Jim Prentice, putting consumers first...if first means selling out their interests and rights to a failing business model by enacting a poisoned retread of a failed legislative model. (Image swiped from CBC)
Alright kids. Yellow Jim Prentice has placed his top secret plan to undermine your rights as consumers of information, in its many forms, on the Notice Paper for next weeks session of Parliament. If you sit on your hands, you will have no right to bitch when you wake up to discover that your digital freedoms have been curtailed and that global conglomerates are snooping through your hard drives. You will not be entitled to complain that you can't back-up, copy or move media files that you own. You best not be moping that the cost of education has gone through the ceiling because fair use provisions of copyright law have been sold out to insure the perpetual monetization of Mickey fucking Mouse. Got it?
So here's the deal. Write to your elected representative. Let them know that the rights of Canadians come before the interests of SONY/BMG or Universal or any other monopolistic mega-corporation. Remind your Member of Parliament who they work for be nice, be firm but for fuck sakes get to it. The time is now. If it helps, the following is the text of a letter I just shipped off to the member from my riding:
Dear Ms Redman,
As a working member of ACTRA, SOCAN and SAC, I am deeply concerned with the impending damage about to be done to Canadian copyright law. At risk are fair use provisions, consumer rights and technology businesses and innovators. Canadian stake holders in the arts, education and general population have expressed growing worry over this retrograde move on the part of the government. We have been roundly ignored.
Federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice has put proposed copyright legislation on the Notice Paper for next weeks session of the Parliament. This bill has been created in the absence of consultation with Canadians and actual stake holders. Every indication points to a set of regulations that mimic the deeply flawed DMCA that has seen more than 20,000 anti-consumer lawsuits in the United States, bankrupting families and technology companies.
Mr. Prentice has avoided the legitimate questions of the Canadian public, he has most recently been invited to address the concerns of citizens through CBC's show, 'Search Engine'. The program received more than 250 questions for the minister, an impressive number considering the dry topic area of intellectual property. Mr. Prentice has refused to appear on the program, his office saying that they would give a statement explaining why. No such explanation has been forthcoming.
I implore you to speak out on our behalf. Mr. Prentice is supposed to represent our best interests. It appears he prefers the interests of offshore media conglomerates and cartels. There is a groundswell of action building against this legislation. Please help us to preserve fair use for future generations of Canadians. I look forward to your response and assistance.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Stewart
Kitchener, Ontario
Please feel free to adapt any parts of that letter that will make it easier for you to take action.
Here again are a few links you might like to check:
Canadian DMCA prepare to become a techno-peasant.
A decade long wait for reform if you don't act.
Canada's universities call for moderate reform, Prentice ignores them too.
This will cost you real money from your pocket, for digital goods and services and for hardware, software and media.
The cat who designed the DMCA admits it failed, Jim Prentice's decision, Let's copy it!
What are Canadians asking that Jim Prentice isn't interested in answering?
Dave at the Galloping Beaver is a smart cookie, follow his example: read, learn, act before it's too damn late
Want a bargain? How about pre-broken goods that are illegal to fix? Thanks Jim Prentice, sellout cock noggin!
If you are reading this, then you are online and digitally engaged and this is important to you too. If you do not protect your rights, you will have no rights to protect.
4 comments:
Too right PSA. Here's a good article from the Ottawa Citizen that gives a decent overview of what's at stake here.
http://snipurl.com/1uxz9
Some may also want to join the Fair Copyright For Canada Facebook group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6315846683
Hi PSA,
I finally got a reply from the NDP regarding my questions for Prentice. The same waffling as the Liberal response I'm sad to say. I'm going to be sending Charlie Angus a rather pointed letter.
"Thank you for writing to express your views with respect to proposed changes to the copyright legislation.
First, it is difficult to speculate about what is or isn't going to be in the legislation until the Harper government introduces the bill in parliament. They have had almost 2 full years to act on this matter. However, with electioneering being on top of the Conservative's "to do" list, we are concerned that legislative plans may die if they manage to succeed at bringing the House down.
