Music Canada also runs the (i.e. certifying when a record has made platinum). Although famous for their efforts to strengthen copyright laws, copyright is not all that Music Canada does. For example, one of the initiatives Graham mentioned is in the area of ticketing/towing bylaws. When musicians play in clubs in Austin or Nashville, there are dedicated “artist loading zones” where the artists can park and load their equipment. The same is not true in Toronto. Many small clubs have very limited loading zones, and limited nearby parking. A single parking ticket can wipe out an entire night’s profit for some musicians, making it very difficult to practice their craft.

Another Music Canada concern is improving relations between the City of Toronto and the music industry to a similar level that the film industry has with the city.  For instance, the helps arrange location permits, police presence, emergency medical services, tax credits, and other services for film and television shoots on fairly short notice. In comparison, no such program exists for the music industry.

For example, Graham told a story about how the held in Toronto attempted to obtain a permit for . The planning process was initiated 8 months before the concert date, and the final permits to use the square did not come through until 3 days before the concert. As one might imagine, by that point the acts had been booked, media announcements had been made, etc. The organizers were taking a massive risk - had the permit not come through, the concert would have had to be cancelled, and the organizers would still have been on the hook for all costs – without the associated profits.

“Music is one of the most open formats in the universe, for all the credit they get for it.”

When asked what the biggest accomplishment from the recent Canadian copyright reform initiatives was, Graham didn’t cite digital locks or TPM protection, or the new part of the legislation targeted at pirate sites. The greatest accomplishment, he said, was the fact that we passed a bill at all. While there may be disagreement on the content of the reform, one thing many agree on was that copyright reform itself was badly needed. After three previous failed attempts, the fact that Bill C-11 passed in a global political climate where other copyright focused bills crashed and burned (e.g., and ), was nothing short of miraculous. “Our government passed a bill when SOPA and ACTA failed.”

He pointed to that stated that if the government enacted the bill, DRM would “lock up” content. It has been months since bill C-11 came into force, even longer since it was passed, and this assertion has not been true, at least with respect to music. To this day, music remains one of the most open, consumer-friendly content industries, a fact that Graham thinks the music industry does not get enough credit for. Today, music is sold in one of the most open, flexible formats available. The restrictive DRM you may find on other types of media is not present here. When you buy a song on iTunes, or elsewhere, you can play it on any device you own, anywhere you want, at any time you want.

There are no complicated digital hoops to jump through in order to satisfy a DRM mechanism or prove that you have the right to use the content you paid for. There is no need to purchase a new device that supports the DRM format of the file you purchased. Moving a song from your computer to an iPod (or a cell phone, laptop, MP3 Player, tablet, etc.) is as simple as cutting and pasting a file. It is truly a consumer’s dream.

There were in the music industry, but they were uniformly abandoned. It all comes down to history and market expectations. When the CD was introduced back in 1982, it was in a DRM free format. Conversely, as Graham notes, “the first DVDs were locked up, and people accepted that. But how many times do you re-watch a DVD?” It’s hard to watch a movie while jogging, or when you’re at work. But the same isn’t true for music. Many people listen to music throughout their entire day, playing the same songs over and over again. They take their music with them everywhere they go. Such behaviour requires a level of flexibility and convenience that would be very hard, if not impossible, to achieve with DRM protected content.

But it’s not just consumers that benefit from the openness of the music industry, its other artists too. “When you publish a song, that is fair game to create a cover.” When was the last time anyone tried to create a cover of a movie? Or a TV show? Or even a book? Well, with a song, you can.

Another thing Graham says the Canadian music industry deserves credit for is their response to the problem of piracy. While the to sue consumers in the US, these types of lawsuits are notably absent in Canada. And Canadian consumers mainly have Graham to thank for that.

“My policy was, we shouldn’t be suing people while we’re waiting for legislation.”

When Graham took over CRIA (as Music Canada was then known), there were a few brief lawsuits that went through the federal court system. This resulted in that basically stated that downloading music was legal in Canada. These lawsuits were appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, not because of an intention to follow through with suing their customers, but as Graham noted “we simply had to appeal it to set the record straight.”

And they eventually did. The Federal Court of Appeal ended up . At that point, the music industry could have continued the lawsuits against the individual downloaders directly, however, they chose not to.

