ZeroPaid.com » ndp

Canadian Political Parties Clarify Their Positions on Copyright

Drew Wilson — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:55:50 +0000

It'll be May 2nd when Canadians head to the polls, and the positions on copyright can be rather muddied at times. That makes the CCA posting on political parties so interesting. Canadian political parties were asked a series of questions related to the arts and some of this ground covers copyright.

Recently, ZeroPaid's own Jared Moya noted that ACTRA was asking Canadians to vote for candidates who would support a three strikes law. The question being raised here is which party best suits your position if you are Canadian. We've already reviewed the platforms of the Conservative, Bloc, Liberal, Green and Pirate party platforms. Well, if reading the platforms weren't enough for you, the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) sent a series of questions to the Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal and NDP parties with regards to the arts in Canada. There responses might prove quite interesting for some voters to say the least. As it seems to be par for the course, the Conservative party did not answer any questions, so that leaves the Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green parties. We've read through the comments and have put together some notes. The parties were asked, "How do you intend to protect culture in international trade negotiations?" The Green party had an interesting response, saying:

Bad trade deals are bad for Canadians. A Green Government will renegotiate NAFTA and FTAA, as well as other agreements currently under negotiation (e.g. Canadian-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)). Any Chapter 11-type Investor-State provision that allow foreign companies to sue our government and its agencies (e.g. CRTC) will be removed.

Copyright was then asked. The question specifically was "Precisely when does your party intend to present amendments to modernize the Copyright Act?" The Bloc responded with the following:

If Bill C-32 is presented before Parliament again in its current form, the Bloc will try to better balance the bill by proposing amendments during the committee's study.

While this response specifically seems rather vague, judging by our platform review, chances are, they mean that they are going to restrict copyright more to the liking of foreign multinational companies (re: DMCA-style copyright law) The Liberals response was particularly eye-opening:

