Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

cybercoma · October 25, 2014

Now you're trolling.

I'm not trolling. Your response made absolutely no sense. You said everyone, including the politicians already had these rights. If they already had them, then an amendment to the law is unnecessary. The law is already in place to allow it.

If you think that's trolling, then I've misunderstood what you're saying and I would probably benefit from you explaining yourself a lot more clearly.

Edited October 25, 2014 by cybercoma

Bryan · October 25, 2014

I'm not trolling. Your response made absolutely no sense. You said everyone, including the politicians already had these rights. If they already had them, then an amendment to the law is unnecessary. The law is already in place to allow it.

If you think that's trolling, then I've misunderstood what you're saying and I would probably benefit from you explaining yourself a lot more clearly.

You are trolling. I explained the difference clearly.

cybercoma · October 25, 2014

You are trolling. I explained the difference clearly.

I'm telling you now that I don't understand what you've explained and am now asking a third time for you to explain it more clearly.

Bryan · October 25, 2014

The media consortium is trying to circumvent the current law. Even though their own lawyers have told them this is ill advised, and most likely illegal. Because the media wants to apply different rules regarding fair dealings that are specifically targeted at political parties, the CPC is considering putting language into the copyright act that makes it crystal clear that they can't do that. It confers NO special rights, it only explicitly confirms that political parties have the SAME rights as everyone else.

On Guard for Thee · October 25, 2014

The media consortium is trying to circumvent the current law. Even though their own lawyers have told them this is ill advised, and most likely illegal. Because the media wants to apply different rules regarding fair dealings that are specifically targeted at political parties, the CPC is considering putting language into the copyright act that makes it crystal clear that they can't do that. It confers NO special rights, it only explicitly confirms that political parties have the SAME rights as everyone else.

Nope. They are simply opposing the proposed amendments. "Fair dealing" does allow for certain material to be used without any permission, for specific reasons. The new law would force media outlets to broadcast their own material in political attack ads. That is the difference and is of course once again why Harper is packing this crap in the midst of yet another budget omnibus bill. For starters it goes against the rights of freedom of association and expression and will once again end up in more expensive court battles as the CPC makes another desperate attempt to get more sleaze into their attack ads.

Bryan · October 25, 2014

They are simply opposing the proposed amendments.

Which party are you calling "they", the media, or the govt?

On Guard for Thee · October 25, 2014

Which party are you calling "they", the media, or the govt?

I don't think the gov. would be opposing their own amendments would they? Yes, "they" is the media.

Bryan · October 25, 2014

I don't think the gov. would be opposing their own amendments would they? Yes, "they" is the media.

Then you have the timeline exactly backwards. The media consortium proclaimed the ban on political advertising that used their content, THEN the government began considering rephrasing the copyright act to specify that they can't do that.

On Guard for Thee · October 25, 2014

So you accept Harper is trying to change copyright.

Bryan · October 25, 2014

So you accept Harper is trying to change copyright.

He's considering ways to prevent people from circumventing the existing rules for fair dealing. Nobody's copyright is changing.

On Guard for Thee · October 25, 2014

He's considering ways to prevent people from circumventing the existing rules for fair dealing. Nobody's copyright is changing.

Perhaps you need to read up a bit. That's exactly what he is proposing to change. But of course he's only proposing it for political parties, which is an abuse of power. I'm sure if he had his way he adjust copyright only for the CPC, but that would be a tad too obvious even for him.

Bryan · October 25, 2014

Perhaps you need to read up a bit. That's exactly what he is proposing to change. But of course he's only proposing it for political parties, which is an abuse of power. I'm sure if he had his way he adjust copyright only for the CPC, but that would be a tad too obvious even for him.

As usual, you're wrong.

On Guard for Thee · October 25, 2014

As usual, you're wrong.

Like I say, study up a bit.

On Guard for Thee · October 25, 2014

Like I say, study up a bit.

And I'll give you a hint: be wary when Harper shoves stuff "under the carpet" in an omnibus budget bill that has nothing to do with budget.

scribblet · October 25, 2014

The media consortium is trying to circumvent the current law. Even though their own lawyers have told them this is ill advised, and most likely illegal. Because the media wants to apply different rules regarding fair dealings that are specifically targeted at political parties, the CPC is considering putting language into the copyright act that makes it crystal clear that they can't do that. It confers NO special rights, it only explicitly confirms that political parties have the SAME rights as everyone else.