“The US did it to make a point. Because they had been polling people and practically everyone thought that downloading was OK. The objective was to make the point that, NO, it is illegal.” Similarly in Canada, there was pressure from a lot of sources, including independents and artists, to initiate a similar series of lawsuits, or otherwise send the message that downloading is illegal. But Graham decided to take a different route. “My policy was, we shouldn’t be suing people while we’re waiting for legislation.” Graham instead decided to focus on lobbying the government to pass copyright reform. It was hoped that a renewed message from Parliament, in the form of the passage of a new copyright bill and all the media coverage surrounding it, would send a message to Canadians that downloading music without compensation was not appropriate. To continue a lawsuit against consumers while lobbying for legislation would taint that process, attract undue notice and probably wouldn’t even work to curb downloading ().

Today, there are more ways to consume music than there ever was. From buying a CD in stores, to single song online retailers like , to digital radio services or even streaming subscription services like and , it has never been easier to get the music the music you want, how you want it, whenever you want.

“They are the canary, the first down the coal mine.”

The music industry has come a long way since it began. Usually it is on the forefront of the culture industries. Music was the first industry to switch to digital with . The MP3 player was the first digital media player. Digital download stores like iTunes started with music sales.

But with this innovation came its own set of problems. Graham joked that “they are the canary, the first down the coal mine.” Music had to forge its own path. And, for the most part, it has succeeded.

2013 marks the first year in over a decade that , and have even risen slightly. When asked for the reason for these changes, Graham cites many factors. Copyright reform is an issue, not just for any advantages the law provides, but for the fact that the law was actually passed. Canada is a law abiding country, and when the government sends a message that downloading is illegal, people take them at their word.

Digital music now , and labels are just getting better at marketing into this space. There are also more legal music services in Canada than ever before. As legal options for purchasing music are becoming easier and more convenient, consumers are changing their purchasing habits to include more paid music and less illegal downloads. But things are still not ideal for the music industry.

“There was a time when even if you never sold another CD anywhere else in the world, you could still make a living in a middle class life [in Canada].”

The addition of more legal services in Canada is a good thing, but they are contributing a very minute portion to the overall revenue picture as yet. For example, streaming services, at least as they exist today, do not represent a sustainable model. This unsustainability is due to the fact that streaming services usually only pay out fractions of a penny per stream.

He points to a now famous exchange between the band Grizzly Bear and their fans. In it, the band emphasises the fact that . While this generated the usual “your music stinks” or “go on tour” comments, many fans were also interested in how they could help. For those who are unaware, Grizzly Bear is a somewhat well known indie music band. They have played sold out shows at Radio City Music Hall yet .

“We have to build this back up for our young artists. They are aware that [older musicians] used to have homes, but now they can’t afford that.” Graham notes that many young artists are missing the same benefits given to artists in music’s heyday. “There was a time when even if you never sold another CD anywhere else in the world, you could still make a living in a middle class life [in Canada].”

One of the goals of Music Canada is to “create an environment where you can earn your living as a musician.” There are many ways to do this that fall outside the traditional realms of copyright and digital media. For example, ensuring that there areartist loading zones for bands as mentioned above. Cities and governments can also provide tax incentives to record albums in Canada, similar to the .

And it’s harder to earn a living as a musician today than it was a few decades ago. One of the main problems, of course, is copyright infringement.

“The musical middle class is at risk.”

Of course, copyright infringement has an effect on the industry, Graham noted. But the conversation needs to get away from copyright infringement or, as used in the popular vernacular, piracy. People don’t like to talk about piracy, but people care about artists. “I think the conversation needs to switch to… the effect of the digital age.”

One of the first policies Graham initiated as soon as he took over Music Canada was no lawsuits. So how else could they mitigate piracy? One way is to go after the pirate websites themselves. They do this by attacking their sources of funding. that advertise on pirate websites, and like MasterCard, Visa and PayPal.

