in taxes as well as in terms of the industrial base. It also is an impediment and discourages companies on the IP side to really want to develop products here.

Now, we understand, or are hopeful, that copyright legislation will be tabled in the coming weeks, which will help enhance that, but without strong enforcement at the borders and the ability of border guards to seize counterfeit products, it is going to…. It has to be an integrated strategy ensuring we have strong IP, anti-counterfeiting, and anti-piracy legislation, and enforcement and funding for the RCMP and the Border Services Agency to ensure we can execute against this. Because Canada, as I said, is unfortunately one of the worst nations with respect to this.

Moderating the media sessions was, again, Doug Frith of the CMPDA.

The moderator of Agriculture and Chemicals wasn’t confirmed.

It’s definitely notable that a good number of these individuals have biology related backgrounds. An observation is that the symposium was made of of mostly lawyers, company bosses, educators and a few parliamentarians. It could be debatable on whether this represents a fair and balanced perspective on copyright. One could ask where are the people from, for example, Online Rights Canada or CIPPIC? It is noted that it appears as though balance was attempted, but interesting that the discussions were moderated by people who have an interest in restricting copyright. It’s also strange to see someone from the tobacco industry leading the forum. Though all in all, it probably should be left up to everyone to decide whether or not this was a balanced symposium and a good one to lead Canada on framing intellectual property and copyright law in Canada. It’s a shame that a complete crystal clear profile of each person as well as a stance could not be found for everyone, but at the very least, this should give everyone a good idea of who was there discussing the issues.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Canadian_Copyright_Symposium_2008_Speaker_List_Dissected’;

Related Posts

1. Canadian Copyright Reform on Further Hold As Debate Intensifies
2. Canadian Copyright Consultation Launches
3. Hatch to Head Senate Panel on Copyright
4. Canada Elects Minority Government, Could Avoid Canadian DMCA Again
5. Canadian MP – Debate WIPO Before Copyright Ratification