Guest post by Larissa Halishoff, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information
Policy class.

The discussion on trade agreements at the Information Policy conference focused on the TILMA agreement, with Ellen Gould (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) leading the group. TILMA’s effect on procurement policies was addressed, as it’s one of the most likely factors to affect libraries.  While the best value for the public in purchasing is through competition, there is a practical factor in having established relationships with vendors.  Under TILMA, building language into institutions’ procurement policies as to local preferences – ie. for local, small-run presses where appropriate – could leave libraries open to liability up to $5 million.  The B.C. government has stated that “only serious cases” will go forward, but the door remains open to pursue those cases it deems worthy of their attention.

Depending on where their funding derives from, it’s possible that some libraries could ask for an exemption, as some municipalities did appeal and were granted one.  If a library is funded both on a municipal and provincial level, it’s possible that they could be considered as well.

We discussed the importance of making the public aware of TILMA, since while the government has largely completed their public consultations, TILMA remains largely unknown to the public.  Ellen mentioned that some municipal consultations are continuing through to April, and that there still might be an opportunity to have our voices heard.

It was generally agreed that the BCLA should spearhead this initiative; to date, they have made a resolution on their position, and it was suggested that they go further in taking action – perhaps through news releases or in-house library displays on the issue.  Part of the reason that movement on this has lagged is that there isn’t been much in the media about it, especially lately; businesses haven’t really come up against it yet so there haven’t been any challenges to date.  Lacking a compelling point to strike off, it is difficult to arouse the momentum need for a change.  It looks like we need to focus on a more immediate impact than how hay is stacked in order to present an argument that will catch the public’s attention.

For further information and reading:

TILMA – official website
TILMA-BC Take Action group on Google Groups
The Peak – summary of potential impact for universities from SFU student paper
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – TILMA Press Release
Asking for Trouble – 43-page report on TILMA from Ellen Gould

Guest post by Mike Conroy of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class

In his closing plenary, Dr. Trosow discussed the importance of creating what he called a ‘holistic critical’ model of information policy.  He explained that information policy issues tend to be dealt with in distinct categories and that such an approach tends not to recognize that a single policy issue can have substantial implications in other policy areas.  What’s needed instead is a unified lens from which to look at issues.  To explain his model, Dr. Trosow used the example of paracopyright , a term he uses for ant-circumvention measures such as digital locks.  Such an issue has implications for privacy and censorship and other issues.  In other words information policy issues are“mutually co-determinative”.

Holistic

Information policy occurs in many venues.  While policy making is often thought of as being conducted at the federal and international levels, it in fact can occur at all levels including down to the institutional level where library policy is made.  These levels of policy making are crucial and are areas where everyone has the ability to influence policy, raise questions, and speak out when library boards, management or departments are making policy decisions.

By recognizing the interrelationship between policy issues, interest groups can reach a greater understanding with advocates in other policy areas.   Furthermore, there is no finite list of information policy issues.  Dr. Trosow, suggests a list of policy issues, “such as” copyright etc, to emphasize the point.  He also suggested that the war in Iraq could be considered a library issue because it affects the ability of governments to provide services in the United States, and mentioned an ALA resolution in opposition to the war.  He also urged the audience not to shy away from the legal side of policy issues, suggesting that information professionals are just as qualified to comment on policy as lawyers.

Critical

The critical aspect to Dr. Trosow’s model involves the adoption of a critical theory approach to information policy.  It involves looking at the qualitative aspects of information, viewing information as a social construction, and recognizing that technology is embedded in our social relations while rejecting technological determinism.  Dr. Trosow also looks to political economy to argue that information is a public good and should therefore be considered over market forces.

Barriers to the adoption of a critical holistic model

Dr. Trosow suggests that the major barrier to the adoption of a critical holistic approach to information policy is perception.  He highlights the narrow thinking of institutional or organizational mandates: “It’s not a library issue”.  Because of the narrow thinking on policy issues, only a narrow range of solutions are ever sought out.  Libraries enter into complex licensing agreements to avoid ‘messy’ fair use issues.  And the dilemma of compensating artists and creators is addressed through copyright-centric proposals to the exclusion of other ideas.  Dr. Trosow notes that there could be plenty of other ways to fund the arts besides imposing greater copyright restrictions.  For example, academics get paid up front for their work or are paid in tenure, which is why they have less issues with copyright.

By broadening our scope to the scale of the holistic - critical framework, we may be able to find new and innovative ways of addressing information policy issues that take into account the complexity of implications and outcomes of policy decisions.