When asked what message he would have for Canada’s youth, Graham’s message was simple: “support your artists.” As noted, there are fewer artists today that are able to own their own home and make a living in the industry. “The musical middle class is at risk.” Music plays a big part of our lives. Imagine games without music? Movies without music? When major events in your life happen, songs are playing. “Understand that the creation of music is not easy.” There are thousands of good jobs, where people go to work with nothing other than music and making careers work for people in their mind. “It will help you get through your depressions; it will help you get through your joy. To the government, it will create jobs, help the tax base and bring tourists to our great nation. Music can help you, and you can help music.”

Mark Kohras is an IP Osgoode alum and the current Features Editor for IP Osgoode. For more coverage of Graham Henderson and Music Canada, see our blog on Graham’s .

The post How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson appeared first on IPOsgoode.

• , 2012 SCC 36 (July 12, 2012)
• , 2012 SCC 35 (July 12, 2012)
• , 2012 SCC 38 (July 12, 2012)
• , 2012 SCC 34 (July 12, 2012)
• , 2012 SCC 37 (July 12, 2012)

IP Osgoode would like to congratulate our very own Professors David Vaver, Giuseppina D'Agostino and Carys Craig, who were all cited in the decisions.

Later today, IP Osgoode will be posting an analysis of today's judgements. Also, stay tuned next week when we will be featuring a new post each day with an in-depth analysis of one of the decisions.

The post SCC Renders Judgements in Copyright Pentalogy appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The announcement was made by the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for Science and Technology. Speaking at the event, Minister Goodyear stated that “Our government’s top priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. To remain at the forefront of the global economy, our government is investing in the people and ideas that will produce tomorrow’s breakthroughs.”

Osgoode Hall Law School Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino was a 3 year, $198,984 grant for the research project: “Triggering Innovation: Transnational Partnership for the Mobilization of Intellectual Property Policy and Practices.” Project Partners include IBM; Canadian Heritage (Copyright Policy Branch); Copyright Board of Canada; Intellectual Property Law Center, Drake University;  Ontario Centers of Excellence; Stanford Centre for Legal Informatics (CodeX), Stanford Law School;  The University of New South Wales; Law, Business & Entrepreneurship Program and Entrepreneurial Law Clinic, University of Washington School of Law; 91��ɫ’s Research Office; 91��ɫ’s Knowledge Mobilization (KM) Unit; and IP Osgoode. Collaborators on the project include Lionel Bently, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL), University of Cambridge; Ann Monotti, Monash University; Dev Gangjee, London School of Economics and Sivaramjani Thambisetty (London School of Economics;),  and Alberto Musso,  University of Bologna. Several other partners and collaborators will be confirmed as the project unfolds.

In total, more than $70 million over a period of 7 years is being granted to support 92 research teams across the country. Dr. Chad Gaffield, president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, commented that the new grants will assist in “gaining insight about, and developing innovative solutions to today’s social, economic and cultural issues, while training the next generation of researchers and leaders.”

IP Osgoode would like to congratulate Prof. D’Agostino and her partners and collaborators and highly look forward to the outcome of the research.

The post Government Grants Create Academic/Public/Private/Non-Profit Research Partnerships: Congratulations Prof D’Agostino and her Team appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This year's theme is "Visionary Innovators" and it seeks to celebrate the role that innovators play in the creation of Intellectual Property. As WIPO Director General Francis Gurry noted in his , innovators are "people whose innovations transform our lives.  Their impact is enormous.  They can, at times, change the way society operates."

In his annual address, the Director general also discusses the importance of maintaining a proper balance between the incentivizing innovators to create, and public interest in sharing useful innovations. He notes that "we have to get the balances right, and that is why it is so important to talk about intellectual property.  On this World Intellectual Property Day I would encourage young people in particular to join in the discussion, because intellectual property is, by definition, about change, about the new.  It is about achieving the transformations that we want to achieve in society."

In Canada, the (CIPO) has set up . The website includes tips for making IP a part of your business, information on IP for students, success stories of famous innovators, and additional information on the history and importance of World IP Day.  There is also a fun "IP Basics Quiz" where visitors can test their knowledge of various fields of intellectual property.

For more information about World Intellectual Property Day, you can visit the , or join in the conversation yourself at the .

Mark Kohras is a JD student at Osgoode Hall Law School. For IP Osgoode's coverage of last year's World IP Day event, see .

