is Canada the Biggest Piracy Hotspot in the World? JEREMY JOHNSON Starr WRITER That is what the Motion Picture Association of America (or MPAA) has been claiming for some time. Ever since the Lib- erals were in power, recent pressure from the United States has been gradually intensifying. While the United States movie industry has been successful at lobbying Canadian politicians for at least two consecutive parliamentary terms, gathering non-conflicting evidence and gaining good public relations image has been a very shaky issue — something many con- sumer advocates have no problem jumping on. The Short Version of Copyright Reform in the Past The Life and Death of Bill C-60 When the Liberals were.in power, many copyright collect- ives put pressure on them toxpass a strict copyright law as well as ratifying the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties which would, according to companies like the major foreign record labels, “strengthen intellectual property rights for artists” and “ensure a free marketplace for creating music in Canada”. Since, at the time, the notion of a strength- ened copyright bill was not that big of an issue in the public’s perspective, Bill C-60, otherwise known as the ‘Copyright Bill’ was put together with little resistance. When the bill was tabled, many experts on copyright quickly realised that Canada could become a country with a copyright law equivalent to the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a bill that passed in the United States roughly twenty years ago which many recognize as being responsible for over 20,000 lawsuits against individuals accused of copyright in- fringement through file-sharing networks as well as lawsuits against smaller companies for controversial reasons. One fam- ous lawsuit was a company’s invention of a universal garage- door opener being allegedly copyright infringement because it can open any garage door. : The copyright bill tabled by the Liberals was heavily criti- cised for a number of reasons. One of the criticisms came from the educational community because being able to access free material online would require a royalty fee to be paid to a copyright collective. Another criticism came from tech-savvy people who noted that Digital Rights Management circumven- tion would be illegal. In essence, it would be illegal to buy a movie on DVD and make.a back-up copy of the movie onto an additional DVD so it wouldn’t be a problem if the back-up was lost or scratched so long as there was any form, however weak, of copy protection on it. The Canadian copyright bill, as it stands today, has been largely criticised for being old and based off of technology that is more often than not seldom used anymore. The Liberals revision of the copyright act died on the order paper when an election was called. During the election, the major Canadian artists broke away from the Canadian Recording Industry As- sociation (CRIA). The CRIA has been a strong advocate for their “A List” Record labels which are the Big Four record labels. The Big Four record labels are Sony BMG, Universal Music, EMI, and Warner music. The Canadian record labels who broke away from the CRIA, who were known as the “B List” to the CRIA, claimed that the CRIA is not looking out for the interest of Canada, Canadians, Canadian artists or Canad- ian businesses and is instead looking out for foreign interests. Nettwerk, one of the largest labels, helped form the ‘Canadian Music Creators Coalition’ and ‘Save the Music Fan’. The art- ists and Nettwerk label of the Canadian Music Creators Coali- tion have since been arguing against the CRIA, saying that DRM is risky and counterproductive, lawsuits are destructive and hypocritical, and that cultural policy should support Can- adian artists. During an uprising, the CRIA countered by saying how Canada was put on a national piracy watch-list and has been strongly criticised for not ratifying the WIPO treaties. CRIA, the CMPDA (Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Associa- tion - who say that they argue on behalf of the MPAA) and a handful of other copyright collectives have said that Canada has an obligation to ratify the treaties and has yet to do so. This is a claim readily refuted by copyright experts who note that ratifying is not the same as signing and that Canada merely agreed to participate in the discussion. While experts, stakeholders and businesses debated (con- trary to what the CRIA claims, businesses are actually fre- quently split on the copyright debates), Sam Bulte, the min- ister of Canadian Heritage was famously quoted when being asked about copyright as saying that ‘I am a strong supporter of artists and their rights’ and “I will not allow Michael Geist and his pro-user zealots, and Electronic Frontier Foundation members to intimidate. me into silencing my voice.” Some point to the grassroots movement for a “balanced copyright bill” as being the biggest reason why she lost her seat during that election. The Conservative Government Pressured With Questionable Numbers The CRIA was, and still is, criticised for being only in the interest of foreign companies. The running jokes on the in- tenet included ‘Canadian Recording Industry Association of America’ and ‘CRIA—an American conglomerate in Canadian clothing’ (spin-off of ‘wolf in sheep clothing’). Advocates for a stronger copyright law have had a tough time selling restrict- ive copyright reform, due in part to a controversial cartoon figure known as ‘Captain Copyright’ by Access Copyright permanently shelved due to complaints by copyright experts as well as, among many other organizations, the Canadian Library Association, not to mention artists, companies and a growing movement against a DMCA law being implemented amongst Canadian citizens becoming more and more critical about copyright laws. For several months, little happened on the copyright front publicly. It seems as though it may have been a re-group- ing that occurred since in the last several months, pressure remounted from the United