Guest post by Jeremy Buhler, SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy Class 

“The Conservatives will introduce a copyright reform bill substantially similar to C-61.”  This statement was the largely unspoken subtext framing the small-group discussions on intellectual property at the 2008 BCLA Information Policy Conference.  Because the anticipated legislation is expected to be similar to C-61 the group spent most time discussing that bill, a retrospective exercise that was still useful to a novice like me.  Abstracting from the questions and concerns raised, there are at least three characteristics of C-61 that we should watch for and oppose in any descendent bill:

1. The bundling with provisions that do not belong in copyright legislation.  Think service bundling with lock-in.  C-61 covers DRM measures and educational licensing agreements in ways that limit existing rights and exceed Canada’s international copyright obligations.  The over-representation of these or any other issues should raise red flags: why is this here?

2. Emphasis on commercial rather than creative interests.  The copyright debate is sometimes framed as a compromise between creators and consumers.  In the past this may have been the case, but in C-61 the real compromise is between consumers and industry (publishers, content providers, copyright collectives, etc).  Pay close attention: will new legislation really support content creators or is talk about artists a smokescreen for bias toward industry?

3. Shifting responsibility from individuals to service providers.  Should libraries be required to ensure digital copies of copyrighted material self-destruct after 5 days?  Should ISP’s be responsible for the content posted or accessed by their customers?  We didn’t think so - individuals need to be accountable for their own actions.  Be on the lookout for any measure that forces service providers to double as law enforcers.

How should we respond to the threat of regressive copyright reform?  Group consensus was to “keep making noise.”  Last year’s successful opposition to Bill C-61 has established a viable resistance model, but I sensed a hint of complacency in our acceptance of old battle tactics. The campaign against C-61 was largely defensive, but until Son of C-61 rears its head we have a chance to make offensive, proactive “noise”.  Michael Geist’s copyright pledge may be a good lead to follow.

Guest post by Stephanie Kays, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class.

As not to reiterate too many of the issues Michael Geist discussed the night before, Paul Whitney’s talk aimed to contextualize Canada’s international copyright obligations. The significant treaties and areas of focus: the Berne Convention’s 3 Step Test and WIPO Treaty; and the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Agreement.

Canadian copyright is based off the Berne Convention and the Berne three step test appears in all western copyright laws in some form or another, Whitney expressed. Basically, the three step test allows member countries to enact exceptions to exclusive rights to (1) certain special cases, so long as they do not (2) conflict with an normal exploitation of the work, and do not (3) unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder. The three step test was remade in TRIPS, Whitney explained, but the difference is that Berne approaches copyright with the interests of the creators rights, while TRIPS takes the Berne concept and looks at it through the lens of trade. The TRIPS Agreement establishes a minimum level of IP protection that each government has to afford their fellow WTO members. The general rule of the Berne Convention that has been incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement provides a minimum allowance of life of the author +50 years. Canada is right on target with this minimum. Seems like a whole lot of copyright, right? Some countries have gone above and beyond. The United States and the European Union host a “TRIPS-Plus” approach, where the copyright lasts the life of the author +70 years.

In an interesting example of TRIPS-Plus, Whitney turned to author Kurt Vonegutt, who died in April of 2007. His last novel Timequake, was published in 1997. Under US copyright laws, this novel won’t hit the public domain until 2078, 88 years after the book was published. Considering this fact, it is easy to say that very few of the US works created in the last century are public today.

Canada is obliged to comply with the WIPO Treaty (adopted to deal with IT and internet related issues) and some argue that Canada is already in compliance, while others argue that Canadian copyright laws need to be revisited in light of new and ever evolving technologies. Whitney noted that the WIPO Treaty is a model law but that it was created without consultation, so this issue is also up for debate.

I’ll admit I was all a twitter to here Michael Geist speak.  Having followed his extensive blog, on a semi-regular basis, and having seen the incredible variety and sheer mass of material that he posts there, I had built him up to be the kind of superhero that Gordon Duggen, in portrays himself to be in <a href=“http://www.appropriationart.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/51_state.pdf”> 51^st State The Fight to Save Canada</a>.  I wondered which of Geist’s personas would we, the audience, encounter tonight, the indefatigable advocate, the law professor, or columnist? 

