Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

[scribblet]

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.

It does not advantage one party, ALL parties will reap the 'benefits'...

What omnibus bill is it buried in - because right now it's not legislation, it's nothing, it was a leaked memo...

Again, how different is this to the Liberals S.C. appeal which they won

Edited October 11, 2014 by scribblet

[waldo]

- whether you agree with 'fair dealing' or not, why do Harper Conservatives feel the need to go beyond existing "fair reading" law/regulation and propose this "political party (only)" exception?

- again: 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!

[Michael Hardner]

1. Obviously, you have no problem with this scenario. After all, it's the same rules for everyone.

2. Now do you get it?

1. You have to show me why this change would be bad for the "game". I don't see it... As described by the other poster above, this seems to be about "fair use". Why not allow it ?

2. Not really. You have to explain why the change is "bad".

[Michael Hardner]

courts to find and apply related rulings within that campaign period? Damage done... too late, so sad, too bad!

Damaged done to whom ? The broadcasters, maybe ? I'm not that concerned.

[jkoblovsky]

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.

The free press is a pillar of democracy, so is fair use. Without fair use, free speech, criticism, even free press is in jeopardy. I'm not at all arguing for the pig headed moves of the Conservatives on this issue at all, in fact I was quite critical in my blog about the way they've handled it. The media companies are taking advantage of that move to push their own political agenda in copyright law, which is wrong especially in laws that govern the independence of free press and balanced reporting in broadcast news. Conservatives and media are both at fault on how they have handled it, and you can also add comments from both Liberals and NDP on this current issue to that as well.

To put this another way, these media companies knew about the fact that they have a substantially weak legal case on fair use (documented and linked to that in my last post on this thread). If they knew that their content was authorized for free use under the law, than why are they stating the Conservatives are stealing it without authorization, when they know the law doesn't require authorization in the first place? And in fact news organizations use content in the exact same way under the law hundreds of times a day without compensation either when reporting on the news.

So why is media and journalists misleading the public on the law when reporting on this issue? Simple answer is they want to get paid for any use of their content. They don't like giving stuff away free under fair use. That's quite obvious from the way this story was framed from day one, and a lot of commentary not by legal experts, but by journalists who are content producers and rights holders pushing that issue forward. It's a political position against fair use laws many of us in the policy trenches studying the copyright issue saw in the copyright consultations in 2009. The job of broadcast media when reporting on the news is not to take a position on anything. Report on both sides of the story, and let the public decide. That didn't happen when this story broke from any of the news organizations involved. No independent copyright experts were consulted until the day after the story broke, and in the case of CTV's nightly national news cast, those experts were omitted from the story completely in favour of journalists who think fair dealing is stealing.

Edited October 12, 2014 by jkoblovsky

[Michael Hardner]

- whether you agree with 'fair dealing' or not, why do Harper Conservatives feel the need to go beyond existing "fair reading" law/regulation and propose this "political party (only)" exception?

I would guess it's some concern that some lawyer has about something. They pay these people, you see, to come up with scenarios...

[jkoblovsky]

I would guess it's some concern that some lawyer has about something. They pay these people, you see, to come up with scenarios...

I think what the Conservatives were trying to do was clarify the law ahead of an election under threat from the media companies. They could have done this a number of ways, but the kids in short pants over there at the PMO have a record of acting like spoiled children, rather than thinking things through. Even though the intentions to clarify the law are legitimate under these circumstances, the government response is not, but fits their M/O, which the media companies are using to their advantage to push through thier own agenda which is equally wrong, if not worse imo.

Edited October 12, 2014 by jkoblovsky

[Michael Hardner]

In other words... the gods in Ottawa are playing cards, and we mortals probably shouldn't care...

[jkoblovsky]

In other words... the gods in Ottawa are playing cards, and we mortals probably shouldn't care...

We should care very much about the independence of our broadcast news, and the ability for each of us to speak and quote on forums like this without a copyright take down request. If us mortals fall into too much discourse, than the pillars of our democracy will start failing. I don't know about other mortals, but this one cares deeply about democratic values, and civil liberties we enjoy as a result.

[Michael Hardner]

I suppose so, but we also have the force of numbers in our favour. They couldn't enforce rules like that.

[ReeferMadness]

The free press is a pillar of democracy, so is fair use. Without fair use, free speech, criticism, even free press is in jeopardy. I'm not at all arguing for the pig headed moves of the Conservatives on this issue at all, in fact I was quite critical in my blog about the way they've handled it. The media companies are taking advantage of that move to push their own political agenda in copyright law, which is wrong especially in laws that govern the independence of free press and balanced reporting in broadcast news. Conservatives and media are both at fault on how they have handled it, and you can also add comments from both Liberals and NDP on this current issue to that as well.

