A curious omission, though
OTTAWA – Just before the federal government shuts down for the holidays, Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly and Innovation Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains co-signed a mandate letter for the committee about to begin the process of reviewing the Copyright Act.
“While often underappreciated, the Copyright Act impacts Canadians every day, shaping what we see and hear, and enhancing our systems for the creation and use of content,” wrote the minsters to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which will lead the statutory review in the new year.
The letter asks the committee to make sure the review leads to a revised Act that allows Canadians to continue to create and disseminate content and for us all to have access to the information and entertainment we need. “It should also empower creators to leverage the value of their works and investments. Such a framework should ensure creators receive fair and transparent remuneration and that users benefit from a public domain,” it reads.
The letter, to this eye, could be seen to be worrisome for what it doesn’t say, however. The ministers note that there are a wide range of competing points of view on what should be done with this review, and why, explaining “copyright affects a wide range of industries, works, and uses: from telecom and tech companies, to scientific institutions, and academia, from photographs, music, and books, to augmented reality content; and from museums, art galleries, and brick and mortar stores, to machine-readable data, and beyond.”
No where in the letter does it mention television, radio, or broadcasting at all – while it does mention augmented reality twice, however. (Ed note: That may well mean nothing, but the Canadian TV and radio industry is already feeling ignored or shuffled to the back burner by the federal government, despite the fact that the most spending on Canadian culture is done by our broadcasters. Canadian TV and radio executives are already concerned that a revamped Copyright Act could hurt Canadian broadcasters in favour of guessing what the future might be.)
The Ministers letter does say that any changes to the Act should lead to a predictable, transparent, balanced and effective copyright system, but it focuses more heavily on the new and what may or may not come in the future, saying that disruption “is now our constant state.”
“New digital intermediaries and services have taken on significant roles, leaving some feeling ill-served by emerging value chains for copyrighted content,” it reads. “Advances in virtual and augmented reality, 3D printing, encryption technologies, artificial intelligence and the ‘Internet of Things’ have been breathtaking. As users are increasingly enabled to become creators themselves, interactions with copyright have become even more ubiquitous, leading some to suggest that current copyright rules need greater adaptability to new uses and formats.”
So, while also highlighting the federal government’s new national intellectual property strategy (which the ministers said will be announced in 2018), that the government has embarked on reforming the Copyright Board, and its new Creative Canada strategy, the Ministers boiled down their direction to the committee to three questions. They are:
- How can we ensure that the Copyright Act functions efficiently to foster a marketplace that is transparent, promotes innovation and access for users, and supports creators in getting fair market value for their copyrighted content?
- How can we ensure that the copyright framework continues to function in an environment of constant change in technology and business possibilities?
- Finally, how can our domestic regime position Canadian creators, users, and innovators to compete on and harness the full potential of the global stage?
Finally, the Ministers gave the committee some how-to advice as well. To make sure that the issues of Canada’s Indigenous peoples and our linguistic duality is front and centre, while also noting, “the scope of issues related to copyright is broad and we feel that innovative mechanisms – such as special joint sessions or deep-dive studies on particular subject matters – could ensure that all relevant policy considerations are accounted for in your final report.”