The truth is copyright is always a difficult balancing act between the fair use of the consumer and fair remuneration for artists. What has made the issue more difficult is the explosive growth of digital technologies in recent years.
In attempting to update copyright legislation, the previous Minister of Canadian Heritage tabled Bill C-60. The NDP believed there were significant problems with this legislation. We had serious concerns about the lack of discussion on the potential impacts of providing the legal sanction of digital locks. These digital locks, also known as Digital Rights Management (DRMs) and Technological Rights Management (TPMs) could seriously impact consumer rights as well as the fair use of materials.
The placing of electronic toll booths on the development of digital education raised concerns. The NDP felt then, as we feel now, that legislators need to become aware of the evolving complexities of cyberspace, so that any new legislation will be relevant both to the present and the future. New legislation must also balance the rights of individual creators with those of industry and the public.
The NDP is committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure that artists receive fair remuneration for their work. We are also obliged to reject restrictive copyright legislation that could be used to: quash the development of new digital distribution models; sue kids who share music files; and, impose tollbooths on the educational use of the Internet.
Please rest assured that the NDP caucus, led by the work of NDP MP Charlie Angus, will be studying all recommendations and developing positions on the many facets of potential copyright legislation. While there are no simple answers to this very complex issue, we will work to ensure the government brings forward copyright legislation that is both comprehensive and relevant.
I appreciate the time you have taken to register your views and concerns about this important issue. All the best.
Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats"
This is what I posted to Prentice, Harper, my MP, and 2 others:
Subject: Canadian Copyright Bill AKA CDMCA
Dear Minister Prentice
It is believed that on Tuesday, the 11th of December 2007 you are expected to introduce new copyright legislation without public consultation. I would like to inform you of my sadness that you are letting a great opportunity to lead the Canadian people fall by the wayside. In my work as a scientific researcher I am intimately associated with the use and creation of copyrighted works and patented ideas so I consider myself to be both knowledgeable in the area and directly affected on a daily basis by any new law. The obfuscated process used to create our new copyright law is of great concern to me. It is also a disservice to your stature as a senior politician, to the people of the Calgary riding whom you represent, to Canadians at large, and to Canadian industry – cultural, technical, or otherwise. The anticipated contents of the bill lead me to believe that the benefits of international copyright cartels were considered to the exclusion of many Canadian copyright content generators and Canadian copyright users.
If, as the public suspects, you are intending to introduce, among other things, a Canadian version of the DMCA, you would do well to consider the fate of the original American DMCA: Bruce Lehman, it's architect, has stated publicly that the results of that have not been those that the crafters of the legislation wished. In addition, 2 of the 4 major international music labels are beginning to abandon the DRM technologies that the DMCA was created to protect.
Does Canada really want to follow in failed footsteps or do we want to follow the lead as described in recent Canadian Supreme Court rulings that speaks to the necessity of balance in any copyright policy? Does Canada really want to create a law designed to aid local talent where this talent has explicitly and vociferously rejected such aid?
Prime Minister Harper in his recent throne speech included copyright reform as being one of the priorities of the Canadian government in the coming year but no public consultation has been carried out on digital technology – the area most likely to be addressed by new legislation – for more than 5 years.
Ordinary Canadians such as myself have many issues that we would like addressed in such legislation. I wonder if fair-use, time-shifting, device-shifting, personal and public archiving, free and open educational use, unhindered academic research, notice-and-notice safe harbour provisions, parody, satire, criticism and library access will be addressed with the care, fairness, and balance that they deserve.
You stated on the 6th of December that you would hold consultation and review of the law after it has passed. How can this be logical or sensible? Given the speed with which mature consideration of such complex issues is undertaken we cannot expect any revisions or changes to the law for many years. Canada and Canadians deserve forethought from their government – this new law puts that at risk.
I would therefore hope that you would respond to the recent outcry over this bill by referring it to a committee where its content and merits will be debated in an open and transparent process so as to benefit all Canadians.
