Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

[Keepitsimple]

Did Harper not say the Conservatives have an opportunity to make Canada unrecognizable to the Liberals?

That's always been the argument since Trudeau came to power and grew the Nanny State and hurled us into debt. It's about Nanny State/Big Government versus personal responsibility. Look after your families/National Daycare, give people the tools to save for themselves - or take their money away from them and dole it out to everyone. Harper was simply - and rightly in my opinion - trying to turn around the Queen Mary and start to strike a better balance so that we can look after those truly in need, focus on families and children, expand free trade......and not continue to just take money and redistribute it with no responsibility attached to it. Nothing nefarious, just the traditional Left/Right approach - which by the way - is much more acceptable for new Canadians who have always worked hard to have the chance to come to Canada. That attack ad, along with Soldiers in the streets - are right at the top of Sleaze ads.

[scribblet]

The existing copyright act is only a couple of years old. If the law were already there, it wouldn't be necessary to write it again, would it?. What a weaselly way of trying to get legislation through.

In any case, it's interesting to see conservatives defend the nationalization of other people's property.

See previous posts on links to S.C. decision and the media (CBC) admitting they didn't have a legal case.

[scribblet]

Sure, but since the original quote was reworded to more closely resemble the Hitler quote, whose play is it ?

I think that the meaning of the two quotes is ostensibly the same, which makes it difficult to make a legal claim, as I understand. But the tone of the adjusted quote is altogether different. It reads very much as somebody who has contempt for the country and wants to, in a way, destroy it. And to do in a way that is vengeful and egotistical, ie. "when I'm through with it". The original quote is much more positive and ties a bright future that the Liberals (not even mentioned in the reworded quote) could never achieve.

All's fair in politics, but let's agree that the quote as it's popularly known was probably never said.

More from Andrew Coyne on this, on twitter:

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/412425177189056512

Edited to add:

Yes, but the TV ad quoted him as saying "YOU"... (which to the viewer would mean "me"/themselves/any Canadian) not a Liberal. That's essential.

Agreed....

[waldo]

The issue was brought to a head earlier in the year when the "consortium" were secretly conspiring to try and do an end run around the Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of political parties to use these clips in advertising - and have them run by the networks.

point of order: there is existing law that states media must support political advertising during the writ period. Are you stating the "conspiring... end run" was intended to circumvent this existing writ period law? Within writ... or outside of writ?

.

The "consortium" admitted that the law was clear in that respect. As a result of that, the Conservatives have threatened to come up with legislation to consolidate that right.

I read your "admitted" differently... I read the concensus stating there would be time/money involved in persuing legal remedy... remedy that may not prove successful. That's your "admitted"? Why do Harper Conservatives limit their "consolidating the right" to only political parties, to the exclusion of all others? What's that about, hey?

.

[eyeball]

That's always been the argument since Trudeau came to power and grew the Nanny State and hurled us into debt. It's about Nanny State/Big Government versus personal responsibility. Look after your families/National Daycare, give people the tools to save for themselves - or take their money away from them and dole it out to everyone. Harper was simply - and rightly in my opinion - trying to turn around the Queen Mary and start to strike a better balance so that we can look after those truly in need, focus on families and children, expand free trade......and not continue to just take money and redistribute it with no responsibility attached to it. Nothing nefarious, just the traditional Left/Right approach - which by the way - is much more acceptable for new Canadians who have always worked hard to have the chance to come to Canada. That attack ad, along with Soldiers in the streets - are right at the top of Sleaze ads.

The right-wing Big Government is every bit as nefarious about redistributing wealth by making the world safer for capitalism. Gutting environmental protection and responsibilities, vastly expanding the TFW program, strengthening trade agreements with countries that treat the environment and workers even worse than we do - if anything Conservatives have even further undermined the ability of ordinary Canadians to take personal responsibility for themselves.

As for Harper's Nanny State I suspect a lot of the new Canadians come from countries where governments are also more likely to have a Big mean-spirited Nanny spying on them and looking over their shoulders so they probably wouldn't recognize those sorts of changes to the Canada we once knew.

And what does it say about a politician's commitment to the concept of letting people assume greater personal responsibility when an adult Canadian cannot be trusted to use pot?