Right... it's been explained repeatedly.. note that there are no amendments in the new budget as per the news this morning.

cybercoma · October 25, 2014

The media consortium is trying to circumvent the current law. Even though their own lawyers have told them this is ill advised, and most likely illegal. Because the media wants to apply different rules regarding fair dealings that are specifically targeted at political parties, the CPC is considering putting language into the copyright act that makes it crystal clear that they can't do that. It confers NO special rights, it only explicitly confirms that political parties have the SAME rights as everyone else.

So I'm not misunderstanding your point. The law is already there and you're suggesting that the CPC is re-iterating what's already in the law.

Why is that needed? Why not just take it to court if they already have the right? There's no need to rewrite legislation to restate exactly what it already says.

In other words, what you're arguing makes no sense. The government doesn't re-write the laws to say the same thing they already say. They've made an amendment that gives privileges to political parties. Privileges that no one else has, as it's the political parties who are explicitly named.

If its about free political speech and expression, then that needs to be extended to everyone, not written explicitly for the parties and politicians.

cybercoma · October 25, 2014

The new law would force media outlets to broadcast their own material in political attack ads.

When the writs are dropped, they have to air the ads already. This isn't new.

cybercoma · October 25, 2014

Right... it's been explained repeatedly.. note that there are no amendments in the new budget as per the news this morning.

It's been explained repeatedly and the explanation has been wrong repeatedly.

cybercoma · October 25, 2014

I suggest you two (scribblet and Bryan) actually read the document presented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. You two keep saying these rules already exist, yet it says explicitly in this document over and over again that the Tories are creating an exception. Under the summary point 1 "Cabinet authority to create this exception..."; under the summary point 2 "This exception will provide greater certainty..."; under the summary point 3 "The proposed exception is narrow..."; under the summary point 4 "...the speed with which the exception was developed...". If the rules already exist, then what is being "excepted"?

Over and over in the summary it is referred to as an exception that will be created. Your argument that this is already existing are not even supported by the Conservatives themselves in Shelly Glover's presentation. In their own words, they are creating an exception for "political actors" and only "political actors." They even note in the analysis section that people will see that this supports political expression and "call for it to be broadened to include other political actors." If the legislation already includes other political actors and the amendment just clarifies what already exists, then why would people call for it to be broadened? Why would there be any need if these rights are already protected?

Like I said earlier, your argument is 2 + 2 = 5. This is an exception for political actors, according to the Tories themselves. It is not re-affirming already existing legislation. What you two need to address is why you support a government writing exceptions for itself into legislation to the exclusion of others. I highly doubt you would be OK with the NDP doing this. You would certainly be vocally opposed to the Liberals doing it. And rightfully so. The government changing the rules for itself, even if it includes other political parties, to the exclusion of others is a dangerous road to go down. This sets the precedent that it's ok to have one set of rules for politicians and parties and another set of rules for the public. This is completely unacceptable, especially if this legislation is about free political speech and expression, as the Tories claim.

Edited October 25, 2014 by cybercoma

ironstone · October 25, 2014

All parties use attack ads to some extent and some of them do work.I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the negative ads against Trudeau as he has an enormous amount of supporters in the media who will not hesitate to circle the wagons around him.

Michael Hardner · October 25, 2014

I think you meant to say an enormous *number*

jacee · October 25, 2014

Then you have the timeline exactly backwards. The media consortium proclaimed the ban on political advertising that used their content, THEN the government began considering rephrasing the copyright act to specify that they can't do that.

Trying to understand this ...

In current law, politicians can't use exerpts from media broadcasts in political ads because the media owns the intellectual copyright.

(Media can use political ads in their broadcasts because that's fair use for public education/information.)

Harper wants to change the law/ create an exception ...

to be able to use media material in political ads?

Michael Hardner · October 25, 2014

Sort of. According to the thread, the courts have already ruled that the material can be used in ads as 'fair use', but the idea is for parliament to pass a law stating that explicitly.

cybercoma · October 25, 2014

Sort of. According to the thread, the courts have already ruled that the material can be used in ads as 'fair use', but the idea is for parliament to pass a law stating that explicitly.

The idea was, as presented by Shelly Glover, to "create an exception for political actors." Those are their exact words.

Edited October 25, 2014 by cybercoma

jacee · October 25, 2014

Sort of. According to the thread, the courts have already ruled that the material can be used in ads as 'fair use', but the idea is for parliament to pass a law stating that explicitly.

I see. Hmm ... not sure I agree with the courts then. 'Fair use' is for analysis and public education. Political use is for biased, partisan purposes and personal gain of candidates.

Is that a Supreme Court ruling?

.

Edited October 25, 2014 by jacee