Recent studies have shown that Canada’s out-of-date Copyright act translates into major economic loss (up to 965 million dollars lost last year due to piracy, according to an Ipsos/ Oxford economics study) for Canadian creators all across the country; the Liberal Party will thus start working on presenting a modernised copyright act as soon as we form government. Bill C-32, the latest Conservative attempt to modernise copyright, was unbalanced and unfair; a Liberal government will work with all stakeholders to ensure creators rights and their sources of revenues are protected under the Copyright act. Digital technology offers many new opportunities, but enjoying content without compensating its creators shouldn’t be among them. A new Liberal government will introduce technology neutral copyright legislation that balances the needs of creators and consumers and reflects the principle that our artists and musicians should be paid for their work. We will stand with Canadian creators as they navigate both the opportunities and challenges of the new digital society. During the debate on copyright legislation in the last Parliament, it was the Liberal Party that developed a practical solution to providing musicians with compensation through a new private copying compensation fund rather than a levy. A Liberal government will look to develop similarly innovative solutions to ensure that the Copyright Act protects creators’ existing and future rights and revenue streams in a digital age. Likewise, the Liberal party believes that any exception under fair dealings must be clearly defined with a clear and strict test for fair use so that creators are fairly compensated for their work.
Bottom line, it sounds like the Liberals are planning on also changing copyright laws so that they are more strict. While their track record (what we mentioned in our Liberal platform review) suggests that they want to increase exceptions, that seems to be the only highlight of their position as they sound like they are merely going along with what foreign corporations want copyright laws to be from the sounds of things. The NDP simply had this to say:
If elected, Jack Layton and the New Democrat team are committed to introducing legislation to modernize Canada’s copyright regime within 12 months of taking office.
The parties were then asked, "What types of amendments do you intend to put forward? " The Bloc's response:
Copyright law does not take into account the impact of new technologies, including the advent of the internet, and must be changed as quickly as possible. All work deserves proper compensation, so it is essential that artists and creators receive their dues, while also ensuring that consumers benefit from access to creative products. Illegal downloading is detrimental to artists, who receive no fair compensation for their works, while internet service providers are able to benefit financially from their labour. Introduced in June 2010 by the Conservatives, Bill C-32 fails to make ISPs responsible and is satisfied with attacking the consumers who pay ISPs for internet access.
This appears to be repeating what they said earlier in their platform about making ISPs liable for copyright infringement. It also seems to reaffirm that they are merely going to toe the viewpoint of foreign multi-national corporations. The Green parties response was rather surprising:
The Green Party believes that Bill C-32 needs more work and that the educational exceptions in particular disrespect creators and threatens their livelihoods and businesses. The Green Party of Canada is committed to working with the CCA and all the relevant stakeholders to modernize our outdated copyright system.
I don't understand exactly how the educational exceptions in Bill C-32 disrespected creators. It locked down art whenever there was a DRM present, thus restricting what educators could do with material for educational purposes. I personally find this response puzzling. The NDP was more open to fair dealing:
We would begin by addressing issues including private copying, fair dealing, and the regime governing statutory damages, among others.
The next question was this: "Which elements of Bill C-32 will your party keep, and which elements of the bill will your party remove or change in a new bill to modernize the Copyright Act?" The Bloc responded:
The Bloc Québécois will ensure that the new bill is fair to both creators and consumers. This balance must be achieved, most notably through: an upgraded system for private copying, applying to mp3 players and other digital music players; reasonable royalties to artists for redistribution of their works; the abolition of the education exemption and fair recognition of the resale rights of visual artists.
They went on to re-iterate that they want to make ISPs liable for copyright infringement. The Green Party had an interesting response:
The Green Party of Canada strongly supports artists' rights to guaranteed fair compensation through fair patent and copyright laws. At the same time, we consider the digital lock provision in Bill C-32 to be excessively restrictive in that it will not allow students and journalists to properly create and conduct research. We will work with the CCA and other stakeholders to sharpen the definition of "educational uses" to find the right balance to give researchers this ability in a manner consistent with a thriving information commons, fair dealing principles, and moral rights.
This seems to be similar to the Liberals position on the DRM exceptions that they are far too strict and, essentially, choke off certain kinds of innovation legally speaking. The NDP had a very specific response:
In reviewing Bill C-32, New Democrats would closely examine a number of key issues contained in the proposed legislation, including (but not limited to) ISP liability, Technological Protection Measures (TPMs, or so-called “digital locks”), statutory damages, private copying and reproduction for private purposes, broadcast mechanical licensing and fair dealing. In order to arrive at an equilibrium between the interests of rights-holders and those of consumers, New Democrats would likely begin developing new copyright laws, beginning by consulting widely with stakeholder groups with the aim of creating a legislation that is – unlike C-32 – truly technology-neutral, balanced and flexible enough to ensure its adaptability to new platforms and technologies in the years to come. We would also determine definitively Canada’s obligations as a signatory to various international treaties governing copyright and intellectual property.
While they are glossing over a lot of subjects, they are, at least, recognizing that these issues do matter to them. If you would like to see the full responses and questions in these and other topics, you can check out the CCA website. So, if ACTRA is hoping to find a political party that explicitly says they'll support a three strikes law, well, it's clear that this policy isn't exactly on the minds of the political parties judging by these responses. The closest mention of three strikes is the mention of CETA. That was the Green party and they explicitly said that such an agreement was a bad idea. What is noticeable in these responses is how some parties (namely the Liberals and the Bloc) seem to be more warm to the idea of a more DMCA-style approach to copyright. The Bloc went further by saying that ISPs should be liable for copyright infringement. While I personally fully disagree with this policy because ISPs are used for way more than accessing music, they seem to have been very consistent on this position. The NDP appear to at least recognize the complexities of copyright the most with mentioning not just TPMs and fair dealing, but statutory damages and ISP liability as well. Overall, these are very interesting comments given that sometimes, the party platforms were vague at times. Some of these responses really did clarify the party positions on these issues. I think that the NDP further clarified their positions the most while the Bloc merely reaffirmed their positions. The other parties were somewhere in between reaffirming their positions and clarifying the points they made in their platform. Does these positions change your vote? Which party do you think had the position that reflects your stance on copyright the most? Are all of the issues that are of concern to you being addressed so far in this election? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Canada’s Election: A Review of the NDP Platform on Digital Issues

Drew Wilson — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:10:08 +0000

Our election coverage is continuing with the final party that held seats in parliament in the last session, the NDP. Just like the other parties, we are focusing on copyright related issues and online privacy related issues.