As Geist began to speak this question was quickly answered. Geist, the advocate was present! He indicated that his talk was divided into two sections.  In the first he would speak about what had happened on the copyright front in Canada recently and then he would address the question ‘Why Protest?’  Geist began with a very brief sketch of the recent history of copyright legislation in Canada, and quickly turned to the issue of advocacy, taking the audience on a whirlwind tour of a host of activities and actions taken by Canadians promoting fair copyright.  Many of these activities began as Geist’s own initiatives, but things like his Facebook group, protesting Bill C-61, soon snowballed to include the participation of thousands.  I won’t repeat Michael’s excellent post below, but Geist presented a seemingly endless list of such initiatives.

Geist turned next to the question of why Canadians are protesting this issue.  He broke his answer down in to four points.  First, that social technologies have made it easier to effect change through protest than ever before. This led to the point that, the government, following the lead of the “interweb” is slowly becoming 2.0 itself.  Next, he pointed out that protesting copyright reform was ‘not just about copyright but about our digital future’. Technology is developing in a way that is not compatible with the vision endorsed by the supporters of C-61.  In order to ensure that this technology is able to continue to develop, to best serve the needs and desires of the populace, bills like C-61 that would necessarily hijack these developments need to be stopped.  Finally, Geist said that Canadians should protest because the bill limits what he called “copyright choices.” Following this, Geist went on to briefly describe ‘Part III’ of his talk addressing the future of copyright in Canada and, in his view, the inevitable rebirth of C-61 under another name.

Geist was asked about what initiatives Canadians should take when C-61 makes its return.  He answered this question primarily by suggesting that Canadians should keep doing what they had for C-61 the first time.  This troubled me.  It seemed to me that despite all of the protesting C-61 was going to be passed.  The only thing that prevented this was the timing of the recent election.  Facebook groups, wikis, the presence of the issue on twitter are all wonderful, but the internet is a big place and I was left wondering if many of these initiatives were preaching to the converted.   If copyright activists are wrongly stereotyped as being “geeks in basements with computers” than perhaps it is time for the thousands who support the initiative, on the web, to bring the same numbers and enthusiasm to the streets.

Guest post by Michael McCarthy, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class

With those words, Doyen of the Digital Domain, Michael Geist, flew into town last Thursday (October 23, 2008) and, among other things, explained how digital advocacy played a pivotal role in mobilizing Canadians against Bill C-61.

Geist began by reminding us how last October’s Throne Speech said that technology, and this copyright legislation, would “ensure a prosperous future.” It wasn’t an easy sell for the government. Within days, Geist had organized a Facebook campaign to mobilize opposition. Fair Copyright for Canada’s Facebook network grew from one hundred members on the first day to 92,322 today.

YouTube also played a starring role in the campaign. A competition was organized, the self-explanatory “C-61 in 60 Seconds.” (See the winning entry). Twitter, Google Earth, and a host of other web 2.0 networks meshed to galvanize the opposition. As Geist said, before the campaign, “People didn’t think these things affected them on a day to day basis.” (BTW, check out our local grassroots coalition partner, Vancouver Fair Copyright).

Canadians connected on this issue. Torontonians took to the streets in protest. Pancake Protesters showed up at the Calgary Stampede. Thousands of hard copy protest letters arrived on Parliament Hill. All of this seems, well, somewhat unCanadian in a country presumed to be apathetic on such issues. In retrospect, the opposition to C-61 seemed vaguely reminiscent of 1960s-style activism overlaid with the instantaneity of the Internet.

In some ways, C-61 served as a test case for how the Internet will play its role in the future of citizen engagement. Geist’s final slide read: “SILENT NO MORE.” Opposition to the proposed bill also seemed to tap into a latent nationalism: it was US vs. the U.S. Yet, the bigger question remains: Are we, in fact, already the “51^st State”?

Geist stated that the Conservative government “had a pretty clear media strategy,” and that they were confident On June 12^th when C-61 was introduced. They were also “very happy with the [media] coverage” (no surprise there). However, a week later, with the grassroots’ focus on individual rights, things started heading south for the bill.

A key point made was that it wasn’t until the grassroots had done the homework that the mainstream media took up the issue. This culminated in a Globe and Mail article, “Ottawa accused of caving in to Hollywood on Copyright.”

At this point in his presentation Geist asked: “How did copyright become cool?” In a classic understatement, Geist said “I certainly blogged about it.” Copyright became cool in no small way due to his effectiveness as a change agent. Geist reminded us that “This [copyright law] is driven by political choices, not policy choices.”

