My Response to Consultation on Canadian Copyright Term Extension

I submitted my personal comments in response to the Canadian Government's problematic consultation on How to Implement an extended term of Copyright Protection in Canada. 

Here's my submission.

Here's my bottom line of recommendations:

a.      Adopt the suggestion by former US Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante for a registration regime for the final twenty years of a life + 70 term;

b.     Establish a full and proper consultation over a period of at least six months following publication of the proposed details – and ideally the wording of any legislation and regulations – implementing such a regime;

c.      Insist on decoupling this consultation from the clearly vapor ware and diversionary announcement of parallel consultations involving the “internet of things” and “online intermediaries”;

d.     Veto any option that would involve extended collective licensing, involvement of collectives and/or involvement of the Copyright Board in any manner; and,

e.      Recognize that there is no need for undue haste to comply with the apparent deadline of December 31, 2022 when the consequences of improvident compliance are so high and the risk of potential non-compliance may be manageable and perhaps even minimal.

HPK

February 25 2021 Online discussion about CDN Government Consultation paper on how to implement an extended general term of copyright protection in Canada

The government held a one-hour online discussion about its Consultation paper on how to implement an extended general term of copyright protection in Canada.

Responses are due on March 12, 2021. That’s not a misprint.

There were lots of questions but very few if any specific answers. My questions were as follows and in my personal capacity:

•  Why the extremely short one month deadline for comments on the consultation paper?
•  Who is the principal author of this paper?
•  Why has the registration proposal for the 20-year extension recommended by INDU and several experts been effectively taken off the table?
•  What are the resource/cost implications for the Copyright Board of the various options?

Here are some takeaways from today’s session:

·        The Government seems to have decided in advance that requiring registration and presumably some fee for owners to take advantage of the extra 20 years “raises serious questions” re Canada’s international obligations. That is frankly highly debatable. It would be interesting to see whatever opinion was responsible for the Government’s clear predilection to take this off the table.  BTW, this was the solution proposed by INDU, and several experts – including myself.

·        I asked who was the principal author of the consultation paper – but was told only that it was both departments.

·        In response to several questions about the short timeline to respond, the repeated answer was that there were other consultations also coming up soon on the “internet of things” and “online intermediaries.” I asked what these were even about and why these issues were so urgent, when we are facing a deadline of the end of 2022 to implement a CUSMA obligation that could potentially cost Canadians Billions of $$$ and negatively affect access to knowledge, innovation, etc.  No specific answer.

·        There was confirmation that some of the options could have resource/cost implications for the Copyright Board.  Handing any of this over to the Copyright Board? What could possibly go wrong? I didn’t ask that question. 

        The last point for the moment but not the least - the Government officials indicated that any legislation might not be a standalone bill. Does this mean another middle of the night sneak attack in an omnibus bill with no possibility of meaningful hearings or debate? Sadly, the Liberals have broken a campaign promise and taken up and perfected the Stephen Harper tradition of omnibus bills that include stealth inclusion of copyright provisions in omnibus bills not subject to normal scrutiny, such as Stephen Harper's frankly shameful inclusion in the 2015 eve-of-the-election budget bill,  of all things, of an extension to 70 years for sound recordings. There was no consultation or debate, of course. It was a simple and gratuitous giveaway to the American recording industry through the efforts of its Canadian surrogate Music Canada and a triumph of lobbying over logic and evidence, as I have previously said.

HPK

Copyright Term Extension - March 12 2021 Deadline to Respond to Very Disappointing Document

 ICYMI, see here:

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/693.nsf/vwapj/consultation-implement-extended-term-copyright-protection-Canada-en.pdf/$file/consultation-implement-extended-term-copyright-protection-Canada-en.pdf

Deadline to respond is March 12. 2021. There is no conceivable explanation  for such a short deadline given that:

• The disappointing and very questionable content of the document requires significant expertise in domestic and international copyright and treaty law in order to to adequately respond
• Those few who have such expertise are likely to be very busy with leave to intervene applications in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Access v. York case due a few days earlier
• There is no need to rush this, given that Canada has until the end of 2022 to implement our unfortunate capitulation in CUSMA

As always, this is not legal advice. But, from a political standpoint, folks may wish to immediately protest the inexplicably short consultation deadline.

HPK

Canadian Copyright Consultations - Summer of 2009? You Betcha!

A Town Hall Meeting (The Guardian)

No - she didn't resign to devote herself to copyright reform in Canada.

But, speaking of town hall meetings, rumours are rife about a summer consultation on Canadian copyright law.Here's a recent Billboard report, by Robert Thompson, who looks at the issue from the standpoint of the record industry, as he usually does. (How I miss Larry Leblanc, who was tended to look at life from a broader and much better and more balanced journalistic perspective).

Any announcement had best come soon and I sense that it will. We're now well into July. There will be difficult logistical questions as to timing, format, etc. Live town halls or online, or both? Not to mention that it's already well into summer time, when the livin' should be easy.

It's hard to see how any live town hall meetings or other live events can take place over the summer at this stage, especially cross country.

In any event, let's hope that the Government avoids one obvious trap that some will likely advocate for, namely that an interested person or organization should be able to make a confidential submission to this process.

If there is to be an online consultation exercise, all bona fide submissions in either official language that are on point and not profane should be posted in a transparent and timely manner, right after whatever closing date is established. There is no reason why any such submissions should be sheltered by claims to confidentiality.

HK

More Copyright Consultations in UK...

(Tod Baker, CC License)


(Little Tufty, one of the IPKat bloggers, is keeping an eye on one of the entertainment industry lobbyists who is making a point about exceptions and limitations)

One of the best IP blogs anywhere, the IPKat out of England, is having a small hissy fit about the latest UK government's copyright consultation effort. The bright minds behind this blog are hardly radical outliers in IP. They have quite impeccable pedigrees. Here's a clue to what they are hissing about and why it is making their tails fluff up:

The consultation document, available here (pdf), makes for some quite dull reading (although it is mercifully brief), as it doesn't really say anything of substance. What it does say is the usual guff about "creative industries" being important to the UK economy in the 21st century. What it doesn't say is why these creative industries need copyright terms that will, in many cases, last well into the 22nd century.

Anyway, Canadians, too, are presumably free to comment on the big four rather unoriginal questions - to which the IPKat has suggested answers, of course. These questions are:

Q. Does the current system provide the right balance between commercial certainty and the rights of creators and creative artist? Are creative artists sufficiently rewarded/protected through their existing rights?

Q. Is our current system too complex, in particular in relation to the licensing of rights, rights clearance and copyright exceptions? Does the legal enforcement framework work in the digital age?

Q. Does the current copyright system provide the right incentives to sustain investment and support creativity? Is this true for both creative artists and commercial rights holders? Is this true for physical and online exploitation? Are those who gain value from content paying for it (on fair and reasonable terms)?

Q. What action, if any, is needed to address issues related to authentication? In considering the rights of creative artists and other rights holders is there a case for differentiation? If so, how might we avoid introducing a further complication in an already complicated world?

Answers are due by February 9, 2009.

HK