Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

Michael Hardner · October 14, 2014

Yes, that was excellent. It cleared up a lot by highlighting what's ... uh ... not clear.

Cybercoma's concerns are reflected in the second point, but others on this thread (by going against attack ads, many of which come from 3rd parties) seem to be all in favour of having two-tiers of freedom of expression.

jkoblovsky · October 14, 2014

Yes, that was excellent. It cleared up a lot by highlighting what's ... uh ... not clear.

Cybercoma's concerns are reflected in the second point, but others on this thread (by going against attack ads, many of which come from 3rd parties) seem to be all in favour of having two-tiers of freedom of expression.

Interesting development -> Bell Media Removes Two CTV News Video’s Used In Fair Dealing Copyright Debate:

http://canuckpolitics.com/2014/10/14/bell-media-abusing-copyright-law/

So apparently it's not just politicians they have problems with.

scribblet · October 16, 2014

Another one here addressing the concerns, pretty much sums it up very well.

excerpted

http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2014/10/copyright-campaigns-and-lots-of-c-words.html

I’ve been involved with copyright law for longer than I care to admit – indeed, more than three decades. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much confusion and just plain WRONG commentary about a copyright issue as I’ve seen in the last week of Coverage of the issue of copyright and negative political ads.

The prize for the worst coverage of all goes, surprisingly, to someone who one would have thought would appreciate the importance of fair dealing and satire – but apparently does not. That would be Rick Mercer no less – and here’s his remarkably wrong Canard of a rant on the subject. CTV’s Question Period last Sunday wasn’t much better – despite the presence of several highly experienced and reputable journalists who one might have thought would understand the role and importance of fair dealing. Let us hope that this generally dreadful coverage is not related to the “consortium” agreement executed by senior executives of the main Canadian networks last spring, from which Sun News was notably and conspicuously excluded. Perhaps these otherwise usually reliable journalists have just drunk too much of their corporate employer’s Kool Aid over time. In any event, it’s time for some Clarity and hopefully a Conclusion.

waldo · October 16, 2014

Another one here addressing the concerns, pretty much sums it up very well.

very well??? Are those the only raised concerns? Are you missing something else? Your quotes are focused on the media ONLY... and your referenced article itself is essentially a 'puff piece' in terms of the Harper Conservatives roll in all this. So, I guess you're quite comfortable, quite accepting to your fav party's carved out exception and it's burying of the proposal within an omnibus bill - yes?

scribblet · October 16, 2014

For the record, Waldo is on ignore but wasn't logged in so saw his post...

The media is citing what they say is a memorandum to cabinet so are reporting that the gov’t has been working on a new “copyright exception for political advertising” to be inserted into a budget implementation bill. So why would I or anyone comment on rumours and speculation. We don’t know how if they actually will, present something for legislation.

That said, I think the gov’t position is clear in that there is a public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions including what they say in public, so major television networks and other media should not have the ability to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians.

The gov’t believes as shown in links, that this has always been protected under the fair dealing provisions of the law but, if further clarification is needed, they will do that.

Expert Quote:

"Copyright law should not be used to stifle legitimate speech… I am not a fan of attack ads, but attempts to use copyright to claim absolute rights over the use of a portion of a video clip is surely counter to basic principles of fair dealing (in Canada) or fair use." Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, October 8, 2014.

waldo · October 16, 2014

For the record, Waldo is on ignore but wasn't logged in so saw his post...

The media is citing what they say is a memorandum to cabinet so are reporting that the gov’t has been working on a new “copyright exception for political advertising” to be inserted into a budget implementation bill. So why would I or anyone comment on rumours and speculation. We don’t know how if they actually will, present something for legislation.

huh! Rumours... speculation??? If it's all rumour and speculation... just why are you commenting at all then? Why is your summary "concern comment" directly completely towards the media with complete avoidance of the concern being raised toward Harper Conservatives in this matter? You know, that carved out exception thingee! For the record... everyone who claims I'm on their ignore, sure keep commenting on my posts!!! :lol:

Keepitsimple · October 16, 2014

......everyone who claims I'm on their ignore, sure keep commenting on my posts!!!