As Paul Whitney told our class during his visit on October 8^th, the CLA, due to differences of opinion within the association, doesn’t do enough on the issue. Michael Geist, on the other hand, can make a definitive statement. And he has. I can’t think of anyone who has done more to further debate on Canadian copyright law than Geist. In many ways, he is the public face of the issue. His 60-minute presentation took us on a whirlwind tour of Bill C-61’s convoluted history and ended on an upbeat prognosis for the future, at least as far a social networking and political change are concerned. I particular liked his take on what’s at stake here: “our digital future is about our creative future.”

Guest post by Tim McMillan, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class.

I was fortunate to participate in the discussion of media concentration in Canada and North America at “Jumpstarting the Public Sphere.”  Our group was lead by Dr. David Skinner, a professor of communications studies at York University.  The other participants included students from the Langara College library program, a journalism student and community radio organizer from Simon Fraser University, a librarian from Vancouver Public Library (VPL) and yours truly: a graduate student studying library science at the University of British Columbia and a part-time reference librarian at VPL.  Sean Connon, the editor of the Vancouver street magazine Megaphone, moderated.

David began by noting the steep decline in Canadians’ belief in the credibility of traditional news media; only 1/3 believes it to be fair and balanced.  Instead, the prevailing opinion is that big news serves big business.  One of the participants noted that thirty years ago Vancouver sported three independent news dailies, whereas today the Vancouver Sun and the Province are controlled by the same corporation.

David traced the history of media concentration in Canada from the concern expressed in 1970’s Davey Report to the apathy of the mid 1990s when the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) acquiesced to industry demands for cross media ownership.  With this latter decision, conglomerates could control media in a multitude of genres: television, radio, and newspapers.  This model made economic sense as resource pooling cut down on overhead and seemed to make Canadian media more competitive in a global market.  Of course the downside was the loss of a diversity of voices in Canada’s news media and a heavy blow to media democracy in the country.

While public advocacy groups and information policy watchdogs have pushed these negative aspects of media concentration to the CRTC and other policy-makers, the response has been that the commission is not in the business of putting businesses out of business.  As participants in our group noted, the government and its regulatory bodies shy away from restricting businesses’ rights to own private property and are all the more wary of interfering with opinion-makers for fear of creating a media backlash.

With this avenue for policy change seemingly blocked, our group looked at alternative methods for pressuring policy makers to step in and regulate the concentration of media.  It was suggested that the new media be utilized in order to draw attention to negative consequences of media concentration: the Micheal Geist Bill C-61 model.  This seemed a viable method, but complimentary action was needed as again and again the issue of financing cropped up.  In the USA, there are charitable foundations to be appealed to and media watchdogs are well represented in the public sphere on both the right and the left.  Here in Canada, there is less of a tradition for the former as the government has long taken the role of subsidizing Canadian media; media watchdogs are equally scarce.

One suggestion gained consensus as the most actionable: an online portal of alternative media outlets.  This would allow the multiplicity of independent voices to band together as a means of mutually increasing traffic to a variety of news sources.  Although this is a long way from counteracting the domination of a few media outlets, it represents a start in the right direction of encouraging media democracy.

Guest post by Katherine Siddle, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class.

Paul Holden spoke on net neutrality issues in Canada at the BCLA’s information policy conference October 24. As a professional software engineer, Holden brings a technical perspective to this issue.

Holden defines net neutrality as the transmission of data on the internet without discrimination regarding content, destination, file type, application or protocols. Net neutrality ensures a “free” internet, where users can access, buy, do, and use almost anything they want. Since no task, user, or content is privileged above any other, the net is equitable (and therefore “neutral”).

Historically, net neutrality has been the norm in Canada. Service providers have lacked the technical ability to interfere with service, and as a result, Canada has no policies on net neutrality. However, Holden identified “creeping anti-neutral behaviors” sparked by providers’ desire to extract revenue from bandwidth services, and their newfound ability to restrict access.

Holden described two technical anti-neutral techniques:

1. Preferential treatment or traffic shaping

This approach has largely faded, as providers have had difficulty arguing in its favour.

2. Throttling (targeting data and limiting bandwidth)

Providers often argue in favour of using throttling to manage internet congestion (too many users using the network at the same time). However, Holden maintains that there are other ways of dealing with this problem.

Holden also offered two examples of anti-neutral behavior:

1. Comcast’s targeting of BitTorrent traffic in 2007.

2. Bell Canada’s “upstream throttling”

Holden warns that the results of a non-neutral network produces the same results as a censored network. A non-neutral networks is more dangerous, though, because arguments against throttling are harder to make and less established than arguments against censorship. Users, he warns, become casualties of service provider’s business models. A non-neutral internet may be a threat to our civil liberties and re-build the barriers to publishing and communications that the internet’ has previously lowered.