The post World Intellectual Property Day 2012 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

There is also an award for the best comment made on a blog on the IP Osgoode Website each semester. Blogs can be found at . Commenting on blogs is a great way to keep up to date on relevant IP and Tech issues and join the discussion with the rest of the IP Osgoode community.

Anyone wishing to be considered for the Gowlings Prize must submit their blog or comment, and be published on the IP Osgoode website, by the last day of classes (Thursday April 5, 2012). Blogs must be Approx. 750 words and of publishable quality (i.e. no spelling/grammatical errors). It is recommended that blogs cite sources in the form of embedded hyperlinks, where appropriate.

Blogs can be submitted to iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca. Comments can be made directly on the website. All topics related to IP or Technology law are welcome. For more information on the Gowlings Prize, as well as a list of past winners, please visit

The post Gowlings IPilogue Prize appeared first on IPOsgoode.

CodeX is a partnership between the Law and Computer Science faculties at . It is an interdisciplinary research center that develops technology to enhance the practice of law. The technology being developed at CodeX aims to make the law more efficient, easier to navigate and less costly to use.

The project that I worked on is called . It is a copyright licensing system that combines various types of licenses into a database. When professors at Stanford combine various excerpts and articles into a course pack of materials for their class, the rights for each article must be secured. The standard process is to secure these rights individually for each course pack, usually through some form of copyright clearance center.

SIPX acts as a copyright registry, a marketplace and clearance service all rolled into one. It facilitates the locating of licenses for copyrighted content (reducing the occurrences of orphaned works) and looks to existing licenses (usually purchased by the library for the entire university, or purchased by individual faculties for the use of their students) to dynamically generate a price for class materials based on the licenses each student is already entitled to. The system also allows greater control for publishers over license fees, providing the flexibility to set prices for material based on the intended user (for example, providing a discount to students vs. members of the general public).

The CodeX center is representative of the general spirit that permeates the area around Stanford University. The desire to improve our society, to find new, more efficient ways of doing things is something that is typical of Silicon Valley. One of the great things about Silicon Valley is the general attitude of innovation that inspires the thinking of those within. It is a place where new ideas are encouraged and the word "impossible" is seen as a challenge, not an obstacle.

In law school, we are taught to look to the past to solve our problems. In the common law system, a strong legal argument is based on precedent, and our ability to match or distinguish that precedent from a current fact pattern. However, one of the great things about working in the area of IP and Technology law is the emphasis on the future. New technologies bring new legal issues, and while precedents are important, it's not always easy to analogise current technologies to past legal precedents. Often, issues can be so novel that new precedents are formed to deal with them.

When arguing new precedents, a look to the future is important. To be able to show a court the results of a legal decision that may have far reaching consequences requires a forward thinking approach that is the hallmark of a truly great technology lawyer.

Overall, my semester at Stanford University is one that I will never forget. I had the opportunity to learn from some of the top experts in their field. I engaged in legal research in the area of orphan works (an area on the ). I met some amazing people, including international masters students (great for helping to interpret foreign language statutes) and had the opportunity to have dinner with some great legal minds in the area of IP.

The IP Intensive program is a learning opportunity unlike anything else in law school. It provides an opportunity to gain experience applying the skills we are taught in school to a real world environment. Through this program, I learned a new way of thinking about the law and I gained valuable experience applying my legal skills. I would highly recommend the IP Intensive to any students interested in Intellectual Property Law. It was an amazing experience and I believe I will be a better lawyer because of it.

Mark Kohras is a JD student at Osgoode Hall Law School. Here, he reports on his experience at CodeX: The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, while interning there as part of the inaugural offering of the Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program (IP Intensive) at Osgoode.

The post The Stanford Experience: A Semester in the IP Intensive Program at Osgoode appeared first on IPOsgoode.

A recent case just out of the Federal Court of Appeal has posed an interesting question regarding the use of trademarks in procurement orders by the government. The case, , revolves around numerous complaints made by Enterasys Networks, one of which involves the use of brand names in procurement orders. In an interesting twist, the FCA has overturned the , which had previously banned the practice.