We've already had some rather extensive coverage on the party platforms. We've reviewed the Conservative platform, the Liberal platform and the Bloc Québécois party platform. So, naturally, we are continuing our reviews with the NDP. The NDP party platform can be found on their official website. You can find it by scrolling to the bottom of the page. Above the orange footer is a link that says "Download the Platform (PDF)" which is the PDF version of their platform. The NDP Platform Like our other reviews, we begin with the issue surrounding copyright. the NDP platform says:

We will introduce a bill on copyright reform to ensure that Canada complies with its international treaty obligations, while balancing consumers’ and creators’ rights.

It's interesting that this, too, suggests that the NDP could go either direction. Either they are listening to foreign corporations or they are listening to Canadian consumers. That line alone doesn't necessarily suggest they are going either way. There doesn't appear to be any mention or reference to lawful access in the platform. Overall Impression The platform is surprisingly bare when it comes to copyright and privacy. There was only one sentence that was really relevant here and it was pretty much neutral. So, one can look at their track record and immediately recognize how Charlie Angus, one NDP member, has been uncovering a lot of secret dealings with lobbyists of whoever happened to be governing at the time on the copyright profile. The NDP has been known on several occasions to bring up concerns about DRM, the Canadian DMCA and even ACTA in parliament. It's just disappointing that this really good track record is not reflected in the platform. If the election was purely over this issue of copyright and online privacy, I'd personally have a lot to consider. Their platform alone wouldn't be enough to garner my vote. Their track record, however, makes me lean toward voting for the NDP. So, I'd say, I'd vote for the NDP under these strict circumstances, but with some reservation given the lack of content on the platform. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

NDP Makes No Apology for Copyright Stance

Drew Wilson — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:31:55 +0000

The major drama was sparked by a Toronto town hall meeting when it was found out that the copyright industry stacked the deck in their favour. The fallout exploded when students and NDP MP Olivia Chow – the wife of NDP leader Jack Layton – was threatened by private security at the meeting and an American music group called fair copyright “disgusting”. The NDP fired back by saying they won’t apologize and they aren’t departing from their platform by taking up this stance.

It’s becoming the low-light of the whole consultation in Canada. The Toronto town hall meeting had already been stacked in the foreign copyright industry’s favour. Even more dramatic fallout has since emerged.

We reported yesterday on how Canadian students and NDP MP Olivia Chow – wife of NDP leader Jack Layton – were targeted by private security for handing out fliers which included an interview with NDP MP Charlie Angus. They were threatened to be ejected from the premises unless they stopped handing out those fliers which detailed their stance on copyright issues. Shortly after, an American group circulated an e-mail accusing the NDP of departing from their party platform to buy votes from young people by supporting fair copyright. They labelled the move as “disgusting” and demanded an apology from the NDP for taking such a stance which included a broadening of fair dealing.

The NDP have responded to the accusations and apology demand.

“The fallout has been very bizarre.”Charlie Angus commented. He adds, “A copyright lobbyist with the American federation of Musicians is circulating an online e-mail demanding the NDP apologize for our “disgusting” position on balanced copyright.”

He responded to the fact that they had received such flack over handing out copies of an interview from the American organisation, “Seems to me the interview is consistent with what the NDP have always said on this file — we want artists to be able to benefit from the massive stream of information being traded but we don’t want average citizens turned into criminals.”