For more information on Net Neutrality (and suggestions for pro-neutral action) see www.saveournet.ca

Paul Holden is the Vice President of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (BC FIPA), a non-partisan, non-profit society. FIPA was established in 1991 to promote and defend freedom of information and privacy rights in Canada.

Guest post by Paula Osachoff, SLAIS 561 Information Policy class

Our discussion cafe was also a very small group.  The discussion began with a brief recap of the BC Privacy Commissioner, David Loukidelis’ talk in the morning, as Darrell Evans, executive director of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) was unable to be present for the morning’s information sessions.

 This sparked some lively discussion, as Mr. Evans agreed with Mr. Loukidelis on several points, but expressed some opinions which were in stark contrast to the Privacy Commissioner’s. Points upon which both agreed were: 

• Legislation requires updating due to the enormous growth in digital information.
• Pro-active and frequent disclosure by government should be encouraged.
• Parliamentary committees have for some time been under-utilized.
• Freedom of Information requests often taking too long to be processed.

Mainly, Darrell Evans disagreed with the Privacy Commissioner in that he felt that the access to information laws in British Columbia were not working particularly well, and organizations such as FIPA and the BC Library Association need to be vigilant to ensure at least current levels of access to government information.  Further, Mr. Evans expressed that when complaints are filed, the court system in British Columbia tends to be quite conservative and rule in favour of the government much of the time.

 This led to a discussion of some of the difficulties faced by FIPA, and the need to build a much broader coalition of stakeholders in order to ensure continued access to government information.  Mr. Evans acknowledged the BC Library Association’s ongoing support, and the group discussed other groups who may be effective partners in pressuring government to maintain and expand access to information.  This included librarians and archivists, historians, records and information managers, information technologists and other academics.  The need to include these diverse groups in the discussion was emphasized, but how to reach such a broad range of interest groups proved problematic.

 The discussion continued with discussion of issues surrounding the use of Crown Copyright by the BC government to prevent publication of materials released under FOI legislation.  Mr. Evans expressed that the invocation of crown copyright was a clear symbol of the need for legislative reform, and the need for greater public awareness and involvement in issues surrounding access to government information.

 The discussion cafe ended with a discussion of new approaches to “information caretaking” - a term and concept I found intriguing, although there was little time left to pursue this topic.  Our discussions brought to light many issues surrounding access to government information, and the challenges involved in engaging stakeholders and the general public in access to information issues.

Guest post by Libby Coyner, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class 

After a riveting evening of Michael Geist, BC Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis started off the Friday morning session with an overview of the past and present access to information in British Columbia.  Despite the overall the gloom-and-doom feelings about access to information in North America that many of us have felt over the past few years, Loukidelis argued that access is increasing by leaps and bounds on a global scale.  (For those of you who attended the FOI talk given by Suffolk University Law professor Alasdair Roberts at SFU Harbour Centre, you will have heard similar sentiments).  He pointed out that many 3^rd world countries have adopted legislation regarding freedom and access to information and that such legislation is going a long way toward improving health and aid issues.  In North America, he pointed out that the idea of accountability has become more important since World War II.

While he painted a fairly nice overall picture of access to information, he did recognize the shortcomings and challenges that BC faces in its own access to information battle.  Of course, working with the technology will be one of the major obstacles in providing access while still protecting privacy.  He cited the case of the Ministry of Forests, which constructed a database that effectively limited access to information by lacking the function of being able to separate the confidential information from the non-confidential. 

In addition to technology issues, there will always be the difficulties related to people and their resistance to record management practices.  Loukidelis mentioned that the Privacy office plans to implement report cards that will grade different offices on the amount of time it takes to respond to FOI requests.  (He added that the Privacy office will also be subject to grading.) 

Loukidelis remarked that records management laws in British Columbia are in need of a face lift, but he didn’t really expand on what he hoped to see in terms of a new RM law.  What I didn’t get out of this presentation were answers to questions I’ve had for awhile: why have no records been transferred to the BC Archives since 2003? How can the province really expect to have good access to information if there is no legislation governing when and if the records of ministries ever make it to the archives for selection and/or permanent retention?  I think that these might have been relevant questions to cover, particularly as he was talking to a room full of information professionals. I hope that next time I see David Loukidelis, he has more than a 20 minute time slot!