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 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 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!

The proposed legislation is available for your reading (dis)pleasure at

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3570473&Language=e&Mode=1&File=27

20th June 2008, Vancouver, Canada

The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy
is pleased to announce the symposium, “National and International Perspectives on
Identity Theft and Fraud”, to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

The symposium features experts at a one day event focusing on:

- identifying and measuring the problem of identity theft and fraud;
- national and international perspectives on criminalization;
- strategies for enforcement and prevention of identity theft and fraud; and
- the challenges in international cooperation in the fight against identity theft and fraud.

Registration is $99 or $50 for students

For more information, go to
http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Site%20Map/Events/2008/Fraud.htm

International Centre for
Criminal Law Reform and
Criminal Justice Policy
1822 East Mall, Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z1
Tel: +1-604-822-9875 Fax: +1-604-822-9317
http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca