Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

[cybercoma]

Michael Geist raised a good point. This creates separate fair use rules for politicians from the rest of the public. Given what Geist says, this may not pass a constitutional challenge.

[On Guard for Thee]

I suppose we will end up as taxpayers footing the bill for another Harper foray into "stepping" on the constitution and then challenging the SCC, where he will get smacked down again.

Enough already!

[cybercoma]

Well someone has to first go to use copyrighted material. Then challenge the law on the grounds that it discriminates unfairly. It's not at all a sure win.

It will be interesting to see what will happen if a third party tries to run ads using copyrighted materials.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, I always thought that the Copyright law gave you some rights as to the use of your material.

[cybercoma]

Ultimately, this ends up being a case where the government has decided politicians can take other people's property for political gain without compensating them for it. They've also decided to force networks to air segments of their programming out of context, giving the appearance that they endorse whatever message the parties decide to broadcast. Yeah. That's part of the law too. Networks won't be able to turn down political ads that perhaps cast their networks out of context or in a misleading way.

However, at the end of the day, I would simply like to see them open up copyright for everyone. If you're going to say that political parties can do these things, then why can't third parties? The law can't claim it's theft when one person does it, but it's not theft when political parties do it. CTV's Don Martin went so far as to say that this verges on fascism (source).

The most important point that was made yesterday was from Michael Geist. He pointed out the fundamental inconsistency in the Tory position: "an exception that only allows a select few to benefit is not a provision that can be defended on freedom of political speech grounds. We are all entitled to exercise our political speech rights" (source). And he's absolutely right. If the copyright law is infringes political speech rights, then the government cannot make an exception just for politicians, parties, and their agents. By doing so, they tacitly condone limiting the political speech rights of everyone else.

Edited October 10, 2014 by cybercoma

[Keepitsimple]

Excellent article today by Brian Lilley that puts the whole thing in perspective. It has been an ongoing battle for 25 years - right to the Supreme Court. Only a big deal now because it's Harper. Very interesting reading:

Networks Shouldn't Censor Political Ads: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/09/networks-shouldnt-censor-political-ads

Edited October 10, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Excellent article today by Brian Lilley

if, as the Lilypad states, it's about censorship and stifling free speech, why have Harper Conservatives structured the proposed changes to only apply to political parties? Is the unwashed common man not entitled to the same?

[Keepitsimple]

if, as the Lilypad states, it's about censorship and stifling free speech, why have Harper Conservatives structured the proposed changes to only apply to political parties? Is the unwashed common man not entitled to the same?

From the article, it appears that the broadcasters started this latest battle earlier this year, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling. The government now seems to be considering legislation to put into law what was deemed legal by the Supreme Court. That said - if legislation is presented and passed, I wouldn't be surprised to see challenges from non-government sources (AKA Unions) to use content similarly. Not sure how to square the circle on that one. Guess we'll have to wait and see what, if any legislation actually comes forward. Who knows, maybe it's all a smokescreen to make the public aware of the potential "censorship" - allowing those dastardly Conservatives to continue to accuse the media of bias, real or not.

[Boges]

The CBC is upset the CPC used a video of JT telling Peter Mansbridge that the Boston Bombers must have felt excluded from society.

I suspect they aren't so worried about intellectual properties as they don't like that something on their network might actually hurt JT.

[waldo]

The CBC is upset the CPC used a video of JT telling Peter Mansbridge that the Boston Bombers must have felt excluded from society.

I suspect they aren't so worried about intellectual properties as they don't like that something on their network might actually hurt JT.

why are you singling out the CBC? There were 4 major news outlets (CTV, Rogers, Global and the CBC) that brought notice to their concerns.

[waldo]

From the article, it appears that the broadcasters started this latest battle earlier this year, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling. The government now seems to be considering legislation to put into law what was deemed legal by the Supreme Court. That said - if legislation is presented and passed, I wouldn't be surprised to see challenges from non-government sources (AKA Unions) to use content similarly. Not sure how to square the circle on that one. Guess we'll have to wait and see what, if any legislation actually comes forward. Who knows, maybe it's all a smokescreen to make the public aware of the potential "censorship" - allowing those dastardly Conservatives to continue to accuse the media of bias, real or not.

no - there's nothing in the SCCs 6-part conditional testing that steps outside/beyond existing law... how could there be? There is nothing in the SCC ruling that speaks to a delineation of 'fair use' exception for political advertising purposes. Care to describe what your statements are based upon?

[jkoblovsky]

From the article, it appears that the broadcasters started this latest battle earlier this year, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling. The government now seems to be considering legislation to put into law what was deemed legal by the Supreme Court. That said - if legislation is presented and passed, I wouldn't be surprised to see challenges from non-government sources (AKA Unions) to use content similarly. Not sure how to square the circle on that one. Guess we'll have to wait and see what, if any legislation actually comes forward. Who knows, maybe it's all a smokescreen to make the public aware of the potential "censorship" - allowing those dastardly Conservatives to continue to accuse the media of bias, real or not.

