Digital Copyright Canada
Digital Copyright Canada
I received a reply from Heritage Minister James Moore dated December 2, 2011. I'm not certain which letter it was in reply to, but it could have been my Who is the Candice Hoeppner for information technology owners? letter I sent to all Conservative MP's back in May/June.
While I am posting the full text of his reply, I wanted to offer a quick response explaining why I think he is wrong on the impacts of the "technological protection measures" aspects of Bill C-11. (See: earlier article for a description of real-world technologies being discussed)
On November 14, 2011 we had the third time when the House of Commons debated Bill C-11 (at Second Reading).
The most notable aspect of the debate for me is how the Conservatives are going out of their way to conflate the WIPO Paracopyright provisions (tied to infringing purposes, no restriction on circumvention tools, etc) and the non-WIPO (beyond-WIPO) Paracopyright provisions.
The hansard for Tuesday, October 18, 2011 includes a transcript of the first day of debate of Bill C-11. The debate is at second reading, after which it will be sent to a committee.
The debate started a little after 10:30, and continued to 14:00 when "Statements by Members" proceedings interrupted. Debate continued after question period (and a point of privilege) at 15:15 and continued (with a few of the normal interruptions) until 18:30.
Christian Paradis (Mégantic--L'Érable), the previous Minister of Natural Resources, is now the Minister of Industry.
Ed Fast (Abbotsford), who was one of the MPs in the C-32 committee, is the Minister of International Trade.
James Moore (Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam) remains the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and Gary Goodyear (Cambridge) remains the Minister of State (Science and Technology).
Saying this was an interesting election to watch would be an understatement. The Conservatives received the majority they asked for with 167(54.2%) seats, but that wasn’t the biggest story for me last night. The NDP is now the official opposition with 102 seats, the Liberals are down to 34 seats, the Bloc may fade out of existence having barely kept 4 seats, and Green party leader Elizabeth May won her seat. It is clear that change was in the air, and change we received.
Now we will move to the hard part of governing. The Conservatives have some Progressive Conservative types who may be willing to aggressively ensure that Mr. Harper governs close to the center.
The NDP have a large, but very young and new caucus. Their learning curve is going to be massive, and there will be some bumps along the way which they will need to be very careful about.
The Liberals now need to take the time to figure out where they go from here, as will the Bloc who I hope will decide that the days of having a separatist party within the federal parliament are now over.
This is turning out to be a more exciting election than it seemed heading into it. While a Conservative majority or minority still seems most likely, who would have guessed that an NDP minority government or NDP official opposition was on the table? Who would have predicted the collapse of the Bloc support in Quebec?
While the mangling of voter intention caused by our antiquated First Past the Post electoral system makes it hard to predict outcomes, I'm pretty confident about some districts. There are a number of specific districts I will be watching closely election night, with most (but not all) based on my interest in technology law.
According to CTV news and CBC-Radio Canada, past Heritage Minister James Moore has decided to step out of the election race to work for Apple Computer, inc. While it is not unprecedented for past cabinet ministers to leave politics for jobs in the private sector, of even for nominated candidates to step out after the election is called, this is an unusual combination.
Today Ministers Clement and Moore had a little show in Ottawa's Rideau Center where they made statements about the so-called "iPod tax". (See press release)
I find it frustrating that the Ministers claim to be so concerned about a levy on devices, while at the same time including legal support for non-owner locks on our devices in C-32. If I had to choose between non-owner locks or levies, I would choose levies every time. This whole exercise seems to be smoke and mirrors aimed at misdirecting technology owners from the attack on their rights embedded within C-32.
On August 5'th I received an email that was "From: firstname.lastname@example.org". It had no content, but two file attachments - one HTML and one GIF. Thunderbird warned that it was most likely a scam, given this is a common technique used by spammers to avoid SPAM detection software.
I extracted the file attachments, and I wasn't all that surprised to learn that it was a form letter originating from the Heritage Minister's office. This isn't the most technologically literate Minister or department in Canada, and it was unlikely that ensuring emails wouldn't be confused as SPAM or scams would be something they would know much about.
The GIF image was a scan of a form letter, which reads as follows. Having read it, I think Thunderbird was right to have automatically detected it as a scam.
Author, broadcaster, editor, journalist, musician, negotiator, singer, and MP Charlie Angus has released a letter to Heritage Minister James Moore discussing how the Minister has his facts wrong on Copyright.
It is great that we have an actual creator in parliament, able to speak on behalf of fellow creators, rather than too many parliamentarians that get confused by intermediaries falsely claiming to represent creators!
When I first heard a group outside of the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) or Creative Commons movement use the word "CopyLeft", I thought they were simply using the term incorrectly. (See: Independent authors just wanting a little respect... from fellow creators and collective societies from 2006)
In the FLOSS movement it means something similar to ShareAlike with Creative Commons: the license says the copyrighted work can be freely shared (without additional permission/payment) as long as any derivatives are equally shared. The licensing model is not opposed to copyright in any way, and focuses on material rewards in the form of additional creative works rather than royalties.
I continue to hear the term "copy left" used, sometimes by those who consider it a positive term, but more often by people who are trying to use the term in a derogatory manner. In this context the term is not being used to reference to a licensing model, but a political philosophy.
This suggests that the term "copy left" references a liberal creators' rights philosophy, and the "copy right" refers to a conservative creators' rights philosophy. It is only a coincidence that those on the "copy left" also support CopyLeft style licensing.
(Including full article here -- configuration issue at IT World Canada. Read full article on IT World Canada's blog >> )
Canada Newswire has posted video of the speech given by Heritage Minister James Moore. His closing, at around 7 minutes into the second video, is a rant against people like myself who are critical of aspects of the bill which are harmful to creators.
IMHO My most radical view in this debate has been that legal protection for technical measures has to respect the Canadian constitution, and that TPMs protecting contracting and eCommerce be legally protected in the appropriate provincial legislation.
It is important we know what type of extremism we are up against with the current Heritage Minister, in order for us to push forward amendments that will make C-32 less harmful to the interests of Canadian creators.
(See also: Michael Geist's comments)
I embedded the videos below.
From the Twitter support site, "Blocking prevents a user from following you, sending you an @reply or @mention, or putting your account on any of their lists."
Heritage Minister James Moore, the Minister who is said to be largely responsible for the use of DMCA language in C-32 rather than the use of WIPO language for technical measures, has gone as far as blocking me access to follow his tweets. It is one thing for him to have ignored the large number of creators opposing components of C-32, and it is yet another to seek to avoid any accountability and transparency.
This person has protected their tweets.
You need to send a request before you can start following this person.
The new bill is now on the order paper. Like Bill C-61, and unlike previous Liberal bills, it will be tabled by the Minister of Industry rather than the Minister of Heritage.
In an interview ahead of the Juno Awards in St. John’s, Heritage Minister James Moore told Canwest News Service the government plans to introduce a new copyright bill this spring.
The Minister of International Trade is now Peter Van Loan, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs remains with Lawrence Cannon. It can be argued that these ministers, and not Industry or Heritage, actually have the primary responsibility for Copyright law given Copyright is primarily set in trade and treaty negotiations.