To put this another way, these media companies knew about the fact that they have a substantially weak legal case on fair use (documented and linked to that in my last post on this thread). If they knew that their content was authorized for free use under the law, than why are they stating the Conservatives are stealing it without authorization, when they know the law doesn't require authorization in the first place? And in fact news organizations use content in the exact same way under the law hundreds of times a day without compensation either when reporting on the news.

So why is media and journalists misleading the public on the law when reporting on this issue? Simple answer is they want to get paid for any use of their content. They don't like giving stuff away free under fair use. That's quite obvious from the way this story was framed from day one, and a lot of commentary not by legal experts, but by journalists who are content producers and rights holders pushing that issue forward. It's a political position against fair use laws many of us in the policy trenches studying the copyright issue saw in the copyright consultations in 2009. The job of broadcast media when reporting on the news is not to take a position on anything. Report on both sides of the story, and let the public decide. That didn't happen when this story broke from any of the news organizations involved. No independent copyright experts were consulted until the day after the story broke, and in the case of CTV's nightly national news cast, those experts were omitted from the story completely in favour of journalists who think fair dealing is stealing.

So, the media is behaving in their best interests and those of their shareholders. I don't see anything particularly shocking about that. They are big businesses and I have no control over what they do.

What bothers me is that our government is making in rules according to the interests of the Conservative Party. That's unacceptable - they are supposed to be acting in the interests of the country. They are supposedly accountable to the people.

What's wrong with the three suggestions that I've made about how to fix this?

[jkoblovsky]

I suppose so, but we also have the force of numbers in our favour. They couldn't enforce rules like that.

Very true, but those numbers can be influenced by misleading the public. That's why the independence of our free press is super important, and the free press have not been playing an active roll of independence on this situation when it comes to fair use, and accurately communicating the law so the public can make an informed choice. That quite clearly didn't happen when this story broke on a number of fronts.

[ReeferMadness]

1. You have to show me why this change would be bad for the "game". I don't see it... As described by the other poster above, this seems to be about "fair use". Why not allow it ?

2. Not really. You have to explain why the change is "bad".

The change is clearly designed to facilitate the Conservatives attack ad strategy. Since that strategy is much more a pillar of their strategy than the other parties, it is designed to give them an advantage.

I think the reason the Conservatives chose to privilege the speech of political parties is that there are plenty of non-partisan creative groups out there (e.g. adbusters) that they consider their enemies.

Attack ads are bad for democracy. They have an effect of turning people off and discouraging voter participation.

[jkoblovsky]

So, the media is behaving in their best interests and those of their shareholders. I don't see anything particularly shocking about that. They are big businesses and I have no control over what they do.

What bothers me is that our government is making in rules according to the interests of the Conservative Party. That's unacceptable - they are supposed to be acting in the interests of the country. They are supposedly accountable to the people.

What's wrong with the three suggestions that I've made about how to fix this?

Food for thought. How can you make government accountable when you have free press acting in the best interests of their shareholders, and not the public? The only issue media has presented on this, is that they are upset in not getting paid too air them, or for the content used. I agree attack ads suck, but there are other ways of dealing with this through fair use in media. Lets say criticism of the ads themselves. Nope they just want to get paid for the use of thier content, which actually puts the Libs and NDP at a disadvantage in the first place. Edited October 12, 2014 by jkoblovsky

[ReeferMadness]

Food for thought. How can you make government accountable when you have free press acting in the best interests of their shareholders, and not the public?

That's a quaint notion. Corporations are legally obliged to behave in the best interests of their shareholders, not the public. So, if you expect media to behave in the best interests of the public, you either have to:

1. Have media owned by a large, benevolent private interest

2. Have the media customers (ie the public) hold them accountable

3. Disperse media voices through mechanisms like blogs and independent media

However, the government has a duty to act in the best interests of the country, not their party. The Conservatives have repeatedly and grossly failed in this respect. In this case, they are tilting the rules to favour their chances of re-election. This is a much bigger scandal than the way the media is behaving.

Edited October 12, 2014 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

Food for thought. .

And here's a question for you. The Conservatives have succeeded in making the free press much less relevant through the use of message control techniques. They limit access to the PM on an unprecedented scale, control what questions are asked and who asks them, and waste public money on advertisements that are naked propaganda.

If you care about free press and its role, how do we keep governments from this type of blatant manipulation of the press?