I've been following this situation and investigating as an independent blogger. I don't think the situation here has anything to do with not liking the Conservatives. The motive seems to be purely political on this issue of copyright and fair dealing provisions within law, which are essential for free speech. Documentation has surfaced today that coincides with that view, and paints a rather ominous picture of a planned political attack against the Conservatives over the Broadcast Media Consortium's political views on copyright policy, in which Mr. Peter Mansbridge was privy too. Email's accessed through an access to information request are posted in my latest blog, along with interviews and blog posts from copyright lawyers on this subject.

The issue of media independence is an important bi-partisan issue. From the looks of things, the Broadcast Media Consortium is using political discourse around the issue of attack ads to lobby the public for change to the fair dealings provision in the copyright act. For further info, and links, please see my blog post:

http://jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/is-canadas-broadcast-media-consortium-using-attack-ad-scandal-to-push-copyright-political-agenda/

Edited October 11, 2014 by jkoblovsky

[Keepitsimple]

I've been following this situation and investigating as an independent blogger. I don't think the situation here has anything to do with not liking the Conservatives. The motive seems to be purely political on this issue of copyright and fair dealing provisions within law, which are essential for free speech. Documentation has surfaced today that coincides with that view, and paints a rather ominous picture of a planned political attack against the Conservatives over the Broadcast Media Consortium's political views on copyright policy, in which Mr. Peter Mansbridge was privy too. Email's accessed through an access to information request are posted in my latest blog, along with interviews and blog posts from copyright lawyers on this subject.

The issue of media independence is an important bi-partisan issue. From the looks of things, the Broadcast Media Consortium is using political discourse around the issue of attack ads to lobby the public for change to the fair dealings provision in the copyright act. For further info, and links, please see my blog post:

http://jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/is-canadas-broadcast-media-consortium-using-attack-ad-scandal-to-push-copyright-political-agenda/

Very interesting - good reading. Thanks.

[Michael Hardner]

This seems like a strange issue to spin politically, as all parties would get the same rights as far as I can see.

[waldo]

This seems like a strange issue to spin politically, as all parties would get the same rights as far as I can see.

is there a rights spin that speaks to a delineation of "all political parties" versus "other"?

colour me skeptical in a presumptive reliance upon "fair dealing"... particularly the short campaign duration associated after a writ drop. Is it (somewhat) naive to expect the courts to find and apply related rulings within that campaign period? Damage done... too late, so sad, too bad!

[jkoblovsky]

This seems like a strange issue to spin politically, as all parties would get the same rights as far as I can see.

Right now under law, everyone will have the same rights, from news agencies, to political parties to you and me. The Conservatives are just pissed off because media wants to get paid for the fair use of their works. That's been the case since the last copyright consultation. Rights holders hate, I mean, really despise fair use.

Offside of attack ads, fair use is an important part of the copyright act that's used to criticize public policy. There are tons of examples of Youtube pulling video's on a copyright complaint, because other parties may not agree with the message. An excellent example of that is with a video made on Youtube last year that was pulled by Youtube on a copyright complaint by Alberta Tourism on the oil sands:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/27/oilsands-video-youtube-alberta_n_3823356.html

Big media is using discourse around attack ads to publically lobby for changes in the fair use laws. No doubt in 2017 when our copyright laws come up for review again, there will be a huge lobby effort by media to kill these laws. In the short term, there's enough case law on fair dealing, there doesn't need to be any changes to current law to satisfy any clarity of that law by the Government. What's needed right now is a follow up and investigation into Canada’s Broadcast Media Consortium's actions on this. They quite clearly hold a political view on fair dealing, and seem to be spinning that view using discourse around attack ads in their reporting, which is completely wrong, and unacceptable under law as it related to broadcast news reporting.

This is not just a Conservative vs Media issue. What happens if the Liberals or NDP form the next government and big media doesn't like their policies either. What happens then? That’s a much bigger issue than attack ads.

Edited October 11, 2014 by jkoblovsky

[scribblet]

.....hat's needed right now is a follow up and investigation into Canada’s Broadcast Media Consortium's actions on this. They quite clearly hold a political view on fair dealing, and seem to be spinning that view using discourse around attack ads in their reporting, which is completely wrong, and unacceptable under law as it related to broadcast news reporting.

This is not just a Conservative vs Media issue. What happens if the Liberals or NDP form the next government and big media doesn't like their policies either. What happens then? That’s a much bigger issue than attack ads.

Agreed, the media/consortium is withholding information, they are not telling us that this dates back to 1988 and the Liberal Party's appeal to the S.C. which they won. CTV and CBC refused to carry their (Liberal) attack ads because they claimed they owned the video footage. The LPC won the appeal. Which begs the question, shouldn't that ruling figure into this somehow ?