Actually Waldo - I also still have you on Ignore - but it's for practical purposes.....your posts are just too frequent and too long (and boring ) and it's a pain to keep scrolling past them. Having you on Ignore still allows me to open one of your posts, if I choose to do so.

Smallc · October 16, 2014

It also allows me to not get sucked into a situation of circular logic...

waldo · October 16, 2014

Actually Waldo - I also still have you on Ignore - but it's for practical purposes.....your posts are just too frequent and too long (and boring ) and it's a pain to keep scrolling past them. Having you on Ignore still allows me to open one of your posts, if I choose to do so.

no - you're the other guy forever claiming to have me on ignore... while you continue to reply to my posts. As before, as always, whenever you trot out your ignore ploy, I will highlight that you originally did so because you took exception to me highlighting and challenging your position on abortion and your want/zeal to have "morality legislated". Carry on... continue to ignore me... and reply to me! :lol:

Edited October 16, 2014 by waldo

waldo · October 16, 2014

It also allows me to not get sucked into a situation of circular logic...

huh! I don't recall having anything protracted to do with you outside of the F-35 thread... and in that regard, you've taken exception to me continually calling you out for refusing to provide any information that speaks to the current testing/capabilities/etc., status of your favoured "paper tiger" F-35. So calling you out on your refusal to provide any substantive information is what you call "circular logic", hey?

scribblet · October 16, 2014

It also allows me to not get sucked into a situation of circular logic...

Agreed and with KIS.... I still believe the larger issue is what re-ignited this, that of the media stifling legitimate free speech.

waldo · October 16, 2014

I still believe the larger issue is what re-ignited this, that of the media stifling legitimate free speech.

how so? The media had... and has no obligation to carry political ads outside of writ periods. Since Harper Conservatives are in perpetual campaign mode, they took exception... and moved to propose their own (political party focused) exception.

by the by, since when are manipulated, out of context/no context, vindictive, slimeball, smearing political ads the cornerstone of "legitimate free speech"?

poochies · October 17, 2014

Was the liberals troops in the streets ad not as equally slimy? Im not sure what portion of our society is actually so sensitive to attack ads as to find them unbearable, but there does seem to be many people who lament the inability of their leaders to say the right things and the ability of their opposition to exploit that failure.

For example, the whipping out the CF18's comment was very dumb, and under no context can you say that and have it not be dumb, and no amount of twisting can make it otherwise. So sure, the conservatives will take things out of context, and they will distort some of the quotes, but considering some of the things Trudeau has said, not much distortion is required. There is never a good context within which to make penis jokes about warplanes while we are planning to send them to war. It's pretty clear to me the the CBC and others involved in this are desperate to protect Trudeau, they have seen how weak he is. The change in law is only a response to this new tack being used by the media to prevent fair use.

scribblet · October 17, 2014

Was the liberals troops in the streets ad not as equally slimy? Im not sure what portion of our society is actually so sensitive to attack ads as to find them unbearable, but there does seem to be many people who lament the inability of their leaders to say the right things and the ability of their opposition to exploit that failure.

.....................

Just as slimy as the one supposedly quoting Harper saying 'you won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it', still repeated as fact in some circles and erroneously attributed to a 1997 speech Harper made to Americans. In fact, it's a great example of successful some ads are.

The media says the parties have to ask permission to use their material, what guarantee do we have that their permissions are not biased or selective. What is to say they will only give permission for the Liberals or NDP to use their material. If this starts to happen someone is going to have to keep track of who asked permission and the answers.

Michael Hardner · October 17, 2014

repeated as fact in some circles and erroneously attributed to a 1997 speech Harper made to Americans. In fact, it's a great example of successful some ads are.

