Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

[waldo]

Without breaking forum rules, Circular is an excellent analogy when I get into these arguments with said member.

ah shucks, you guys... if you can't best the waldo, play your circular jerk card!

[PIK]

Harper used attack ads quite successfully against Ignatief, even though they were mostly bullshit. So why wouldn't he want to try them again, ethics/truth who gives a fig? He's got a bucketful lined up against JT of course, but hey, I bet they backfire big time this time. I think people now see through the Harper sleaze.

And where is iggy as we speak???

[waldo]

And where is iggy as we speak???

not relevant to this thread PIK... oh wait, gutter/sleaze/manipulation/out of context ends justifiy the means, hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

And where is iggy as we speak???

He has circular jerked right back to Harvard in the USA...just like the ads said he would.

[waldo]

He has circular jerked right back to Harvard in the USA...just like the ads said he would.

not relevant to the thread. Please try to stay on thread topic... for whatever possible interest it might have for a claimed foreign national.

[waldo]

Harper Conservative Problem: May 2014: major broadcasters including CTV, CBC, Global and Rogers sent a letter to all federal and provincial parties serving notice that they would "no longer accept any political advertisement which uses our content without our express authorization".

Harper Conservative Solution: negate intellectual property rights of broadcasters/media by surreptitiously burying an intended change to related copyright law within an omnibus bill.

[Boges]

Harper Conservative Problem: May 2014: major broadcasters including CTV, CBC, Global and Rogers sent a letter to all federal and provincial parties serving notice that they would "no longer accept any political advertisement which uses our content without our express authorization".

Harper Conservative Solution: negate intellectual property rights of broadcasters/media by surreptitiously burying an intended change to related copyright law within an omnibus bill.

Sounds clever to me.

[waldo]

Sounds clever to me.

Harper Conservatives showing no respect for intellectual property rights, to you, is clever?

[Boges]

Harper Conservatives showing no respect for intellectual property rights, to you, is clever?

The Networks can still refuse money from the CPC to run ads can't they?

[waldo]

The Networks can still refuse money from the CPC to run ads can't they?

double down Boges, double down! Tell me, just what is your claimed libetarian position on patents and copyrights?

[Boges]

double down Boges, double down! Tell me, just what is your claimed libetarian position on patents and copyrights?

Lots of lines are being blurred.

I do think think the issue is pretty a pretty ballsy play by the CPC. But it's kind the same thing as we do every day by posting links to articles to make a political point.

They do it in the House during Question Period all the time.

"Mr. Speaker X-Publication reported today that you did guys X. What is the minister's response to such a horrific display?"

These attack ads would be doing the exact same thing.

The networks can think of the windfall in much needed ad revenue as payment for using their intellectual properties.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

The problem with this copyright legislation is that it creates an incentive for parties to ensure that their MPs are scripted at all times. That means we'll get more mind-numbing responses to live questions from reporters like Evan Solomon. We've all seen Tory MPs go on the news circuit and read scripted responses that have nothing to do with the questions posed to them. This new legislation will only encourage all the parties to draft up strict talking points and come down harshly on MPs who drift from their set speeches. Scripted MPs are not in the spirit of a free and open democracy and it's also antithetical to the Westminster System. That's what this legislation encourages and we should all be very concerned. Those who were looking for openness and accountability or looking for the Tories to establish systems that create openness and accountability are getting the exact opposite with this government.

[waldo]

These attack ads would be doing the exact same thing.

you've already declared you could care less about context; effectively you're saying you could care less about the truth in advertising. Considering that advertising is intended to shape political will/outcome, you're stating you could care less about how that shaping is done... you could care less if its done falsely and/or is based on outright lies.

The networks can think of the windfall in much needed ad revenue as payment for using their intellectual properties.

you've already put the onus/burden of policing those attack ads back onto the media. Are you stating there's another form of payment in that for the media as well... or is this simply included in your catch-all payment for foregoing intellectual property rights?

[Keepitsimple]

A salient point is that the media has said far more negative things about Harper and the Conservatives than about the opposition parties - especially the kid-glove treatment so far given to Trudeau. So those same opposition parties should have much more fact-based fodder to put in their "attack" ads - at no charge for the content. Where's the problem? If anyone thinks the NDP and Liberals will not be spewing out half-truths about the Harper gang - they just haven't been watching QP, CBC or reading the Star. Here's a famous LIberal attack ad for your enjoyment:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUvvBWLpXdk

and here's the famous "Soldiers with Guns":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsqEph7a8I

The only reason it was so short-lived was that it was so bad - and created such a backlash that they just had to remove it.....but it shows how nasty these LIberals can be.....there's no "high road" when it comes to our political parties - all of them.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Boges]

you've already declared you could care less about context; effectively you're saying you could care less about the truth in advertising. Considering that advertising is intended to shape political will/outcome, you're stating you could care less about how that shaping is done... you could care less if its done falsely and/or is based on outright lies.

