Heritage Committee Copyright Hearing,
Posted by: Jason Young on
Notes from the Heritage Committee
meeting on digital copyright reform...
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE
MEETING NO. 52
Re: Statutory Review of the Copyright Act, Section 92
Thursday, October 23, 2003
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Room 308, West Block
Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) student
correspondents: R. DuPelle and T. Sarantis.
OVERVIEW – MOTION TO DRAFT BILL
The purpose of this meeting was to hear from witnesses who represented several
different groups of interested parties, in order to get their input on the
current reform of the Copyright Act. Before hearing from witnesses, however,
the committee discussed the process. Although opinions at the committee were
mixed, the majority of M.P.s wanted to see the reform
process accelerated and concluded that it would be more beneficial to request
that a draft bill on ratifying the WIPO treaties be drawn up. Some argued that
the forthcoming change in Liberal administrations in February and the
possibility of an election immediately afterward may result in much needed
copyright reforms being shelved indefinitely. Those in opposition to the motion
for a draft bill argued that further review of the Copyright Act is necessary
and that preparing a bill at this stage would be putting the cart before the
horse.
After debate, the following motion was passed (from the Minutes):
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hereby recommend in the
strongest possible terms to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister
of Industry or its successor Ministry, that they instruct their officials to
prepare draft legislation to be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage by February 10, 2004 in order that the government might ratify its
commitments to the WIPO Treaty signed in 1997.
Further we would respectfully request the Ministers respond in writing to the
Committee within two weeks of receiving this motion to clarify their
instruction to their respective departments regarding this recommendation.
After this motion, the first witnesses presented their case.
Canadian Photographer’s Coalition
Correspondent: T. Sarantis
Witnesses: Mr. Boyle and Mr. Cornellier. Each of
these witnesses spoke, but their basic argument was the same. The Coalition
want to see Sections 10.2 and 13.2 repealed and also want the photographer to
be considered the owner of copyright on their photographs, since they are the
ones who create them. The Coalition seemed to want maximum protection for the
photographers, and the ability to participate in the Internet market, which is
very lucrative. Basically, the Coalition wants photographers to be given the
same rights as other creators.
As a result of some questions asked by Members of Parliament, the Coalition
stated they would like to see the whole process of reform to move along as
quickly as possible because it is now costing photographers about $5,000 in
revenue each month. Also as a result of questions by Members of Parliament, the
Coalition again stressed their main point of wanting the photographer to be the
owner of their work, so that they can claim a monopoly on it and be awarded
certain rights from it.
Canadian Library Association
Correspondent: R. DuPelle
The witness for the Canadian Library Association was the organization's
executive director, Don Butcher.
Butcher testified that although the Association is pleased that access and
education are components of the government’s agenda the government must ensure
that a true balance between the rights of copyright holders exists and that the
ability of members of society to access information is maintained. The
Association’s position is that ensuring access is an issue of social justice
that the current scheme has too great an emphasis on rights over access.
Butcher argued that the government should adopt a stewardship perspective
rather than merely play the role of broker between rights holders and the
public. Although this position came under criticism by other committee members
this approach may be necessary in order to incorporate social justice
safeguards in any reformed copyright scheme. Overall the Association would like
a clarification of the objects, purposes and structure of the Copyright Act.
The most persuasive argument put forward by the Association is that libraries
and museums need protection in order to secure their role in society as
“economic incubators” for entrepreneurs. Butcher made reference to the role of
libraries in providing access to information and in disseminating information
to the public in new ways. He reminded the committee that the Association also
represents creators since they too use libraries to gather information as part
of the creative process. This was an interesting reframing of the traditional
perception of libraries within the copyright scheme. As compelling as these
arguments may be the other witnesses seemed to be unconvinced that libraries
actually safeguard rather than hinder creators’ economic rights.
Butcher was asked whether
Some committee members seemed to disagree with Butcher’s position on several
fronts and appeared to be unconvinced that the problems identified by the
Association were indeed paramount. In general, the committee seemed to be
focused on the grievances of creators and rights holders over the interests of
users.
Writers’
Correspondent: T. Sarantis
The two spokespeople were Ms. Hebb and Ms. Kome. Their basic position is that the term of copyright
should be extended, because if it isn’t, copyright owners will just go to other
countries and register and
After a general question on what should be done in terms of copyright reform,
these witnesses said that the government should get on with the drafting and
put more resources in the process.
DAMIC: Droit d’auteur
multimedia internet copyright
Correspondent: T. Sarantis
Witnesses: Ms. Messier and Mr. Legare. They also
seemed displeased with the current state of the reform of the Copyright Act and
wanted to get across that creators and artists need to be able to benefit from
their work . As a result of questions from a Member of
Parliament, this group stated that the public thinks that everything available
to the public is free of copyright and that as long as it is not protected by
technological measures, it is not protected at all.
END
Note: Source: CIPPIC