“I was elected to participate in discussions about public policy. I have never heard of a lobbyist group demand an apology for speaking out about a totally botched piece of legislation like Bill C-61. If they spent less time running e-mail attacks and more time speaking with the various players they might realize that the NDP position has been balanced and consistent from the beginning.”

He then responded to the apology demand, “As for a public recanting to satisfy the C-61 lobby ? Sorry, dude….it ain’t happening.”

As alluded to earlier in a previous report of ours, it’s hard try and find anything that requires any sort of apology unless it’s suddenly public taboo to exercise free speech in Canada.

It already does little to help the stance of copyright maximalists by stacking the deck at a town hall meeting – only serve to remind people that if there is opposition to the demands of the foreign copyright lobbyists, then the arguments fall apart – hence the need to keep opposition out of the debate. It further undermines the argument when what the foreign copyright lobbyists make enemies with an elected political party in the process as well – not just the general public.

What we’ve already seen in the public consultation is hundreds of people making submissions calling for a relaxed copyright law in some form or another. We have people from organizations that represent pretty much every background related to copyright, including librarians, educators and musicians, calling for effectively the same thing. Then the opposition, which mainly consists of foreign interests, enter the debates completely outnumbered make arguments that have been dissected and disproven time and time again. Then when they realize the debate is not going their way, they rig meetings and turn it into an uncivilized shouting match as we are clearly seeing between AFM and the NDP. Unless you are getting fed huge wads of cash, it’s hard to even take a copyright maximalist seriously. After all, they already proclaimed the whole consultation “useless” through Barry Sookman earlier. This is not to say they couldn’t approach this consultation in a more civil and respectable manner, but so far, the copyright industry have yet to choose to do so in several instances.

There’s still time left in the consultation for many more to make submissions and suggestions. Maybe things will turn around and be more stable toward the final legs of the consultation. Maybe the debate will degenerate even more from here. Who knows? All we know is that the Toronto town hall meeting has, thus far, proven to be a low light of the whole consultation and it reflects badly on those who want tighter copyright laws in the eyes of the public.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

American Music Group Finds Fair Canadian Copyright ‘Disgusting’

Drew Wilson — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:42:35 +0000

Things are heating up as foreign interests beef up their rhetoric in the last few legs of the Canadian copyright consultation. The American Federation of Musicians responded to a political party’s (NDP) call for balanced copyright “disgusting”.

The copyright industry, which consists of almost entirely foreign interests, have already resorted to insulting the process. Throughout the whole process, a vast majority of Canadian submissions have called for expanding fair dealings and blocking blanket anti-circumvention legislation to name just two.

The tiny minority of people who have called for tighter copyright laws are feeling, unsurprisingly, threatened. The copyright industry managed to rig the most recent town hall meeting so as to shut out any dissenting voices to their calls.

Just hours after news broke that they stacked an entire townhall meeting in their favour, the Canadian Federation of Students revealed that when they found out about last minute changes to the consultation, they attempted to hand out fliers at the town hall meeting only to be threatened with arrest by security. From their press release:

Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Tony Clement have been leading a round of public consultations on copyright reform. Thursday night’s meeting was one of two town halls designed to facilitate discussion from hundreds of live participants and online followers.

Because of the last-minute introduction of a lottery system that did not guarantee those participating the right to speak, students attempted to circulate a flyer detailing their position on copyright reform. Event organisers used private security guards to prevent the distribution of the flyers, threatening to remove the students from the premises of the hotel where the consultation was being held. The flyers contained an introduction to copyright that provided a summary of the results of campus copyright consultations held by the Canadian Federation of Students throughout Spring 2009.

“With the ever increasing cost of education, students should not have to pay even more to access the material they require to be able to study, research, and learn,” said Melanson. “It is ironic that while students are concerned that new legislation may allow copyright owners to lock up information, the government is locking up its own consultations.”

Here’s a copy of the flier that was handed out (PDF)

While not everyone agrees that the government is playing a roll in trying to tip the balance of the debate into the foreign copyright industry’s favour, there is increasing evidence that this is the case.

NDP MP Olivia Chow also helped to distribute the fliers, so she knows all about the incident where students were threatened with arrest. Unfortunately, the fallout has since deepened with the American Federation of Musicians issuing an e-mail, calling the calls for “balanced copyright” “disgusting”. Michael Geist has a copy of that e-mail:

Greetings to all.

I am attaching a flyer that was handed out by Olivia Chow at last night’s Copyright Town Hall meeting at the Royal York in Toronto. I am sure all of you will find its content equally as disgusting as I did.

In light of the fact that the NDP at its convention in Halifax this month dealt with a resolution identified as 6-21-09 Expanding Party Policy on “Supporting Canadian Creativity”, and showed clear support for “ensuring appropriate copyright protection so that creators are fairly compensated for their intellectual property”, I am shocked that both Chow and Charlie Angus are allowed to openly depart from party policy and directive, obviously just to shamelessly buy votes among young people and academics.

We intend on taking the NDP to task over this, and will accept nothing less than a retraction of Ms Chow’s statements and an apology.

What is there to apologize for? Exercising free speech or is the American Federation of Musicians also against free speech in general? Was it not enough to threaten your opponents with arrest and rig an entire town hall meeting, now you demand an apology because someone disagrees with you in a country where a vast majority of people who have spoken on the issue of copyright disagrees with you? Who’s really the disgusting one here?

It’s increasingly obvious that the copyright industry saw the consultation as a means where average Canadians can speak their mind and found it a threat to their outdated business models. So they have opted to fighting it on every level, by trying to paint it as a waste of time, then going so far as to hijack it to make it so that only one opinion is heard and even threaten their opponents with arrest – those opponents do include Canadian businesses, Canadian artists, Canadian consumers, Canadian educators and students, Canadian record labels, Canadian libraries and now, even Canadian MPs as well. We have a foreign copyright industry trying to meddle in the internal affairs of Canada and they are doing so by purveying myths that simply do not stack up to scrutiny whatsoever when real evidence is put forth.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Canadian MP – Debate WIPO Before Copyright Ratification

Jorge Gonzalez — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:30:33 +0000

A member of the New Democratic Party of Canada is essentially calling on the government to stay true to its own election platform. Charlie Angus is calling for debate before new Copyright legislation is tabled

One of the talking points by Maxime Bernier, the minister of Canadian Industry who took the reigns of the copyright bill, is that there’ll be room for debate on the copyright bill after it is tabled. Late last year, a group from a nearly 40,000 member strong Facebook group ‘Fair Copyright for Canada’ questioned the minister about Copyright issues. A video of the encounter was posted on YouTube shortly after:

It has been since a concern that there’ll be no debate on copyright until a bill is tabled. People and experts, including Law Professor Michael Geist worried that the bill would be tabled in such a manner so as to be not very changeable after it is tabled. An interesting deviation from their party platform published in 2006. On page 44:

-Place international treaties before Parliament for ratification.

It is likely something spotted by this particular opposition Member of Parliament. In a press release issued last night, the MP called for the governing party to put the treaty before parliament for debate before ratification. Debating the matter more before any bill is tabled might not be an idea supported by major pro-copyright lobbies considering in an interview last week, one asked why there would need to be any further consultation and demanded that ‘now is the time to act’ on the matter.

“Rubber-stamping WIPO won’t make Canada more competitive or respectful of intellectual property. WIPO was negotiated when the fax machine was considered cutting-edge technology. We need copyright legislation that will work for the 21st century. Instead we have a government that appears stuck in the 20th century.” Angus said. He further adds, “We need to spend less time worrying about the sword clanging of lobbyists and more time looking for a 21st century solution to the 21st century issues of digital innovation and culture. This government has made a commitment to debating treaties. Clearly Mr. Prentice is bound to bring this treaty to the House for a fair and open debate.”