Harper's Nanny is still every bit a Big State Nanny except she's a lot more judgmental and a lot less forgiving.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it's all nitpicking. It's pretty clear he had an agenda to change the country, so much that it would be unrecognizable. That was his intent, as is the intent of the paraphrased quote. For better or for worse is a matter of perspective, as with the Hitler quote. I'm sure Hitler intended that to mean for the better. You don't get to the point where you're slaughtering millions of people by believing what you're doing is wrong.

Godwin's Law proven yet again. Such a comparison is ridiculous.

[waldo]

I think it's all nitpicking.

I don't understand why they feel the need to run away from the quote other than the fact that Canadians obviously don't agree with them that Canada was a mess before Harper.

it is all nitpicking! It's totally bizarre that Harper partisans would attempt to read more into the quote...

[BubberMiley]

The "consortium" admitted that the law was clear in that respect.

If the law is clear and the "consortium" admits that, why are the CPC making a new law?

Edited October 19, 2014 by BubberMiley

[ReeferMadness]

Well, the Tyee would see it that way...

Unless you're accusing the Tyee of journalistic malfeasance, this isn't the viewpoint of the Tyee, it's the viewpoint of constitutional expert Errol Mendes. Let's get an instant replay of his view of what your hero Harper is doing:

It's one of the worst examples of abuse of democratic power that this country has seen in a long, long time

Ouch. One of the worst examples of abuse of democratic power. For a guy who came to Ottawa promising integrity and accountability, he's sure sunk a looong way, hasn't he? Reduced to sneaking legislation into an omnibus bill to bolster his chances at re-election. All those Conservatives and their self-righteous indignation at the shit Chretien was pulling and now this. Tell me. Is it tricky to vote when you have to use one hand to hold your nose?

However, other lawyers have allready stated that the law is allready there and the media have admitted it.

What other lawyers? The ones paid for by the Conservative Party? The ones paid for by the media?

The only other independent voice that I've heard on this is Michael Geist who is an ardent proponent of a free and open internet. So, of course, he would be against the media on this one. But even he had some serious criticism for Harper. Why are we giving special freedom of expression rights to political parties? That's obscene.

Unless, of course, you're blinded because you've got your nose up Harper's butt.

[Keepitsimple]

If the law is clear and the "consortium" admits that, why are the CPC making a new law?

They are not making a new law - they are suggesting that if the Consortium attempts an end run around established case law......that they might have to legislate something. As I've said - I think it's probably a bluff/threat just to create public awareness about censorship.....so that the Consortium can't really refuse to run the ads without looking like the bad guys. Once again, it's about "framing" the "opposition" in a manner that's very plausible, if not completely true.

[On Guard for Thee]

They are not making a new law - they are suggesting that if the Consortium attempts an end run around established case law......that they might have to legislate something. As I've said - I think it's probably a bluff/threat just to create public awareness about censorship.....so that the Consortium can't really refuse to run the ads without looking like the bad guys. Once again, it's about "framing" the "opposition" in a manner that's very plausible, if not completely true.

You're equating copyright ownership with censorship?

[Boges]

Here's Ezra's take.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/19/media-consortium-takes-on-tories

In the past week, Consortium journalists have screeched about how illegal it is that Conservatives use news footage in TV ads -- something their own lawyers say is perfectly legal. But -- funny enough! -- those same Consortium journalists haven't had a word to say about the secret agreement amongst the companies on this matter.

That's the first rule of the Consortium: You don't talk about the Consortium.

Here's more news. Section 45 of the Competition Act makes it illegal to cut deals with your competitors to "to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of the product."

Like TV ads.

Violating that law can result in a 14-year jail term, and $25 million in fines.

No one's guilty of anything yet. If the Competition Bureau starts an investigation of the Consortium, you can bet Consortium reporters will bury that story, too.

That's really funny. The CBC are rallying the troops to try and defend JT. What the CPC is doing is perfectly legal but what the media companies are doing may not be.

[waldo]

What the CPC is doing is perfectly legal but what the media companies are doing may not be.

in your own words, not parroting Ezrant, what is the CPC doing?

.

[Boges]

in your own words, not parroting Ezrant, what is the CPC doing?

