Shaw launching trial of gigabit Internet technology

The Edmonton Journal reports that the city of Edmonton, along with Vancouver and Calgary, will serve as test site for an Internet service “133 times faster than standard high-speed”. The company notes that at this point they’re testing the technology, not a product, and have yet to determine product and pricing definitions. Currently there is no timetable for when the service will become widely available to consumers.

Asper Centre Panel: Lawful access legislation

Yesterday, the Asper Centre for Consitutional Rights hosted a panel discussing Bills C-46 and C-47 which would have expanded police ability to access telecommunication service subscriber data. The panel was moderated by Graeme Norton and consisted of David Wood, Robert Hubbard, and Lisa Austin. A summary of the various arguments is available here.

CRTC arrives at decision regarding carriage fees

You may recall the advertisements on TV from broadcasters and cable companies about charging cable providers for carrying broadcast signals they currently re-transmit for free. The Financial Post reports that the board has reached a decision. Unfortunately, it will be a few more weeks before it is released publicly.

Google executives given jail time over Italian privacy violation

In 2006, a group of Italian teenagers filmed themselves bullying an autistic boy and uploaded the video to YouTube. Google removed the video within hours of being notified and assisted the police in finding the teens responsible. However, an Italian criminal court has sentenced three Google executives to six months in prison for violating privacy laws. The executives plan to appeal.

A critical look at ACTA

In April the 8th official round of negotiation concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is scheduled to take place in Wellington, New Zealand. ACTA is a plurilateral trade agreement that aims to establish international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement throughout the participating countries. The proposed agreement has the potential to drastically alter the landscape of intellectual property in our country and others. Given its potential impact it’s important that  ACTA is carefully considered. This post will draw attention to a few of the criticisms that ACTA has received.

One of the major criticisms concerning ACTA has been the secrecy regarding the negotiations. The agreement has been undergoing official negotiations since June of 2008 but the meetings have taken place under a shroud of secrecy. Much of what we know regarding the agreement has been gleaned from leaked documents. ACTA partners defended the secrecy as being standard practice for the formation of an international agreement, especially given the early stages of its development. But critics have pointed to many examples of other conventions that have been far more open than ACTA.

The bottom line is that many people are understandably uncomfortable with international negotiations  for an agreement that stands to have an immediate and real impact upon their lives taking place in secret. Shouldn’t such an important undertaking be open to public participation? When there is no transparency people begin to wonder what is being hidden. Given the widespread criticism that the leaked portions of the negotiation have been subjected to makes me wonder if the secrecy was a deliberate attempt to conceal what was sure to be a publicly unpopular agreement.

Another part of ACTA that has been heavily criticised is the proposed adoption of a three strikes system. Under the system individuals would lose access to the internet for a period of time based on three allegations of copyright infringement. Many people see the loss of internet access for a house hold based on three unproven, non-commercial copyright infringement is excessive.

An additional problem with a three strikes proposal is that it is potentially very costly for ISP’s to administer. Earlier this year Michael Geist noted a recent UK study which pegged the cost of a single notification at $11.73 for a large internet provider and $32.73 for a smaller provider. This is a major cause for concern. The disparate impact on small and large providers would have an obvious negative impact on completion. Either way, the cost of implementing a three strikes system will fall on the consumer and need to be considered.

Also, some have argued that ACTA provides for the criminalization of copyright infringement and does so in a dangerous way. Essentially criminal investigations and searches will be performed against individuals in the absence of probable cause.

There is no doubt that the protection of intellectual property rights is an important task. ACTA is attempting to address what is a real and serious problem. Nevertheless, when the methods being chosen to combat the problem impact the rights of so many and are being selected under a veil of secrecy, being critical of what is being decided is crucial.

Ubuntu to get integrated music store

The next release of the popular Linux distribution Ubuntu “will include a music store”:http://popey.com/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-one-music-store-sneak-peek/. The content will include major artists and is provided by “7digital”:http://about.7digital.net/AboutUs (owned by HMV). It will offer users of the free operating system easy access to high quality, DRM-free music at $0.99–1.49CAD per song. It may not seem like a big deal to users of other operating systems who have had this for years, but it demonstrates the strides Linux has taken recently. It also shows how the recording industry’s abandonment of DRM has opened new markets.

