[kwlug-disc] pity the copyright lobbyists

Russell McOrmond russellmcormond at gmail.com
Thu Apr 14 14:52:54 EDT 2011


On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Ralph Janke <txwikinger at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>  Which section of C-32 would have influenced this? I must have missed that.

  There is 3 parts: What is in current law, what is in C-32 and what
C-32 allowed, which is the ratification of the 1996 WIPO treaties.

a)  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-75.html#h-66

 Right now it is only Canadian music rightsholders that can go to the
copyright board and demand a royalty payment be added to "audio
recording media".


c) http://creform.ca/5313

"In the proposed section 29.22 it would no longer have been an
infringement of copyright to make reproductions for private purposes.
This was different than the private copying regime in two important
ways: it was not limited to audio recordings, and it was an addition
to fair dealings which means that it did not involve any new levy.

The Conservative Bill C-32 clarified in 29.22(3) that this new Fair
Dealing does not apply to circumstances otherwise covered by the
existing private copying regime (private purposes involving an audio
recording being stored onto an audio recording medium)."

c) The "National Treatment" clauses of WCT and WPPT, which C-32 was
intended to allow Canada to ratify, disallow the Canada-only part of
the existing law.

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html#P86_8108


  After C-32 and 1996 WIPO ratification, all foreign collective
societies will be able to demand royalties -- and there are some
rather large/strong/etc ones in the EU and USA that would be demanding
fees much higher than what has been granted to the Canada-only
collectives.

  The Conservatives knew all about the National Treatment issues with
the private copying regime, given it came up in the consultations and
as feedback to Bill C-61.  Before C-61 we assumed it wasn't a problem
as the Conservative included abolishing the private copying regime in
previous platforms (IE: platforms when they were opposition, not
government).  Funny how they propped it in C-32 rather than letting it
go -- maybe they left it there so that they could fake it as a wedge
issue during an election?  Sorta like their lukewarm opposition to the
gun registry?

-- 
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
http://creform.ca/petition/ict/

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
 manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
 portable media player from my cold dead hands!"



More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list