The case stems from , which obligates member parties to "ensure that the technical specifications prescribed by its entities do not require or refer to a particular trademark or name, patent, design or type, specific origin or producer or supplier unless there is no sufficiently precise or intelligible way of otherwise describing the procurement requirements..." The case at hand involved a procurement of switches required to establish or expand various government computer networks. In its tender documentation, the government identified the switches sought by brand name.

Given the purpose of this section of NAFTA, which is to prevent "unnecessary obstacles to trade", that Article 1007(3) requires the government to specify generic descriptions where possible, as including specific brand names would result in a smaller pool of potential suppliers. For example, a tender for 27" Toshiba televisions would result in a much smaller pool of suppliers (just Toshiba and their distributers) than 27" televisions in general. There is a narrow exception provided in Article 1007(3) which allows for the use of brand names where "there is no sufficiently precise or intelligible way of otherwise describing the procurement requirements". However, this would seem to only apply in rare situations, for example; where a product has no generic name and is known only by its brand name. Usually in this type of situation, the brand name product is the only one of its type on the market, which would render any accommodation for generic substitutes moot.

There are some cases where it might be beneficial to require a specific brand of merchandise, even if there are substitutes on the market. The network switches in the current case are a prime example. Computer hardware, and specially network hardware, can sometimes have small issues that can lead to incompatibilities with hardware from another brand, even if both brands conform to all required network specifications and applicable industry standards. While this is not a common occurrence, it has been known to happen. Therefore, it is understandable why the government would wish to insure interoperability with existing network infrastructure, particularly when making large purchase orders. Unfortunately, the only way to guarantee compatibility with existing network hardware without extensive compatibility studies is to use the same brand of products already present on the network.

It appears that the Federal Court of Appeal agrees with this conclusion. Echoing the of the tribunal, Justice Sharlow stated that she does not "accept the proposition... that NAFTA Article 1007(3) necessarily requires the federal government to take unacceptable operational risks." This ruling opens the door for the government to specify a particular brand of products when conducting a procurement, for reasons other than simple effective descriptions.

This does not mean that the NAFTA Article 1007(3) has been rendered ineffective. It was held that the government was incorrect in requiring a brand name in one particular procurement, where the network switches were to be placed in a new network instead of integrated into an existing network. Because a new network has no compatibility issues requiring a specific brand, there was no reason specify a brand in the procurement. This shows that the government must still be able to justify requiring a particular brand of products for practical reasons, with reasons more substantial than simple brand preference.

Although it appears that this is a situation that may not have been contemplated when NAFTA was drafted, the new exceptions to the generic specification rule will hopefully only be used in the narrowest of circumstances. One of the goals of the procurement rules is to ensure that the government is given the best value for its money. However, incompatible products are of no value to the government, regardless of the cost. Hopefully, a narrow interpretation of this exception will allow for practical realities regarding procurements without resulting in barriers to trade.

The post Procuring By Brand Name: How Practical Is NAFTA? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

A new IP enforcement bill making its way through the US Senate has been sparking a surprising amount of controversy. It has received opposition from many prominent groups, including , , and even . The creatively entitled (otherwise known as PROTECT IP) is the next step in a sequence of attempts to control the current tide of IP infringement on the internet.

These efforts started with the creation of the notice and takedown system in the (DMCA) that allowed copyright owners a simple and expedient way to remove infringing content on the internet by contacting the hosting web pages directly, bypassing the need for an injunction and significantly reducing the time and costs involved in IP enforcement.

However, this approach proved somewhat insufficient. While an effective means of removing infringing content from US-based websites, those hosted oversees are not subject to American laws. Given the global nature of the internet, Americans could continue to access infringing content online through foreign websites, and US-based copyright owners and law enforcement would have to resort to legal procedures in the websites host country to stop them. This presented a problem, not only because of the costs, but because copyright law can differ widely on the international scene. What is infringing in one country may not be in another. What the US needed was a way to affect Americans access to foreign websites directly, and the answer came in the form of PROTECT IP.

PROTECT IP will grant the US Department of Justice (DOJ) the ability to blacklist websites that are deemed “dedicated to infringement”. Search engines would be required to remove the website from their listings and American domain name system (DNS) servers would be required to re-direct users to a DOJ website instead of allowing them to access the website, theoretically making it much harder to find the website. The DOJ and copyright owners can also prevent advertising and payment processing companies from working with an infringing website, thereby cutting off potential revenue streams.

