Share this page!

Michael Geist Profile picture
Twitter logo
Apr 13 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
The focus on the costs of @cafreeland #Budget2022 copyright term extension has rightly focused on the lost generation of Canadian authors. As noted yesterday, no public domain for McLuhan, Laurence, Roy, etc. for an additional 20 years. 1/4
But the historical impact can’t be underestimated. Canadians will lose public domain access to the works and papers of some of Canada’s most notable leaders and figures of modern times: two former Prime Ministers in Diefenbaker and St. Laurent… 2/4
…Provincial leaders including Lévesque, Lesage, Robarts, Hatfield, Smallwood. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Bora Laskin and a myriad of others who helped build a country. No public domain access for 20 extra years. 3/4
This could be partially addressed if @cafreeland added a registration process for the additional 20 years. Rights holders who want the additional copyright protection would get it and the harm to Canada’s historical record would be mitigated. 4/4

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Michael Geist

Michael Geist Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mgeist

Michael Geist Profile picture
Apr 13
When I wrote my first response to @pablorodriguez Bill C-18, I warned the bill threatened press independence, noting that I knew of cases where opinion pieces were spiked because they criticized Canadian Heritage, who was the primary lobbying target. 1/4
This wasn’t idle speculation. It happened to me last year in a piece on then Heritage Minister @s_guilbeault. Approved by the section editor and rejected by senior management. Has now started happening with Bill C-18 opinion pieces. 2/4
The unsurprising result? Wildly unbalanced Bill C-18 coverage in the mainstream media with even publications typically critical of the government rushing to celebrate a bill that mandates payments merely for “facilitating access” to news. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
Michael Geist Profile picture
Apr 11
Copyright term extension may have been buried in an annex in #Budget2022, but @cafreeland has been grappling with the issue since her election in 2015 from the TPP to USMCA to recent trade battles over electric vehicles. A thread… 1/7
In 2015, the Liberal government inherited the Trans Pacific Partnership, which included term extension. @cafreeland was International Trade Minister. Canada consulted and delayed deciding whether to move ahead with the agreement. 2/7 michaelgeist.ca/2016/06/democr…
In 2017, Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the TPP, which opened the door for Canada to suspend some provisions. At the top of the list? Copyright term extension, which was quickly out as a requirement to ratify the newly named CPTPP. 3/7 michaelgeist.ca/2017/11/rethin…
Read 7 tweets
Michael Geist Profile picture
Apr 8
Hard to think of a worse week in Canadian digital policy. First, Bill C-11 continues to chug along with the government relying on cartoons to misleadingly claim that the bill won’t touch user generated content (it clearly does). 1/6
Meanwhile, the Chair of the CRTC implausibly claims independence while actively supporting Bill C-11, legislation that would govern the Commission. The lack of public trust in the CRTC is well-earned with the Chair still facing charges of bias. 2/6
The government follows up with Bill C-18, which features massive government intervention into the market alongside mandated payments for links and “facilitating access” to news. CRTC to decide who qualifies and if licensing deals are ok. 3/6
Read 6 tweets
Michael Geist Profile picture
Apr 8
Canadian governments have long resisted copyright term extension for obvious reasons: real costs and few benefits. Canada caved in the USMCA and now @cafreeland buried implementation in #Budget2022. What can be done about this “tax on consumers”? 1/5 michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/budget… Image
The opposition to term extension is universal outside a handful of lobby groups. Australia, NZ have studied the costs and @pauljheald has conducted research that found it reduces publication and access. #Budget2022 2/5 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Australian professor @rgibli studied the Canadian market on e-books and found a positive effect of public domain: more availability and a significant impact on consumer cost. With millions at stake this is a tax on consumers. #Budget2022 3/5 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Read 5 tweets
Michael Geist Profile picture
Apr 7
My post today on why Bill C-18 is even more extreme than Australia’s code. Simply put, @pablorodriguez believes large Internet companies that *facilitate access* to news –  not copying, not using, not even directly linking –  should pay for doing so. 1/5 michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/just-h… Image
Yesterday, @JustinTrudeau told the House that Bill C-18 compensates journalists when the Internet companies “use their content”. But Section 2(2)(b) covers much more: when “access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means” 2/5 michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/just-h…
What does that mean? Linking to front page of a news site in social media post or a tweet, having your search index include general links to Canadian media, perhaps even e-newsletter alerts. All “facilitation” captured by Bill C-18. 3/5 michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/just-h…
Read 5 tweets
Michael Geist Profile picture
Apr 6
Thread #2 on Online News Act (Bill C-18): @pablorodriguez insists this is a “market based approach.” Feels like total gaslighting. The government/CRTC decides which platforms are regulated, which news orgs qualify, and what agreements are acceptable. 1/8
The “who” is regulated as a “digital news intermediary” can be interpreted very broadly. More than just Google or Facebook. Think Twitter, LinkedIn, Apple News. All could find themselves subject to CRTC oversight on licensing deals and mandatory arbitration. 2/8
As for which news organizations qualify, C-18 relies on the QCJO definition but appears to extend to foreign owned news orgs too. Think NY Times or Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ. That might help address a trade challenge, but doesn’t address the local news concerns. 3/8
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(