States, headed by the MPAA, to implement strict copyright laws. This time, percentages were being used as evidence, despite nothing being cited. Being touted as solid evidence, the MPAA lobbied Canada to imple- ment strict copyright laws, stating at the beginning of 2007, that 23% of all movie piracy in the world was sourced in Can- ada. Shortly after, the MPAA said that 30%-40% of all movie piracy was sourced in Canada. The very next day, the MPAA said that 50% of all movie piracy was sourced in Canada. Criticism about these claims already mounted, namely saying that the claims were simply outrageous and unsupported. In May of 2007, the MPAA went further and said that 70% of all movie piracy was sourced in Canada. The most puzzling part to some was the fact that just days earlier, the Motion Picture Association claimed that China was responsible for 90% of all movie piracy, not to mention that there was a claim by the MPAA that 40% of all movie piracy occurred in the US. This didn’t stop two US congressmen from writing a letter to the Canadian government saying, “Twentieth Century Fox has reported that, at one point during 2006, Canadian theaters were the source for nearly 50 percent of illegal camcorded record- ings across the globe.” And, “[a] worldwide study commis- sioned by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) concluded that in 2005 movie piracy cost the Canadian film industry and your government $225 million and $34 million, respectively, in lost revenues.” Shortly after, claims went from 70% to 75%, then back down to 20%-30% by the CMPDA. A Law Is Passed During pressure, Arnold Schwarzenegger paid a visit to Can- ada. Most reportedly was him advocating that Canada should play a stronger roll in eliminating green-house gas emissions. What was less reported was him lobbying to get an anti-cam- ming law passed. After six months of intensive lobbying, a bill was tabled, some say based on draft legislation written by the US movie studios. Once the bill was tabled, it went through the democratic process in eighty minutes and quickly received royal ascent to make it easier to incriminate movie pirates. To this day, since the anti-camcording law passed, one the- atre pirate was arrested and charged under the much criticised copyright act. The arrest was touted as a success to the movie industry and, some noted, there were claims that the single arrest solved all of the theatre piracy within Canada. It turns out that the per- son was a person who cammed movies for an online “scene group” known as MaVeN. MaVeN was known as the high quality theatre camming group online. Esentially, P2P users said that if you wanted a high quality theatre video, you’d get a release by MaVeN. Some “scene release groups”, all of whom post content, copyrighted or not, online for free have accused MaVeN of selling the videos captured. RCMP allege that they did, but the allegations have yet to be proven. The Copyright Situation Now Organizations such as the CRIA have continually made press © releases saying that Canada is, among other things, “lagging behind in the digital age”, “[iJs seen as a backwards nation, particularly with copyright laws”, “[iJs sharply criticised by fellow trading partners”, and “has a society with an appetite for destruction.” With the anti-camming law passed, the copyright collect- ives aren’t done with Canada yet. Currently, they want to, as they claim, “update” the copyright bill. Most sides of the table agree that the copyright bill, as it stands today, is outdated. The disagreement lies in exactly how to update. Some are worried that they can’t pay for an electronic item, and modify it should they have the technical expertise. Others have asked whether or not ripping music CDs would make them criminals under any new law. When Jim Prentice, the Minister of Industry, announced that _ he is going to be tabling an updated copyright law to “meet with international cbligations” among other things, a grass- roots movement was started on Facebook by internet law pro- fessor Michael Geist. When the questions started pouring in from concerned Canadians, the minister pulled the bill from the order table despite putting the copyright bill on the notice paper with a specific date. As tensions mounted from both sides of the debate which includes the Canadian Music Creators Coalition specifically stating that the copyright bill is not written in their names, some experts on politics suggest that the minister was com- pletely blind-sided by the fierce opposition. As the Facebook group boasted strong 5-figure membership numbers in the matter of days, the online protest turned into the real thing at one of the minister’s gatherings. Jim Prentice defended the bill saying that speculating on a bill that has yet to be tabled is not productive. He was then asked why he was refused an inter- view with the CBC on the delicate matter, but he didn’t offer new information on the issues other than that he thinks Can- adas trading partners are criticising Canada for having such old copyright laws and that Canada just needs to meet inter- national obligations. The NDP argues that the irony in all this is that the Conservatives are willing to meet with international obligations on copyright laws, but not for Kyoto. An additional protest was held later on which said, “Say no to the Canadian DMCA” Today, many are calling on the government to open up a pub- lic consultation on the forthcoming copyright bill. Currently, Prentice is saying that there will be an extensive consultation after the bill is introduced. Michael Geist commented on his blog, “the remarks make’ it clear that Prentice is currently not inclined to consult the public before introducing the Canadian DMCA. Instead, he will leave it to a parliamentary committee, which he said will engage in “extensive discussions about all of these issues.” Of course, this approach will help lock in the bill since unless it is sent to committee after first reading, there are significant restrictions on potential changes.”