The act initially from the Senate Judiciary Committee and was scheduled for a vote before the full senate, but has subsequently hit a series of roadblocks. A day after the legislation was passed out of committee, Senator Ron Wyden on the act, stating that he agrees with the goal of combatting online infringement, but he is “not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective”. A effectively prevents the senate from voting on the bill unless the hold is removed by the senator who placed it or it is overturned by a three-fifths supermajority vote.

The bill has also received strong opposition from many groups. A group of leading experts on the internet domain name system have that outlines key objections to the proposed filtering system. Chief among them is the provision of PROTECT IP that requires redirecting to a DOJ website would conflict with DNSSEC, a security measure designed specifically to prevent this type of redirecting.

A website on the internet is located at a numerical IP address roughly corresponding to its geographical location on the internet. For the ease of convenience, website owners can register a domain name that is associated with their IP address. When a user enters a domain name into their web browser (i.e. www.iposgoode.ca) the browser contacts a domain name server which tells the browser the IP address associated with the domain and allows the browser to find the appropriate website.

A common tactic known as is to hack a DNS server to display an incorrect IP address. Anyone who connected to the server looking for the IP address of a website (for example, their local bank) would instead be routed to a false website of the hackers' choosing, made to look similar to the real website in order to trick users into revealing sensitive information. While DNSSEC would prevent this type of attack, it would be unable to determine which redirections were due to a legal internet blacklist and which ones were caused by hackers. This would make it impossible for internet service providers (ISPs) to implement DNSSEC while remaining compliant with PROTECT IP.

The DNS experts also point out how easy it is to bypass this type of redirection. Since the bill only targets domain names and not IP addresses, websites would still be accessible simply by typing in the IP address directly. For an even simpler approach, users can point their computers to DNS servers outside of the US, or use to bypass the blacklist altogether.

More recently there have been concerns from a group of over a hundred notable opposing the act. Their outlines concerns that the act may be unconstitutional. Since the act allows for websites to be censored without an adversarial hearing, it amounts to prior restraint and is a violation of the first amendment. Prior restraint is when the government suppresses material before a judge has made a final determination that the material is unlawful, and is presumptively unconstitutional.

They also expressed concern that this move will send a message to other countries that it is acceptable to censor “content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law.” This stems from the provision preventing search engines from linking to infringing websites. Conceivably, the provision would allow the DOJ to insist that major search engines filter search results for all users regardless of whether they are located in the US. This could result in American law preventing search engines outside of the US (or local versions of search engines, such as ) from linking to websites located outside of the US.

Overall, PROTECT IP has a laudable goal. Copyright infringement on the internet is a widespread problem. However, efforts for IP enforcement should be tailored to ensure they do not result in even greater collateral damage. Given the ease to which these measures can be circumvented, the US should be careful to ensure that it does not lose more than it gains.

The post Collateral Damage In IP Enforcement: PROTECT IP Under Fire appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Every year, the (USTR) releases its . The report provides a detailed list of countries that the United States believes are deficient when it comes to intellectual property laws or enforcement. Perhaps it is no small surprise, given its inclusion on previous lists, that an odd country finds itself on the highest priority list, among traditional piracy and counterfeiting havens such as China and Thailand: Canada.

The Special 301 Report is essentially a United States “hall of shame” used mainly as a tool to place political pressure on foreign governments to conform to United States intellectual property law standards. Although the list does not carry any direct repercussions, inclusion on the list can lead to trade disputes and possible economic sanctions by the US. Although Canada’s inclusion on the list may seem out of place at first, it may not be so surprising that they are paying such close attention to Canada, given our status as the .

The US’s concerns stem from a few issues, chief among them being Canada’s copyright laws. Recognizing that Canada’s 3rd attempt at copyright reform was once again unsuccessful (as the result of yet another election), the United States continues to push for a badly needed update to Canada’s Copyright Act, which has not been amended since 2005 (and not had a major update since long before then). As the “The United States encourages Canada to make the enactment of copyright legislation that addresses the challenges of piracy over the Internet, including by fully implementing the WIPO Internet Treaties, a priority for its new government.”

