TARGETING ONLINE PIRATES
Should the CRTC tackle scofflaws or leave it to copyright law?
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 Communications Inc. and Quebecor Inc. — is trying to convince the Canadian Radiotelevision 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 settop 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 to watch TV episodes and movies online through paid subscriptions or illegal streaming. This has dampened a traditional revenue source for producers and distributors of