Sincerely
CC: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Josee Verner, James Rajotte, Thierry St-Cyr
Here is my letter I have sent to the politicians customized a wee bit for each depending on affliation etc(Prentice, Harper, Dion, Nash (my MP) Layton)
If Dion is looking for a battle of left vs right, imported US vs Canadian ideologies then this is a perfect flash-point. Called Nash's office as well, had a good conversation with them on this, seems they're on our side. Feel free to use any of it if you'd like.
====
I wanted to voice my concern over the upcoming legislation being introduced regarding copyright reform. If media reports and speculation that I have read so far is accurate, then I must respectfully conclude that this is a terrible decision for Canada. The importation of a failed and widely criticized American law serves no purpose for Canada. The only people it serves are seemingly foreign business interests and the US ambassador to Canada, since these have been the only two groups consulted on this critical subject.
As a citizen of Canada I am deeply concerned that we as consumers and private citizens have been left in the cold during the drafting of this reform. The heavy-handed approach of the American DMCA has been shown to favour only a select group of businesses while criminalizing many ordinary people and legitimate businesses. For example, a business who tries to make an after-market product compatible with existing technologies have found themselves on the receiving end of frivolous and anti-competitive lawsuits. The Lexmark case is but one example of many - http://www.eff.org/cases/lexmark-v-static-control-case-archive. If I buy media and wish to shift it to another playing device than I should be able to without breaking the law, if I wish to record a show to watch at a later time I should also be able to do this without having to circumvent locks put in to place that are there not protect the artists like the recording and motion picture industries always tout when justifying their draconian, anti-competitive and greed driven motives but to only preserve an out-dated business model. If it were all about the artists and their content, then why are the majority of artistic groups and association highly critical of this move? Well, besides CRIA, who really doesn't represent the wishes of our Canadian artists since most have come out against their stance on this subject.
Some of the unintended consequences of the US DMCA that we intend to mirror here have been absolutely terrible.
The DMCA Chills Free Expression and Scientific Research.*
Experience with section 1201 demonstrates that it is being used to stifle free speech and scientific research. The lawsuit against 2600 magazine, threats against Princeton Professor Edward Felten's team of researchers, and prosecution of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov have chilled the legitimate activities of journalists, publishers, scientists, students, programmers, and members of the public.
The DMCA Jeopardizes Fair Use.*
By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, the DMCA grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public's fair use rights. Already, the movie industry's use of encryption on DVDs has curtailed consumers' ability to make legitimate, personal-use copies of movies they have purchased.
The DMCA Impedes Competition and Innovation.*
Rather than focusing on pirates, many copyright owners have wielded the DMCA to hinder their legitimate competitors. For example, the DMCA has been used to block aftermarket competition in laser printer toner cartridges, garage door openers, and computer maintenance services. Similarly, Apple invoked the DMCA to chill RealNetworks' efforts to sell music downloads to iPod owners.
The DMCA Interferes with Computer Intrusion Laws.*
Further, the DMCA has been misused as a general-purpose prohibition on computer network access which, unlike most computer intrusion statutes, lacks any financial harm threshold. As a result, a disgruntled employer has used the DMCA against a former contractor for simply connecting to the company's computer system through a VPN.
This reform should be brought to a full consultation process involving normal citizens (2001 is a long time ago, we need another consultation for this reform), Canadian artists, Canadian technology companies, academic associations, the news industry, well the list goes on. It raises my suspicion that this reform would tabled just prior to the Christmas holidays with Minister Prentice refusing to talk to any media outlets or take any questions regarding this beforehand. Then saying he would issue a press release explaining his lack of communication on this subject and then over two weeks later still not issuing any such release.
Another concern regarding this reform, is the lack of any mention about the copying levies we have been paying for years. If you intend to handcuff us and not allow us as Canadian citizens to transfer media that we have paid for, or back up the media we have paid for, then what is the point of these levies?
So in conclusion if my concerns as laid out above are realized, I will have to give my vote to another party in the next federal election, since your promise of a consumer first approach and a transparent government for its citizens will be proven to be nothing but falsehoods.
Regards,
xxxx
Post a Comment