How could they be telling outright lies if they're using Media reports to make their points? They're trying to lend a sense of legitimacy to their claims by using the media to back up what narrative is.

you've already put the onus/burden of policing those attack ads back onto the media. Are you stating there's another form of payment in that for the media as well... or is this simply included in your catch-all payment for foregoing intellectual property rights?

What would the media's excuse be, to not allow a report that was made public not be used in political advertising? Either they're fishing for some royalties or the message they think is being sent goes against their own partisan slant.

[Boges]

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUvvBWLpXdk

Did the Liberals get approval for all the footage used in that ad?!?!?!?!

[cybercoma]

A salient point is that the media has said far more negative things about Harper and the Conservatives than about the opposition partie

Actually, that's not very salient at all. Go ahead and back that up with some sort of evidence that the media, that is generally all media, have said far more negative things about Harper and the Conservatives than the opposition. That's something that is certainly observable and verifiable.

After you've done that, assuming you manage to show that they've said far more negative things, be sure to show that this is a problem, that this somehow means the Conservatives are being treated unfairly and that the negative things were not warranted or were beyond the scope of negative things that the media says about all sitting governments.

I won't hold my breath, so take your time.

[Keepitsimple]

Actually, that's not very salient at all. Go ahead and back that up with some sort of evidence that the media, that is generally all media, have said far more negative things about Harper and the Conservatives than the opposition. That's something that is certainly observable and verifiable.

After you've done that, assuming you manage to show that they've said far more negative things, be sure to show that this is a problem, that this somehow means the Conservatives are being treated unfairly and that the negative things were not warranted or were beyond the scope of negative things that the media says about all sitting governments.

I won't hold my breath, so take your time.

Don't want you to turn blue. While I do think there is a bias in the overall media, it's also their job to scrutinize and criticize the government - and that rightly comes from the official opposition and sometimes the LIberals. It's not the job of the media to beat up the opposition - until they are in an election cycle. As you've seen on this forum - every major issue - and minor ones as well - undergoes scrutiny and criticisms that are mostly found in the media. The opposition parties have no policies to criticize - because they are not the government. They haven't done anything - just criticized. Take a breath now.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[PIK]

not relevant to this thread PIK... oh wait, gutter/sleaze/manipulation/out of context ends justifiy the means, hey?

On guard for thee, opened the door. And if he was running the country there would be boots on the ground. He was a war monger. Edited October 9, 2014 by PIK

[waldo]

On guard for thee, opened the door. And if he was running the country there would be boots on the ground. He was a war monger.

try again! If your measure of 'war monger' labeling is once declared support for the illegal failed U.S. invasion of Iraq, what does that say about how would label your boy Harper? In any case, again, not relevant to this thread - carry on.

[waldo]

from the Harper Conservative MP sponsoring this end-around attempt to ursurp media/broadcaster's intellectual property rights... yup, who can be/go against those who would fight censorship! Makes one long for the return of Vic Toews!

Major television networks should not have the ability to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians

[Topaz]

What are the Tories noted for....half truths, no truths, spinning and taking quotes out of context. Would we expect anything different from this party, no. If they can't run on what they have done, then go on the attack and change the channel.

[On Guard for Thee]

from the Harper Conservative MP sponsoring this end-around attempt to ursurp media/broadcaster's intellectual property rights... yup, who can be/go against those who would fight censorship! Makes one long for the return of Vic Toews!

As I recall those who opposed Vic Toews before were labelled child pornographers. What label might they drum up this time around I wonder?

[On Guard for Thee]

I have been trying to get a handle on exactly what the legal aspects of this proposed change to copyright will amount to and I'm still a bit confused. I admit I am much more a farmer than I am a lawyer, so I do know when I smell horseshit! Harper will bring the whole campaign process to a heretofore unknown level of sleazy nonsense.

[ReeferMadness]

I see the usual crowd of apologists for Chairman Harper have showed up to proIvide the normal quota of BS and obfuscation. Let's break through the nonsense, shall we?

I see 5 issues with this legislation:

1. It allows arbitrary and uncredited use of content. How you feel about that will depend on your views. Michael Geist, for example, doesn't find this particularly troubling.

2. It privileges political parties above the rest of us when it comes to freedom of speech. Nobody should feel good about this.

3. It will facilitate attack ads and sleazy advertising tactics such as partial clips or segments shown out of context. This will lower the level of discourse (just when you thought that wasn't possible), confuse voters and harm democratic choice.

4. It was buried in an omnibus bill. An honest government would have at least put it in front of parliament and explained their intent. Nobody ever accused Harper of being too honest. Which leads us to the most serious issue....

5. Whatever the actual impact, it was clearly intended to provide an electoral advantage to the ruling party. This behaviour is beneath contempt and has no place in democracy.