The of the may be of interest to readers of as it concerns the recent held by the and the . On July 20, 2009, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages launched a consultation process seeking Canadians’ views on the appropriate nature, extent, and scope of copyright reform. The Conservatives’ previous attempt at copyright reform, in the form of , encountered significant opposition but ultimately died on the order paper when an election was called. In an effort to improve on that bill and to respond to objections that the process underlying the introduction of Bill C-61 was insufficiently transparent, the government launched a consultation process. The public could participate in this process by making written submissions, participating in the online discussion forum, attending one of the public town halls in Montreal or Toronto, or by attending one of the invitation-only round tables.

Canadians were asked five key questions by the Ministers:

1. How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?
2. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?
3. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?
4. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?
5. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?

The of the Review aims to help elucidate the key areas of debate surrounding these critical questions facing the drafters of new copyright legislation. This issue is the product of a review of the thousands of submissions to the consultative process. It attempts to provide a collection of the most well-written, well-supported, and convincingly argued submissions from a spectrum of perspectives on copyright reform, arranged in the manner of a friendly debate.

In addition to providing another forum for a robust academic debate about copyright policy, the ¸é±ð±¹¾±±ð·É’s aim has been practical in nature; it seeks to mitigate the enormity of the Ministers’ task in reviewing the plethora of submissions by providing a collection of some of the most cogent arguments that should be addressed in any attempt at copyright reform. Among the issues addressed in this issue are the appropriate scope and nature of: the overall purpose of the Copyright Act; the definition of works; fair dealing; the public domain; the copyright term and Crown copyright; library and educational exceptions; parody and satire provisions; provisions for persons with disabilities; back-up copy provisions; archiving and migrating format provisions; anti-circumvention provisions and digital rights management; technological neutrality; intermediary provisions; statutory damages; border controls; standard-form contracts; expanded or additional levies; ownership; WIPO implementation; and modeling after international experience.

However, in no way is this issue comprehensive in itsÌýscope or inÌýits presentation of variousÌýperspectives. In particular, the numerous quality submissions by interested citizens must not be overlooked by the Ministers as they seek to craft a bill that best strikes a balance between the relevant stakeholders - be they creators, users, or owners. The challenge facing the government is formidable, compounded by the extensive erudite public discourse they have helped to foster. As the challenge of crafting this new legislation continues, the Board is hopeful that copyright reform will not be driven by the interests of the loudest or the most powerful simply because they possess those traits. In the words of Professor D’Agostino Instead, the Board hopes that sound arguments advancing the best interests of the Canadian public will carry the day, and that this special edition of the Review will shed light and invite discussion on some of those arguments.

The post The Osgoode Hall Review of Law and Policy focuses on Canadian copyright consultations appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The of the , released November 24, 2008, may be of interest to readers of IP Osgoode as it contains three papers regarding copyright law.

Recent debate with respect to copyright law has assumed a noticeably public character. Professor Michael Geist, Professor Lawrence Lessig, and even the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) are to be commended for using contemporary media to engage the general public in the debate about the appropriate scope and degree of enforcement of copyright, especially where the complexity of such issues might otherwise have prevented active public involvement. In particular, Professor Lawrence Lessig maintains a , Michael Geist makes use of a , a , and a , while the SAC advocates through its . However, the potential danger with this approach is that effective popular writing may require that one oversimplify complex matters, eschew nuance and engage in hyperbole. ÌýA more rigorous, properly footnoted and methodological approach may be more accurate, albeit less appealing to the general public.Ìý In this issue, the Review aims to move the discourse about copyright matters from general public engagement to academic debate.

Barry Sookman's attempts to rectify a deficit in the popular attention afforded to Canada's international treaty obligations related to copyright. Mr. Sookman assesses the Songwriters Association of Canada's (SAC) proposal to monetize file sharing in Canada in light of Canada's international treaty obligations concerning copyright and concludes that those obligations preclude the adoption of proposals like those of the SAC.

Mr. Sookman's concerns about the impoverishment of the quality of debate that can occur when that debate is directed through public channels is further evidenced in his in which he critiques Professor Geist's public assessment of Bill C-61 as articulated in his Facebook group "Facebook Fair for Copyright of Canada" and his blog. Given that Parliament was dissolved before this Bill could be passed, it is not currently before Parliament. However, as the Conservatives have retained a minority government, the debate remains topical, as the Bill is . Mr. Sookman argues that Mr. Geist's criticism of the Bill has been over-zealous as he has made factually inaccurate and exaggerated claims. If so, whether the forum in which he published his views provided a medium through which he could communicate his zeal, or whether the zeal that was communicated was a necessary consequence of publishing in the forum that he did, is a matter left to the reader to decide.

Catherine Lovrics Lawrence Lessig's most recent foray into public discourse in his latest bookÌý (released October 21, 2008). Like Mr. Sookman, Ms. Lovrics finds that the viability of some of Mr. Lessig's suggested reforms is questionable under existing international obligations with respect to copyright. However, as Ms. Lovrics notes, Mr. Lessig's project is more concerned with how the law ought to be than what it is, and so he imagines a fundamental restructuring of the copyright regime; one that would likely require changes to the international regulatory framework and antecedent to that, a greater degree of consensus on the role that copyright ought to play in society. In particular, Lessig worries about how current copyright laws criminalize the ordinary behavior of youth and finds this to be inherently troubling as well as practically unfortunate by virtue of decreasing the scope for the successful legal creation of ‘remixed' works.

All three pieces deal with the proper role of copyright in our society and with the potential of available enforcement mechanisms. All of the authors, and those they are responding to, agree that copyright reform is necessary, but could not diverge more in their suggested remedies. Ultimately, the dispute at its core may be more philosophical than legal in nature.

The post Copyright law and policy articles in latest issue of Osgoode Hall Review of Law and Policy appeared first on IPOsgoode.