[jkoblovsky]

That's a quaint notion. Corporations are legally obliged to behave in the best interests of their shareholders, not the public. So, if you expect media to behave in the best interests of the public, you either have to:

1. Have media owned by a large, benevolent private interest

2. Have the media customers (ie the public) hold them accountable

3. Disperse media voices through mechanisms like blogs and independent media

Actually you are mistaken on that when it comes to broadcast journalism. We have laws regarding the independence of our broadcast media.

http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/jic.php

In fact Sun News challanged those laws a few years ago:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2011/01/crtc-on-false-news/

The CRTC thew the case out on complaint from the very media organizations and journalists red about not getting paid for attack ads, stating it would severely impact the credibility of broadcast journalists. The CRTC has specific regulations on media independence which are somwhat referenced in the CBSC link I posted above. I'm in the process of reviewing the broadcasting act myself, and I will quote the specific regulations on this thread in the near future.

Edited October 12, 2014 by jkoblovsky

[jkoblovsky]

And here's a question for you. The Conservatives have succeeded in making the free press much less relevant through the use of message control techniques. They limit access to the PM on an unprecedented scale, control what questions are asked and who asks them, and waste public money on advertisements that are naked propaganda.

If you care about free press and its role, how do we keep governments from this type of blatant manipulation of the press?

Simple don't attack fair use, so you can freely criticize government without fear they will take exception to any criticism, and take down any news content through a copyright complaint they don't agree with. Edited October 12, 2014 by jkoblovsky

[waldo]

- again: 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!

Damaged done to whom ? The broadcasters, maybe ? I'm not that concerned.

no, I'm referring to damage done to the electorate... to an election outcome. Whether "fair dealing" or a ramp-up to the Harper Conservative proposed exception, the damage done through a short election campaign of concentrated attack ads (those worst of the worst kind of slime/deception/out of context/etc.), could sway an election, particularly given the preponderance of 'low information voters'. To me, providing any opportunity to expand on the nature and preponderance of attack ads does not meet my personal measure of "fair use".

[Derek 2.0]

no, I'm referring to damage done to the electorate... to an election outcome. Whether "fair dealing" or a ramp-up to the Harper Conservative proposed exception, the damage done through a short election campaign of concentrated attack ads (those worst of the worst kind of slime/deception/out of context/etc.), could sway an election, particularly given the preponderance of 'low information voters'. To me, providing any opportunity to expand on the nature and preponderance of attack ads does not meet my personal measure of "fair use".

Could not both the LPC and NDP make use of their own attack ads to sway the "low information voter"?

[waldo]

Could not both the LPC and NDP make use of their own attack ads to sway the "low information voter"?

I wasn't being partisan in my comment, why are you? In any case, given the history of attack ads, you apparently favour a 'race to the bottom' - yes?

[Derek 2.0]

I wasn't being partisan in my comment, why are you? In any case, given the history of attack ads, you apparently favour a 'race to the bottom' - yes?

Nor was I being partisan..........I think allowance of actual sourced media clips could lend further credibility to such ads, be they from the CPC/LPC/NDP.....as it could also disallow claims of a biased media from both the left and right..

[waldo]

Nor was I being partisan..........I think allowance of actual sourced media clips could lend further credibility to such ads, be they from the CPC/LPC/NDP.....as it could also disallow claims of a biased media from both the left and right..

when you speak of the NDP/Liberals also joining in, the/your premise is I was targeting Harper Conservatives - I wasn't.

oh ya... cause attack ads (particularly Harper Conservative attack ads of recent years) are all about "lending further credibility"! Did you actually write that with a straight face? Your disallowing bias suggestion is the exact opposite of a stated media concern; i.e., that they (media) will be associated with a particular ad... that bias will be inferred by the general public. Your somewhat naive suggestion also presumes on "all things being equal"... which they aren't when the number and penetration of attack ads is simply a reflection of how much a political party has to spend in that regard. That spending differential will only lend itself to inferred greater media bias from the general public.

[Derek 2.0]

when you speak of the NDP/Liberals also joining in, the/your premise is I was targeting Harper Conservatives - I wasn't.

oh ya... cause attack ads (particularly Harper Conservative attack ads of recent years) are all about "lending further credibility"! Did you actually write that with a straight face? Your disallowing bias suggestion is the exact opposite of a stated media concern; i.e., that they (media) will be associated with a particular ad... that bias will be inferred by the general public. Your somewhat naive suggestion also presumes on "all things being equal"... which they aren't when the number and penetration of attack ads is simply a reflection of how much a political party has to spend in that regard. That spending differential will only lend itself to inferred greater media bias from the general public.

So this is an argument against one party (the CPC) having the greater ability to generate donations from its party membership, which translates into more attack ads.......

[waldo]

So this is an argument against one party (the CPC) having the greater ability to generate donations from its party membership, which translates into more attack ads.......

and with that... we're done here. I spoke generally - you can't separate yourself, on any level, from your uber-partisianship. The party of money today, may not be the party of money tomorrow... do you get that? In any case, I'll answer the question you ignored; I'll state that you are in favour of the "race to the (attack ad) bottom"!

have a shot at your last word... I'm done with you.