Criminalization and the Canadian Copyright Regime

In Canada, infringing copyright for personal use is not a criminal act. The owners of the copyright can effectively sue “personal use” infringers in court, but these violations will not show up on the infringer’s criminal record. Until 2007, the only criminal copyright violations were the sale or rental of copyrighted material. In 2007, the Conservative government amended section 432 of the Criminal Code, making the recording of a film in a movie theatre a criminal act, even if it is done for the sole purpose of private use. Aside from this one exception, however, the infringement of copyright is not prosecuted by the state in Canada. What are the implications of this regime for the Canadian law of copyright?

The clear implication is that copyright in Canada is something less than a proprietary right. This is something of a trite point for those who have studied copyright law, but its implications in the copyright debate are far-reaching. Copyright lobbyists are increasingly using terms like “robbery” and “theft” to describe copyright infringement. While this kind of rhetorical flourish may add some weight to their argument, it finds no support in Canadian law. The only possible criminal infringement speaks to the purpose of the infringement, not the substance of it. It is the act of subverting another’s work and selling it for your own profit that attracts the moral disapprobation of the state. The crime isn’t in the copying itself but in the redirection of profits that the true author could have expected. It is the theft of these profits, not of the copy of the work itself, that attracts criminal liability.

Various copyright reformists want to expand criminal liability for copyright infringement and bring it more into line with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in America, which criminalized the act of circumventing an access control on copyrighted works. The effect of this was to effectively criminalize a wide variety of personal use copying.

It is certainly true that the advent of the internet has made acts of copyright infringement far more widespread. The expense of litigation and the comparatively small remedies available for individual acts of copying virtually ensure that the majority of such infringements go unpunished. The criminalization of such acts would recruit state resources to aid in the prosecution of such offences. The threat of a criminal record would also almost certainly deter more people from committing an act of copyright infringement.

However, doing so would fundamentally alter the very nature of copyright law in Canada. If Canada is serious about maintaining the “balance” between authors’ rights and user rights, it cannot criminalize an act that has never been criminal. Doing so would create a property right out of something that has never enjoyed proprietary protections – the work itself. It would be fundamentally inconsistent with the very nature of Canadian copyright law.

It will be necessary to come to some sort of compromise so that copyright holders are not left out in the dark; however, criminalization of copyright infringement is not the answer. Copyright is a purely statutory right over the copying for a specific purpose of one’s work; it has nothing to do with property in the conventional sense. Copyright infringers are not “thieves” or “robbers” in any sense and do not deserve the moral outrage of the state. It is properly conceived of as a relationship between the author and the public and should remain so.

China’s IP protection is not as bad as some think

Benjamin Bai, a Shanghai based IP lawyer, recently wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal addressing the misconception that patents are useless in China. He says that many companies forgo the patent process in China at least partly because of a perception that local companies are favoured over foreign competitors when it comes to litigation. While this may have once been the case, Mr. Bai believes that a new trend is emerging. He suggests that the recent win rate for multinational companies in IP suits in China has been greater than 50% and that foreign companies need to recognize this trend and take advantage of it.

USOC claims that Subway ads imply olympic association

The Seattle Times reports that the United States Olympic Committee has a problem with Subway advertisements featuring Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps. Board member Lisa Baird says that the ads “imply there is an association with our Olympic marks and our athletes…” In essence the USOC is concerned that Subway, through its ads, is attempting to reap the benefits of Olympic sponsorship without paying for it. You can click here to view one of the offending ads and judge for yourself.

Warner Brothers to refuse licenses to free music services

Warner Brothers has decided that there is no money to be made through ad supported or ‘freemium’ (free with a paid upgrade option) services: “Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed. The decision will not affect currently available services but may prevent newcomers like the UK’s Spotify from entering the US market.”