Is it inaccurate ? Really ? Cite - I'd like to know.

waldo · October 17, 2014

Was the liberals troops in the streets ad not as equally slimy?

you mean the ad that was on the Liberal web site for a couple of hours only... and only ever on the website, before being taken down, that ad? You mean the ad that got all it's exposure due to Harper Conservatives plying the media over the ad. That ad?

waldo · October 17, 2014

It's pretty clear to me the the CBC and others involved in this are desperate to protect Trudeau, they have seen how weak he is.

of course! The media party conspiracy!!! ~~Ezrant~~ poochies, is that you?

Boges · October 17, 2014

For example, the whipping out the CF18's comment was very dumb, and under no context can you say that and have it not be dumb, and no amount of twisting can make it otherwise.

Is this "scandal" really about the CPC getting permission from someone (because I'm sure every major media outlet in Canada a camera on that scrum) to use the video of him saying that idiotic comment in an attack ad even though it's public record that he said it?

The is a very silly and tedious debate.

scribblet · October 17, 2014

Is it inaccurate ? Really ? Cite - I'd like to know.

He did not say 'you won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it' - I've seen this repeated in numerous blogs where they attribute it to a 1997 speech Harper made in the U.S. I have the text of that somewhere if you want it.

What Mr. Harper actually said In fact was in 2004 at a Conservative convention and quite different. “We can create a country built on solid Conservative values, not on expensive Liberal promises, a country the Liberals wouldn’t even recognize, the kind of country I want to lead.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/01/transcript-stephen-harper-the-mansbridge-interview-part-one.html

Michael Hardner · October 17, 2014

What Mr. Harper actually said In fact was in 2004 at a Conservative convention and quite different. “We can create a country built on solid Conservative values, not on expensive Liberal promises, a country the Liberals wouldn’t even recognize, the kind of country I want to lead.”

You know, I love a good misquote. It upends the whole concept of common wisdom. Nobody in Casablanca said "play it again, Sam"; Kirk never said "beam me up, Scotty"; Obi-Wan never said "may the force be with you"

But... I really need an attribution here.

I have done a cursory Google search, and there doesn't seem to be a link. This is the closest thing:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/05/noah-richler-a-nation-playing-war/

scribblet · October 17, 2014

I gave you a link, but now I see it doesn't work, Richler is lying, it was the Liberals who said that. try this one

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/01/transcript-stephen-harper-the-mansbridge-interview-part-one.html.

The Power of Negative Advertising

During the January 2006 election campaign Liberal Party ads grossly distorted some quotes of Conservative Stephen Harper and added the tag line “We’re not making this up.”

While some of the quotes were accurate, others were not. One Liberal ad, for example, quoted Mr. Harper as saying, “You won’t recognize Canada when I get through with it.” In fact, Mr. Harper said in 2004, “We can create a country built on solid Conservative values, not on expensive Liberal promises, a country the Liberals wouldn’t even recognize, the kind of country I want to lead.”

This reference the negative ads and that particular one

https://suite.io/rupert-taylor/1hrx238

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2014

Ok, Scribblet - we're close. We have a quote from Harper, and an allegation that it was distorted. If we had an official denial from some Conservative source then I'd be satisfied that we had something. The quotes I have seen also attribute it to a speech Harper made to an American group.

To be clear - I now have severe doubts that he said that but I'd still like something more. Let's both keep looking.

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2014

Ok... here's a transcript of that speech:

http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2011/12/24/text-of-1997-speech-by-stephen-harper-to-us-right-wing-think-tank-2/

And the damning quote is only added as a comment at the end by the poster, but not attributed to Harper. So now have two likely sources for the quote - both transcripted in full - and neither of those have him saying it. So I'm going to amend my position to say that there is no evidence that he ever said that, and that he was likely misquoted.

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2014

Wiki's list of sourced quotes:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

The quote isn't there.

Bob Macadoo · October 18, 2014

So here is to add some silly to this grey, drab debate.

Can Harper add "The Bitch is Back" - Elton John as his background in the ad without permission? I think its fair use. After all its in the name of democracy. Sir Elton wouldn't want to get in the way of democracy. Are ALL content providers subject to this or just news organizations?