National Post (National Edition)
Online piracy pressure growing
Broadcasters urging CRTC to get tough
No one disputes the presence of online piracy in Canada, where consumers use no-name set-top boxes or simple web browsers to access pirated content for free instead of paying those who distribute it legally.
But a debate is heating up over whether the federal telecom regulator should crack down on websites that host stolen music, movies or television shows or leave the enforcement to copyright law.
The Fairplay Canada coalition — its members include some of the largest players in Canada’s broadcast industry, such as BCE Inc., Rogers Communciations Inc. and Quebecor Inc. — is trying to convince the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to create an independent agency to tell internet providers to block access to sites “blatantly, overwhelmingly or structurally engaged in piracy.”
Nearly 10,000 parties, along with tens of thousands more who signed petitions, commented on the proposal, many raising concerns that the agency could over-block content. They fear this could lead to censorship or to internet providers blocking sites they don’t like. Others suggested it would be a waste of money. Virtual private networks (VPNS) allow users to circumvent walls that block content, plus stopping pirates can be like playing whack-a-mole.
In final replies submitted to the regulator last week, Fairplay argued its proposal would address a large and growing problem, dismissing opponents’ suggestions that piracy is diminishing as more legal streaming options such as Bell’s Cravetv, Netflix and Spotify become more popular. It cited data from Sandvine that seven per cent of Canadian households use set-top boxes to access pirated content and eight per cent use illegal subscription piracy services.
Fairplay also cited studies from the United Kingdom, Australia and Portugal as proof the method would be effective, stating that piracy dropped and traffic to legitimate services increased after governments blocked some of the top piracy sites.
It dismissed over-blocking concerns from civil advocacy groups such as Openmedia, stating that internet providers will have no control over what websites are blocked. The new agency would go after the worst, most obvious offenders, not legitimate platforms such as Snapchat or Youtube.
As it stands, copyright law is used to deal with pirates in Canada. Its Notice and Notice regime enables copyright holders to ask internet service providers to inform users to stop if they access stolen content.
Separately, Bell, Rogers and Quebecor filed legal action against set-top-box sellers for copyright infringement for selling devices with KODI piracy add-ons that enabled viewers to stream television without paying for cable services. The court has ruled in the telecoms’ favour.
But the coalition, which also includes members of the creative community, argues copyright law is insufficient, especially for small independent producers. It takes a lot of time and money to identify a pirate, who may operate outside the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, it stated. The proposed regime could block these sites instead of chasing their operators.
It’s been almost 20 years since online piracy walloped the music industry with the invention of Napster, a file sharing service that made it easy for consumers to download music for free. Since then, the internet disrupted business models for video industries as well, as viewers cut the cord tow at chtv episodes and movies online through paid subscriptions or illegal streaming. This has dampened a traditional rev- enue source for producers and distributors of content.
In the midst of the debate over what to do about piracy in the context of digital disruption, newly released Access to Information documents lift the curtain on the CRTC’S initial reaction to the proposal. In a memo, staff questioned why the coalition would file the application now, given copyright laws and the potential to access blacklisted websites using VPNS.
“Perhaps because the television companies see their subscribers and revenues dwindling faster than anticipated, and are seeking ways to stem their losses,” the memo stated. It also pointed to the absence of a Netflix tax to boost production revenues and called the Notice and Notice regime “arguably toothless when it comes to enforcement.”
The documents, obtained by the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, indicate Bell first pitched the idea of an agency with website-blocking power in September, months before a formal application was filed in January. Commissioner Chris Macdonald suggested the meeting after receiving a July phone call from a Bell vice-president to discuss content piracy.
Both the CRTC and Bell said there were no commissioners at the meeting, and say it’s business as usual for staff to meet with stakeholders to discuss issues that are not before the commission.
Still, FRPC executive-director Monica Auer is concerned about a level playing field when the power to block websites is at stake.
“It’s interesting to me that Bell can call up a CRTC commissioner and get something onto the agenda ,” auer said.
Despite the coalition’s rebuttals that the Copyright Act isn’t enough to stop piracy, Tim Denton, Internet Society chairman and a former CRTC commissioner, maintains piracy is not in the CRTC’S jurisdiction.
“Website blocking is an extremely blunt and stupid instrument. It’s difficult and expensive to maintain and largely futile.”
WEBSITE BLOCKING IS (A) ... BLUNT AND STUPID INSTRUMENT.