Trying to clarify things. Even though there's already case law it seems the "cabal" still want to try to challenge a perfectly legal practice in the court of public opinion.

Perhaps the CPC should have just done nothing because they were always on the right side of the law. But in any instance this law can be challenged in court anyway.

Ezra pulled an excerpt from the "cabal" report saying that they even concede they don't have a leg to stand on.

We are seeing news content (in the case of the Justin Trudeau ads, CBC News content) being grabbed and used without permission and out of context in attack ads ... In the past we have all argued against this legally using copyright infringement. Our legal team is confident that with the shifts in case law w.r. t fair dealing this might not be a successful route."

Edited October 20, 2014 by Boges

[scribblet]

How about an instant replay on two other experts on it as posted here earlier... http://arielkatz.org/archives/3437%C2'> the other is Michael Geist. It's clear that the media is in cahoots to stop Tory ads To repeat, the only reason the CPC is suggesting they need to clarify the law is because the media has refused to air their ads. (links posted previously)

The media is grossly interfering in the democratic process by colluding with each other to illegally stop the CPC from running ads. I suppose this is the reason the new ad is on youtube and not on the airwaves yet, but allready the Huff Po is up in arms about it, guess they don’t like being held to account with their own words.

[waldo]

I suppose this is the reason the new ad is on youtube and not on the airwaves yet

always refreshing to read Harper Conservative supporters apply their internet law degrees! Do you have a linkee for the new ad you're teasing with here?

[BubberMiley]

I suppose this is the reason the new ad is on youtube and not on the airwaves yet, but allready the Huff Po is up in arms about it, guess they don’t like being held to account with their own words.

You really think copyright law doesn't apply to YouTube? Maybe the HuffPo is up in arms because they don't like their material used deliberately out of context to spread misinformation. Personally I favour property rights and not nationalization of intellectual property.

[scribblet]

You really think copyright law doesn't apply to YouTube? Maybe the HuffPo is up in arms because they don't like their material used deliberately out of context to spread misinformation. Personally I favour property rights and not nationalization of intellectual property.

No, but so far it's not in the media and it's just another case of the media ignoring the law.

As Andrew Coyne said in reference to this issue:

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/524267572473372674

They've quoted me accurately and in context. I have no problem with it.

The media party is trying to claim complete copyright control over everything it publishes, ignoring the long practices and legal precedents for ‘fair use’ of copyright materials. Another case on copyright infringement is probably the Supreme Court decision in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada and the S.C. case won by the Liberals as referenced earlier.

Canada I believe has one the best fair use for users and the decision in CCH is one of the strongest in favour of user’s rights, I believe it is being fought.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2125/index.do

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc37/2012scc37.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJY29weXJpZ2h0AAAAAAE

Edited October 21, 2014 by scribblet

[cybercoma]

If it's about fair use and free political speech, then why does it only extend to political parties and their campaigning candidates and politicians?

[scribblet]

If it's about fair use and free political speech, then why does it only extend to political parties and their campaigning candidates and politicians?

Maybe they should.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/isnt-fair-dealing-enough-government-considering-copyright-exception-cover-political-advertising/

Edited October 21, 2014 by scribblet

[cybercoma]

Then you agree that the law is inappropriate since it gives legal rights to politicians over other people, right?

[waldo]

Maybe they should.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/isnt-fair-dealing-enough-government-considering-copyright-exception-cover-political-advertising/

maybe? Aren't you just a tad selective in referencing Geist's columns? Here, try another:

The Government’s Political Advertising Copyright Exception: Fine Print Shows Proposal Privileges Politicians’ Speech Rights Over the Public

[BubberMiley]

The media party is trying to claim complete copyright control over everything it publishes, ignoring the long practices and legal precedents for ‘fair use’ of copyright materials.

"Fair use" is an American term. In Canada, we have "fair dealing", which was completely revamped in the Copyright Modernization Act in 2012. So much for long practices and legal precedents.

[Bryan]

If it's about fair use and free political speech, then why does it only extend to political parties and their campaigning candidates and politicians?

It isn't.

[waldo]

It isn't.

huh! That's not very clear, sir:

are you saying "it isn't" about fair use and free political speech

or

"it isn't" only extending to political parties and their campaigning candidates and politicians

or

"it isn't"... what?

.