The United States is also concerned about trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods at the border, requesting that Canadian border officials be granted the authority to conduct warrantless seizures of suspected pirated or counterfeit material, “Canada should provide its Customs officials with ex officio authority to effectively stop the transit of counterfeit and pirated products through its territory.”

The 2011 report also marks the first time the United States has issued to countries on the list to work together with the United States to “cooperatively develop action plans to resolve [intellectual property rights] issues of concern”. However, given the recent election of a majority government and the Conservative government’s pledge to re-introduce the Copyright Modernization Act (previously Bill C-32) it is likely that Canada’s fourth attempt at copyright reform will pass. Hopefully, with the US’s major concern out of the way, Canada will be taken off the priority watch list for 2012.

The priority watch list is the highest watch list and names countries that the United States feels are the top IP offenders. It includes China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela. To read the special report, including the United States concerns regarding each of these countries, please see .

The post USTR Special 301 Report: Canada in US Hall of Shame for the Third Year Running appeared first on IPOsgoode.

It’s election season again, and Canada’s political parties are out in force, campaigning across the country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the recent attention IP and technology issues have been garnering among the Canadian public, most of the political parties have specifically included digital issues as part of their party platforms. The following is a comparison of each major political parties stance on something that is becoming increasingly important to Canadians: Digital Issues.

The Conservatives

The have surprisingly little to say about digital issues in given that they have to many recent digital issues such as usage based billing or foreign telecom ownership. While there is a commitment to “increase competition and choice and to lower costs for wireless consumers,” it is disappointing that there is no mention of how this goal will be achieved. It that the Conservatives may be considering loosening the foreign ownership restrictions placed on telecoms, to increase competition following the recent overturning by the courts of the federal cabinet decision to allow Globalive (Wind Mobile) to operate despite the CRTC ruling denying them a license due to their level of involvement with Orascom Telecom (an Egyptian-based company).

Another way to increase competition would be through the . The for new entrants in the last spectrum auction was instrumental in the creation of Wind Mobile, Mobilicity and Public Mobile, all new entrants that would otherwise not have had the resources to outbid the incumbent telecom providers. Given this goal of promoting competition in the wireless market, it is unfortunate the only specific commitment that the Conservative Party gives regarding the next wireless spectrum auction is to day that one of the key ways this goal can be accomplished is to “set aside spectrum for emergency responders.”

Perhaps most surprisingly of all, there is no mention in the conservative party platform of usage based billing, something that the Conservative industry minister, Tony Clement, has been . It is disappointing that the Conservatives did not address this issue in their platform, especially considering that both the Liberals and the NDP have done so. The one issue that most of the parties agree on is access to high speed internet in rural and remote communities. The Conservative Party’s commitment to this cause is to build upon a plan to “extend broadband coverage to 200,000 households in rural and remote regions.” There is also a commitment to re-introduce the Copyright Modernization Act (otherwise known as bill C-32) which has been on IP Osgoode.

The Liberals

The , in contrast to the Conservatives, have the most to say on digital issues in their , dedicating on their website to digital policy. Most surprising is their plan to institute an Open Internet Directive, which would require the CRTC to promote the principles of Net Neutrality when making decisions about the internet. These principles would ensure that Canadians aren’t “subjected to Internet traffic management practices that stifle competition, reduce consumer choice and innovation, or unfairly discriminate or restrict user access to lawful Internet content” and would require transparency in traffic management policies that would “ensure Canadians understand and have choice in how internet traffic is managed.” It is possible that this is in response to growing concern surrounding the bandwidth throttling practices of the major internet providers. Bandwidth throttling is usually used to prevent network congestion by limiting the speed of peer-to-peer technologies, which has been historically associated with copyright infringement. However, the technology has increasingly been used for legitimate purposes, resulting in the such as World of Warcraft.

The Liberals also state that they will oppose “anti-competitive usage-based billing.” While this statement takes a stance against the original usage based billing plan proposed by Bell, which the Liberals , it is unclear if Bell’s alternate proposal, , which is essentially usage based billing at the wholesale level instead of at the individual consumer level, would be considered an “anti-competitive” form of usage based billing that the Liberals would oppose. It is unfortunate that they were not clearer on this point.

