Earlier this month the federal government delivered its much-anticipated Speech from the Throne, setting its legislative and policy agenda for the years ahead. Several days later, amid far less fanfare, it released a second legislative and policy agenda, which is must-reading for those concerned with copyright and the Internet because it establishes the government's priorities for copyright reform for at least the next five years. 

Last week the federal government unveiled Bill C-60, its long awaited digital copyright reform bill. Ottawa kept its promises – the recording industry and Canada’s Internet service providers emerged as the big winners with each securing a lengthy list of new rights, power, and protections. 

Last spring the Canadian Heritage Standing Committee, a parliamentary committee chaired by Toronto MP Sarmite Bulte, conducted a series of hearings on copyright reform.  Listening to a steady stream of rights holder groups, the committee virtually ignored the interests of users, researchers, educators, and the broader public interest as it proceeded to issue an embarrassing report featuring a series of recommendations devoid of any sense of balance.

My recent column on Canadian copyright reform, which highlighted the dangers to both the Internet and to our education system posed by a report from a parliamentary committee chaired by Toronto-area MP Sarmite Bulte, touched off many reactions — both supportive and critical.

In a sure sign of an impending throne speech, copyright lobby groups are out in full force calling on the government to prioritize intellectual property protection in its fall legislative agenda.  Despite efforts to put forward a united front, however, what is readily apparent to those close to the process is that copyright reform is rife with conflicts that create a significant political risk and require the expenditure of enormous political capital.

If 2006 was the year of YouTube, 2007 has been Facebook's year. The growth of social media, led by Facebook, has taken the world by storm. Since January, Facebook has added 250,000 new users each day. Canadians have led the way, accounting for about 8 million of the site's nearly 60 million global users.

With the continued interest in Canadian copyright reform - the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group has grown to over 38,000 members and the local chapters across the country are gaining significant momentum - the most frequently asked question I receive is "what do you think fair copyright reform looks like?" In other words, we know that tens of thousands of Canadians oppose a Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but what kind of reform would or should they support?

Under most circumstances, Telus and Rogers Communications fiercely compete in the marketplace. The same can be said for Google and Yahoo!, the world’s two leading rival Internet search companies. Yet last week these companies joined forces with a who's who of the telecom, Internet, retail, and broadcast communities in a single cause - the call for fair and balanced copyright reform.

Last week, James Rajotte, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, told a Public Policy Forum conference on intellectual property that Industry Minister Jim Prentice hopes to introduce the highly contentious copyright bill within the next few weeks. The announcement, which comes just days after the United States raised copyright with Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the SPP meeting in New Orleans, suggests that the concerns of business, education, and consumers may be cast aside in order to pacify U.S. pressure on the file.

If the Ottawa rumour mill is correct, Industry Minister Jim Prentice will introduce copyright reform legislation before the House of Commons breaks for the summer. The decision to forge ahead with the controversial reform package is a curious one. While the pressure from the United States to act continues to escalate - representatives from the U.S. Embassy paid a visit to the Parliamentary intellectual property caucus last week and caucus members plan to travel to Washington later this month - there are alternatives that would address some of the top intellectual property concerns without subjecting Conservative MPs to a steady stream of criticism throughout the summer from concerned consumers, educators, and businesses.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark copyright decision in a battle between the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario legal bar association, and CCH Canadian, a leading legal publisher.  The court was faced with a dispute over an old technology - photocopying in a law library - and in a unanimous decision it ruled that the underlying purpose of copyright law is to serve the public interest.  That interest, reasoned Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, is best served by balancing both user rights and creator rights.

More than one year after the Apple iPhone hit store shelves in the United States, the hugely popular device makes its Canadian debut on Friday. The arrival of a Canadian iPhone is expected to generate long lines at Rogers Wireless stores, though the pre-launch publicity has not been particularly smooth for the company. Its announcement of iPhone service pricing set off a wave of online protest, as consumers noted the absence of an unlimited data plan, higher prices, and longer contractual commitments.

Canadians watching the Olympic coverage from Beijing can hardly have missed the Bell commercial touting a new digital video recorder that features an external hard drive permitting users to "record forever." The archiving functionality may sounds enticing, yet last week several media reports noted that Industry Minister Jim Prentice's Bill C-61 forbids Canadians from recording television programs for archival purposes.

In November 2007, the Songwriters Association of Canada shocked the music industry and many Canadians by proposing the full legalization of music file sharing. The SAC proposal was based on the premise that file sharing was not going away, that lawsuits against file sharers do more harm than good, and that the continued emphasis on using digital locks to control copying has been a complete failure.

Appeared in the Toronto Star on March 23, 2009 as Songwriters Rewrite Bid for Legalized File Sharing In November 2007, the Songwriters Association of Canada shocked the music industry and many Canadians by proposing the full legalization of music file sharing. The SAC proposal was based on the premise that file sharing was not going away, that lawsuits against file sharers do more harm than good, and that the continued emphasis on using digital locks to control copying has been a complete failure.

Charlie Angus, the NDP Member of Parliament and musician, has a reputation for speaking his mind.  As my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes, last week, he did more than just speak out.  Angus single-handedly shook up the Canadian copyright landscape by promoting two reforms - an extension of the private copying levy to audio recording devices such as iPods and greater flexibility in the fair dealing provision, the Canadian equivalent of fair use.

The iPod levy proposal sparked immediate controversy.  Canada slapped a private copying levy on blank media such as CDs more than ten years ago.  It has generated hundreds of millions of dollars, but previous attempts to extend the levy to devices were struck down by the courts as outside the scope of the law.