Copyright - Canadian Government Perspective

Mme. Bouvet and Mr. Matthews were asked a series of questions, some prepared beforehand by Tim Mark of CARL.

The first question dealt with the current regulations and when they would be in force. The regulations were 'prepublished' in the Canada Gazette in January 1999. Some comments were made, mostly about the book importation issues. Mme. Bouvet and Mr. Matthews are in the process of analyzing the comments and preparing an analysis and recommendations, which would be sent to their respective ministers - John Manley (Industry Canada) and Sheila Copps (Canadian Heritage). If there are no changes, these regulations could be in force as soon as June 1999. If there are substantive changes, the regulations would be prepublished again in the Canada Gazette, with possibility of being in force by September. Some discussion was held about splitting the regulations into those with no changes those with more work needed.

The second question dealt with Bill C-32. No one expected the delays in getting the regulations done but Sheila Copps had suggested that it could take up to three years. This was said in September of 1997.

The third query looked at the Canadian government's mandate re copyright Issues in a digital environment. Some work has been done, but much more ("...a lot..." as Mme. Bouvet stated) is necessary. The basis for looking at the digital environment includes the two WIPO papers, ISP liability, and distance education (or as one of the Forum members stated, learning in a digital environment).

The government intends to present another paper that would be "...more definitive, more precise..." and with "...very concrete options..." (quoted by Mme. Bouvet) to be used as a starting point for discussion. This paper might be released in September (a popular month it seems), although I gather that this was supposed to come out in March or April originally and has been delayed. This paper would present the government's view, unlike the WIPO discussion papers, which were not written or endorsed by the Canadian government. Mme. Bouvet also mentioned that the US (with its Digital Millennium Act) and Australia are exploring the issues surrounding the digital environment. Surprisingly, no mention was made of databases or copyright term legislation. When asked specifically about those two issues, Mme. Bouvet and Mr. Richards said that these issues were unlikely to be looked at in this paper as they felt there was no necessity to move fast on that. How other jurisdictions (in particular the US and Australia) responded on those topics might provide the basis for the Canadian response. Mme. Bouvet spoke about a "balanced approach" that would not discriminate between printed and digital information.

The fourth question dealt with international commitments. The 1997 signing of the WIPO treaties constituted an agreement to begin discussions re the content but no decision has been made yet to ratify or implement the treaties. Only 35 submissions were received in response to the WIPO discussion papers. Mme Bouvet speculated that as an independent paper, interested parties may not have Wanted to respond because these papers were not endorsed or prepared by the Canadian government and weren't perceived as definitive papers that could include implementative or ratification factors. In contrast, the September 1999 paper would present the Canadian government's perspective and would be endorsed by Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage departments.

Another question dealt with the possibility of an economic impact/cost benefit analysis of Bill C-32. From the government's perspective this would be very difficult, as portions of BILL C-32 are not in force, the flow of royalties to international sources is unknown, and the copyright collectives operate at arm's length from the government. All of these factors make it very difficult to even estimate an impact.

Several participants voiced their concerns about the changing focus and mandate of libraries (academic in particular) in the digital environment and the lack of direction and/or regulations from the government. The urgency of the matter was impressed upon the government representatives. I'm not sure the Government is able (or willing) to speed up the process.

That was the end of the session with Mme. Bouvet and Mr. Matthews. It was useful to hear the government perspective, although there were several things that shot off alarm bells for the participants. For example, the fact that databases are off the table for the discussion paper is surprising. The lack of urgency that some of the participants felt about the government's role to date, and Mme. Bouvet's statements that the users have to be more proactivevoicing their views seems to suggest that the users aren't being heard. Discussion amongst the participants on this topic ranged from being extremely proactive by regularly bombarding the government with notes from each group to being more judicious in the use of lobbying. One participant who has had previous dealings with Mme. Bouvet commented on how Mme. Bouvet's role is supposedly the "user" while Mr. Matthews has the "creator" role due to their positions. Mme. Bouvet's statement about balancing the users and creators in copyright seems to suggest that the users may lose out, because she will be looking more for balance while Mr. Matthews would be looking out for the creator side. It was suggested that our role may be to reestablish the balance by voicing the user side strongly.

CARL STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

CARL's Statement of Principles for the Management of Copyright in the Digital Environment is available on the CARL Web page under the issue button and then choosing Copyright. This is an excellent statement of some fundamental issues within copyright in Canada. I encourage all of you to grab a look at it. I also would suggest that the Toronto chapter (and other Canadian SLA chapters) endorse this document. Briefly, the principles are as follows:

1. Maintain the balance in copyright law
2. Maintain an equitable and viable economic framework
3. Maintain the technological neutrality of the Act
4. Keep facts in the public domain
5. Ensure a robust public domain
6. Ensure royalty-free access to government information
7. Ensure respect for fundamental rights
8. Ensure an appropriate role for copyright collectives
9. Enforcement measures must be carefully crafted

CARL felt it important to get ahead of Phase 3, thus the principles. This document has already been endorsed by some 120 organizations across Canada. I strongly suggest that SLA - Toronto chapter endorse these principles. These are fundamental issues that transcend the publicly-funded or private-sector nature of the membership of the Toronto chapter.

PRIORITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS

Each participant was asked to identify a key issue (or issues) and it became clear that there was a lot of common ground. The SLA Toronto chapter priorities as per the submission of September 15 1998, was in maintaining a balance in copyright law by extending fair dealing and legal exceptions in the Act to digital materials. This was mentioned by several other representatives.

Other issues of note included public domain, government information, clarification of fair dealing, distance learning, licensing complementing exceptions, and ISP liability. These issues were recorded for later use.

NEXT STEPS

There was some discussion re what would follow this meeting. Bob Best of AUCC presented a mini-seminar on group dynamics that spanned a continuum from no joint action to a formalized coalition. In between, the "options" were information sharing, pooling of resources, and selected joint interventions supplementing individual efforts. The group as a whole felt we were in neither extreme and probably in the pooling of resources/selected joint interventions stage. As such, several next steps were identified:

1. All participants will be added to the Copyright listserv from CAUT. This will be used as the forum for communication and information sharing.

2. Endorsement of the CARL principles (the more the merrier). I pledged that the Toronto chapter Government Relations Committee would meet and discuss these principles. I would also pass this information to the other two Canadian SLA chapters and SLA in Washington (John Crosby, possibly).

3. A thank you letter to Mme. Bouvet and Mr. Matthews for their time and responses to the questions.

4. Begin work on the substantive issues identified as priorities by the participants.

CONCLUSION

Generally, I found the meeting quite useful and productive. It is good to see groups such as this one coming together (although most had an academic bent, and are publicly funded) and seeing the common interests. SLA Toronto has a role in groups like this because of the academic, government, public library and non-profit institutional members within the Chapter.

[previous]

[next]

Copyright © 1999 SLA. All rights reserved.