[jkoblovsky]

Agreed, the media/consortium is withholding information, they are not telling us that this dates back to 1988 and the Liberal Party's appeal to the S.C. which they won. CTV and CBC refused to carry their (Liberal) attack ads because they claimed they owned the video footage. The LPC won the appeal. Which begs the question, shouldn't that ruling figure into this somehow ?

Page 112 paragraph 2 of CBC's internal documents indicate they knew the fair dealing route would not be successful

https://www.scribd.com/doc/242562324/CBC-Political-Ads-ATIP

Yet all stations choose to break the story on misleading the public on fair dealing.

[scribblet]

Page 112 paragraph 2 of CBC's internal documents indicate they knew the fair dealing route would not be successful

https://www.scribd.com/doc/242562324/CBC-Political-Ads-ATIP

Yet all stations choose to break the story on misleading the public on fair dealing.

The 'consortium' is being disingenuous and definitely misleading, at the least by omission. Lib. Ralph Goodale says it's expropriation, without compensation, it degrades integrity and freedom of the press etc. I wonder if he feels the same way about the Liberal Party's S.C. appeal on the very similar issue. Which they won !!!

ETA: This isn't even legislation yet, it was just a leaked memo, yet people are getting really frothy about it. -

Edited October 11, 2014 by scribblet

[ReeferMadness]

This seems like a strange issue to spin politically, as all parties would get the same rights as far as I can see.

Really?? You really don't see the issue?

Imagine you have a hockey league. In this hockey league, the people who won last time get to set all the rules of the game. I know that's a crazy way to run a league but that's what we have. Now, in this case, the league champions got there by building a team of the biggest, roughest, dirtiest players they could find. They specialize in intimidating and, where possible, injuring star players on opposing teams. With 3 months left in the season, they change the rules to eliminate major penalties and game misconducts. Penalties are now all 2 minutes. They claim they're doing this to improve the flow of the game. Obviously, you have no problem with this scenario. After all, it's the same rules for everyone.

Now imagine that hockey actually mattered. Instead of being just a goofy game obsessed over by people who never grew up, it has direct and serious impacts on peoples lives.

Now do you get it?

[scribblet]

Really?? You really don't see the issue?

.........

Now do you get it?

I don't, your analogy doesn't make any sense. It is nothing but a proposal to allow all political parties to use sound bites/clips in their ads... Fair use...

[ReeferMadness]

Right now under law, everyone will have the same rights, from news agencies, to political parties to you and me. The Conservatives are just pissed off because media wants to get paid for the fair use of their works. That's been the case since the last copyright consultation. Rights holders hate, I mean, really despise fair use.

Offside of attack ads, fair use is an important part of the copyright act that's used to criticize public policy. There are tons of examples of Youtube pulling video's on a copyright complaint, because other parties may not agree with the message. An excellent example of that is with a video made on Youtube last year that was pulled by Youtube on a copyright complaint by Alberta Tourism on the oil sands:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/27/oilsands-video-youtube-alberta_n_3823356.html

Big media is using discourse around attack ads to publically lobby for changes in the fair use laws. No doubt in 2017 when our copyright laws come up for review again, there will be a huge lobby effort by media to kill these laws. In the short term, there's enough case law on fair dealing, there doesn't need to be any changes to current law to satisfy any clarity of that law by the Government. What's needed right now is a follow up and investigation into Canada’s Broadcast Media Consortium's actions on this. They quite clearly hold a political view on fair dealing, and seem to be spinning that view using discourse around attack ads in their reporting, which is completely wrong, and unacceptable under law as it related to broadcast news reporting.

This is not just a Conservative vs Media issue. What happens if the Liberals or NDP form the next government and big media doesn't like their policies either. What happens then? That’s a much bigger issue than attack ads.

I've no reason to doubt you when you say that the media companies are playing this to their own advantage. However, your framing of this as big media against the rest of us or even big media against the political parties is badly flawed.

The Conservatives have no problem kowtowing to corporations on other issues. What's happening here is a transparent attempt to make a last minute rule change to the advantage of one party. I admire Michael Geist but focusing on media rights when the rules of democracy are being toyed with is just plain silly.

If this is an honest attempt to deal with media rights, it's easy for the Conservatives to go at this honestly:

1. Put this in front of the house and debate it honestly. Don't bury it in an omnibus bill.

2. Make the law apply to everyone, not just privileging political parties

3. Introduce it at the beginning of their mandate, not less than a year before an election.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't, your analogy doesn't make any sense. It is nothing but a proposal to allow all political parties to use sound bites/clips in their ads... Fair use...

There are none so blind as those who will not see......

[scribblet]

There are none so blind as those who will not see......

ditto

[Michael Hardner]

I don't, your analogy doesn't make any sense. It is nothing but a proposal to allow all political parties to use sound bites/clips in their ads... Fair use...

That seems to be it.