[Ecommerce] M. Geist: In Good Company

[Manon Ress]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Washington DC has been quiet lately.  Maybe it's not just the snow
but because the IP lobbyists (IIPA) have been so busy getting their
recommendations together? Recommendations are out now and the USTR
upcoming 301 list will probably mirror them.  Some are so far out
(what  privacy protection, fair use or education exceptions are
wrong?) that countries NOT on the list might be embarrassed?  This is
an excellent piece by Michael Geist about Canada and 14 other
"examples":
Manon

In Good Company
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1679/125/

Wednesday February 14, 2007
The International Intellectual Property Alliance - a group that
brings together several U.S. lobby groups including the MPAA, RIAA,
BSA, the ESA, and publisher groups, has just released its Section 301
recommendations, a submission to the U.S. Trade Representative that
frequently serves as a blueprint for U.S. commentary on intellectual
property protection around the world.  The list covers 60 countries,
including most of the world's leading economies.  The USTR report,
which will be released in April, will likely mirror the IIPA
recommendations.

Canada figures prominently on this list and indeed this year it is
expected that the U.S. will escalate the pressure by placing us on
the Priority Watch List.  The Globe and Mail gives the lobby groups'
recommendations front page coverage with dire warnings for Canada
(the coverage is matched in other countries - see Taiwan and Thailand
as examples).  The IIPA submission on Canada includes a litany of
complaints, including the failure to implement the WIPO Internet
Treaties, the need for ISPs to play a greater role in dealing with
copyright infringement, the need for a camcorder law, and the need
for greater enforcement activity.  The IIPA report is particularly
critical of Bill C-60, arguing that Canada should "jettison" the
approach in favour of something, well, like the U.S. has
implemented.  In fact, it incorrectly argues that full compliance
with the WIPO Internet treaties requires legislation that matches the
DMCA (full TPM protection, ban on devices that can be used to
circumvent, limited exceptions).  It also wants the scope of the
private copying limited and clear liability for P2P services
established.  In fact, it even attacks Bill C-60's tepid distance
learning and library loan provisions, arguing that they "would have
had a significant detrimental impact on publishers of scientific,
technical, and medical materials."

While the IIPA recommendations have predictably led to negative,
overblown press coverage in Canada, a little context is needed. The
reality is that the majority of the world's biggest economies face
similar criticism, including:

     * Japan is criticized for a wide range of issues including the
absence of statutory damages, copyright term extension, stronger TPM
protection, narrowing private use exceptions, and the establishment
of camcording legislation
     * Sweden receives special mention for widespread Internet piracy
and being host to thePirateBay.org
     * New Zealand is criticized for its copyright reform bill,
which, much like Canada's Bill C-60, adopts a more balanced approach
to TPMs.  For its effort, the government is also incorrectly told
that the proposal "fall far short of meeting international minimum
standards."  Moreover, the bill's time shifting provisions are
criticized, despite the fact that the U.S. has far more liberal fair
use provisions.
     * Switzerland is criticized for its TPM approach, which
apparently does not meet the standard in the EUCD or the DMCA, along
with a broad private copying provision and the need for camcording
legislation.
     * South Africa is criticized for failing to sign the WIPO
Internet treaties
     * Hong Kong is criticized for its approach on TPMs and for
proposing new exceptions for educational purposes. It is also urged
to extend the term of copyright.
     * South Korea is criticized for its TPM approach, education
exceptions, its private copying system, and for failing to extend the
term of copyright.
     * Israel is criticized for failing to implement TPM legislation
and for considering a fair use provision that mirrors the U.S.
approach (the IIPA claims this might be viewed by the public as a
"free ticket to copy.")
     * Mexico is criticized for its TPM approach and for the absence
of an ISP notice and takedown system
     * Italy is criticized for doubt about its TPM approach and for
failing to establish an ISP notice and takedown system
     * Brazil is criticized for failing to ratify the WIPO Internet
treaties and for granting exceptions to university students
     * Greece is criticized for making it difficult to obtain the
personal identities of ISP subscribers and for levying a surcharge at
movie theatres that are used to support Greek films
     * Spain is criticized for failing to place sufficient liability
on ISPs for activity on their networks
     * India is criticized for its TPM provisions and "overly broad"
exceptions

These are just fourteen examples - there are dozens more countries on
the list, including many developing countries, each invariably
criticized for not adopting the DMCA, not extending the term of
copyright, not throwing enough people in jail, or creating too many
exceptions to support education and other societal goals.  In fact,
the majority of the world's population finds itself on the list, with
23 of the world's 30 most populous countries targeted for criticism
(the exceptions are Germany, Ethiopia, Iran, France, the UK, Congo,
and Myanmar).

The U.S. approach is quite clearly one of "do what I say, not what I
do" (fair use is good for the U.S., but no one else), advising
country after country that it does not meet international TPM
standards (perhaps it is the U.S. that is not meeting emerging
international standards), and criticizing national attempts to
improve education or culture through exceptions or funding programs.
Moreover, it is very clear that the U.S. lobby groups are never
satisfied as even those countries that have ratified the WIPO
treaties or entered into detailed free trade agreements with the U.S.
that include IP provisions still find themselves criticized for not
doing enough.

Canadians should not be deceived into thinking that our laws are
failing to meet an international standard, no matter what U.S. lobby
groups or the Globe and Mail say.  Rather, Canadians should know that
our approach - and the criticism that it inevitably brings from the
U.S. - places us in very good company.

************************************************************************
***
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@keionline.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607