Independent study fuels debate on copyright report

Independent study fuels debate on copyright report 

Independent study fuels debate on copyright report

By Vito Pilieci, Ottawa CitizenMay 26, 2009Comments (5)

OTTAWA — An independent study, first commissioned and then ignored by the Conference Board of Canada, is fuelling further debate over the research organization's most recent report on copyright in Canada.

University of Ottawa law professor, Jeremy de Beer, was commissioned by the Conference Board last spring to conduct independent research on copyright legislation.

De Beer delivered a working paper to the board in the fall. The working paper was reviewed by researchers at the board while they were compiling data to complete their copyright report.

De Beer's findings ran counter to many of the board's conclusions and was not mentioned in the board's final report called Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Economy, which was released Friday.

In a statement Tuesday, the Conference Board said:

"In the course of the research, the authors reviewed the full spectrum of arguments surrounding the issue of intellectual property rights in Canada, including Prof. de Beer's study. The final report includes those arguments considered most relevant to the policy under review."

The Conference Board report calls Canada "the file-swapping capital of the world" and calls for strict new copyright legislation as well as new power for border guards to deal with counterfeit and pirated goods.

The report is largely based on the findings of the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) 2008 Special 301 Report.

De Beer's research debunks the 301 Report by stating, "such sources have been exposed as lacking creditability," in the working paper provided to the board called Copyright and Innovation in the Networked Information Economy.

"For example, a Canadian Government official has debunked the 'Special 301 Reports' . . . as driven entirely by U.S. Industry and lacking reliable and objective analysis," the report adds.

De Beer called the omission of his research in the board's final report "strange."

"I would have thought that they would have more carefully weighed the various perspectives that they solicited," said de Beer. "I'm not interested in picking a fight with them. If they want to commission research from me and then ignore it, that's their prerogative."

On Monday, University of Ottawa professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law Michael Geist accused the board of plagiarism and questioned the sponsors behind the Conference Board's report.

The board has admitted the copyright report was produced as "contract research," adding: "The Conference Board regularly produces custom research. Our guidelines for financed research require the design and method of research, as well as the content of the report, to be determined solely by the Conference Board."

According to the Conference Board, the report was funded by the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, the Copyright Collective of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation as well as other lobby groups who are pushing for stronger Canadian copyright legislation.

The board would not detail financial commitments from the report's backers, citing client confidentiality, but it did say that the financial backers have no say over the report's editorial content.

The board's reassurance was of little comfort to Geist, who said the revelation that the organization ignored independent research "raises even further troubling questions about the objectivity of the survey."

He is calling for the research organization to recall the report.

"The right thing to do is to say, 'this report does not meet the standards of the Conference Board of Canada," he said. "The right thing to do is to pull it. They seem to be operating on completely the opposite tack."

Geist believes the controversy surrounding the board's report has damaged its reputation. The board describes itself as "the foremost, independent, not-for-profit applied research organization in Canada. Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests."

"It calls into question a lot of their research and significantly damages their claims that they are somehow independent," he said.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

Independent study fuels debate on copyright report