In 2008, the Canadian government discovered a new "third rail" of politics: copyright reform. Long considered a wonky subject of interest only to legislators and rightsholders, interest in copyright has exploded in recent years, and Canadians showed a keen interest in talking about term length, time shifting, DRM circumvention rules, format shifting, mashups, remixes, the public domain, and the levies that Canadians currently pay on things like blank CD-Rs.

When Bill C-61 was introduced in June 2008, though, it was instantly clear that consensus would be hard to find. Consumers wanted rights and flexibility, while copyright holders wanted... well, I'll let them explain it.

"We would be deeply concerned if the Bill allows people to copy artists' work onto media devices like iPODS without compensation for creators; and, also if existing levies and royalties are affected by this Bill," said Brad Keenan, Director of the Performers' Rights Society and Sound Recording Division at the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA).

It's difficult to imagine a statement that would have made Keenan look any more out of touch with the modern world. Looking for money from moving songs to these "iPODS" of which he spoke was a naked appeal to outlaw format shifting in Canada—if you want to move content to a different screen or speaker in your own home, you'd best be ready to pay for it again, you filthy pirate.

While Canada's levy regime does collect money for this sort of "private copying" (experts argue passionately over whether the levy allows noncommercial users to download P2P music in addition to making private copies of personal material), this is not an approach that garners much sympathy among the country's young "digital natives."

Tremendous controversy developed around the bill, the issue was widely debated in Canadian papers and on blogs and radio programs, and C-61 eventually died.

Now, the Canadian government is gearing up for copyright reform one more time—but it's trying a far more open approach to the issue, first collecting public comment on the Web and in person before drafting a bill.

Cautious optimism



The government has launched a "Copyright Consultation" website to provide a public forum for debating copyright issues. It is also holding a set of town hall meetings on the subject (those who can't attend can at least watch a live stream of two of them). The consultation wraps up on September 13, and the government hopes to move quickly after that.

What's most striking about the new consultation is the change in tone—everyone now recognizes just how much even Joe Six-pack-of-Molson has to say on the topic. Emphasis added below.

"Canadians are concerned with copyright and its implications in our increasingly digital environment," said Tony Clement, Minister of Industry. "Our goal is to give Canadians from across the country a chance to express their views on how the government should approach the modernization of copyright laws. Your opinions and suggestions will help us draft new, flexible legislation so that Canada can regain its place on the cutting edge of the digital economy."

His fellow sponsor, James Moore, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, added, "By leveraging new technologies, we are providing as many people as possible with access to our consultative process through interactive, web-based and real-time discussions. With today's launch, we are on track to introducing modern and responsive copyright legislation in the fall."

In other words: they learned some lessons from the last time around. Groups like ACTRA are talking the same way, too. Under new president Ferne Downye, the group welcomes the public involvement.

"It's encouraging to see the current government embark on public consultations on copyright," said Downey, who also supports network neutrality. "If the traffic on Facebook and Twitter is any indication, there are a lot of engaged citizens of all ages eager to talk about copyright reform in Canada—a fantastic trend considering we are talking about copyright law."

So, what does the government want to know? Broad things, mainly, though most of the comments so far appear to drive right into the weeds of format shifting, DVR use, and fair dealing (the Canadian version of "fair use" in the US). Here are the five questions that the government is asking:

How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?

Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?

What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?

What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?

What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?

As always with public comments, the answers are all over the place. One professional photographer demands that "NO ONE should be able to use my work unless I (or my representative(s)) have given express permission for that party to use my work," while others talk about network neutrality and Internet bandwidth throttling.

Still, Michael Geist (seen at left) seems cautiously optimistic. He's the Canadian law professor who ginned up so much opposition to C-61 through his one-man media empire of newspaper columns, blog posts, and Facebook pages, and he has already outlined his approach to copyright reform.

Rather than do anything dramatic, like reduce copyright to five years and legalize all P2P sharing, Geist instead wants the government to pledge that no term extensions are coming (current term is life plus 50 years). With that done, he wants explicit support for time- and format-shifting by consumers, more flexible "fair dealing" rules (Canada doesn't explicitly support fair use for satire or parody, as the US does), and a commitment that anticircumvention DRM rules won't ban circumvention so long as the intended use is legal.

Finally, Canada should not adopt a "three-strikes and you're out system that removes Internet access based on unproven allegations of infringement," but is should alter its statutory damages laws so that file-swappers and other noncommercial infringers don't face the prospect of multimillion dollar fines.

To encourage public involvement, Geist has launched his own "Speak Out on Copyright" site.

No one yet knows what will come out of the consultation, of course. Duncan McKie, who heads the Canadian Independent Record Production Association, has already said that C-61 "didn't go far enough and more protection is needed to ensure music doesn't become worthless," according to Canadian newspapers.

The government might well endorse that position. On the other hand, the scope of the consultation and the quite public resistance to C-61 probably mean that something more balanced will emerge. Another interesting hint: the consultation website runs on GNU/Linux and uses a Mongrel server to run Ruby on Rails Web apps.