While the Liberals do not indicate how they would organize the upcoming wireless spectrum auction, they do indicate that they would use $500 million of the proceeds from the auction to support public tender contracts to install broadband capacity in all rural and northern areas. Their goal is to provide “basic high-speed Internet access for all Canadian households within three years.” This was confirmed in a live chat on the Liberal website as ensuring coverage for every last Canadian, no matter the location, and is certainly a much greater commitment than the Conservatives have made.

Regarding copyright reform, the Liberals did not include many specifics regarding the proposed legislation in their platform, although they have made clear in the past. One proposal that they do include in their party platform, most likely to an iPod levy, is the creation of a $35 million dollar private copying compensation fund to cover all devices instead of imposing a fee on any one particular device such as iPods or digital memory. This fund would be designed to compensate creators for illegal downloads. The Liberal Industry Critic Marc Garneau also issued a statement that the “Liberals believe Copyright Bill C-32 must be amended to allow digital lock circumvention for non-infringing purposes” addressing one of the key criticisms of Bill C-32.

The NDP

The have also included many digital issues in . What is surprising is that they have perhaps made some the clearest statements regarding digital issues out of any of the parties. “enshrine 'net neutrality' in law, end price gouging and 'net throttling,' with clear rules for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), enforced by the CRTC.” By enshrining net neutrality in law, the NDP would provide net neutrality principles even greater legal protection than a directive to the CRTC. This would also be accompanied by a directive to “stand up for the public interest” which they say would “rescind the 2006 Conservative industry-oriented directive.”

Again, like the other parties, they do not indicate how the upcoming spectrum auction will be organized. They do indicate that they will apply the proceeds to “ensure all Canadians, no matter where they live, will have quality high-speed broadband internet access.” They also indicate that they would “expect the major internet carriers to contribute financially to this goal”, although they do not indicate any specifics.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, in contrast to the Conservatives, they would not be open to loosening the foreign ownership restrictions on wireless carriers, they “will ensure Canadian TV and telecom networks remain Canadian-owned by maintaining effective regulations on foreign ownership.”

The Bloc Québécois

Unfortunately, the only provides their party platform in French. Quotes and analysis have been provided with the aid of Google translate. For a complete understanding of their party platform, please refer to the original French text in the sections referred. Unsurprisingly, their focus is on the province of Québec. They indicate at section 16.2.2 of that they request “a plan for the deployment of broadband in rural areas so that almost all individuals have high speed Internet access throughout the territory inhabited Québec”

Again, unsurprisingly, they had the most to say about copyright reform. At section 2.3.2 they state that they would like to extend the current private copying regime by “applying [to] MP3 players and other portable digital players reasonable royalties to artists.” They would like to remove the proposed exemptions for education and grant a new resale right for visual artists and there is also a plan to establish “a formula requiring Internet service providers to pay a fee to a fund used to pay the creators [of] Quebec injured by the illegal downloading of artistic products.” The Bloc appears to be the most creator rights focused out of all the political parties.

The Green Party

Unfortunately, the did not address any digital issues in their . However, they do have a related to internet issues. Most surprisingly, out of any of the political parties, the Green Party is the only one to actually “the principle of Fair Usage Based Billing for Internet services”. They indicate that “If implemented correctly, [usage based billing] would provide improved Internet access to Canadians by giving ISPs a way to curb the consumption of the very few who consume at the highest levels.” However, they do oppose the original usage based billing plan that was approved by the CRTC (and later withdrawn), stating that “by limiting the pricing options of smaller ISPs using their network, the CRTC has effectively crippled small businesses who provide valuable Internet services to thousands of Canadians.” While not specifically addressing copyright in their platform, they have that “The Green Party supports the principles of fair use, consumer information privacy, communications market competition, and rationalization of the statutory damages provision.”

While there is no doubt that there are a lot of issues that are of interest to Canadians in this upcoming election, the fact that all the major political parties have addressed digital issues in their party platforms reflects how important Canadians consider these issues. With Canadians speaking up about topics such as copyright and usage based billing, spawning that are generating public interest and media attention, it appears that Canada’s political parties are listening.

The post Election 2011: Party Platforms on Digital Issues appeared first on IPOsgoode.