Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

[cybercoma]

It isn't.

It isn't what?

[scribblet]

To reiterate as we are now going around in circles.

This goes back to 1988 when an appeal to the S.C. was won by the Liberal Party. (I believe that it actually may apply to all people)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/242517364/Liberal-Agency-of-Cannda-1988

But, as said, the issue was reignited when the main networks notified political parties they would not air ads featuring content used without permission. This even after the 2012 Copyright Act was reformed. This act is slated for review in 2017 and states that the amount of work needs to be substantial for it to be covered by the act. Considering most ads are not more than a short blurb, it is the same as what the Liberals fought for and won in the Supreme Court.

The Tory proposal is nothing but a proposal to allow all political parties to use sound bites/clips in their ads as per S.C. 1988 and later 2012 with other rulings in between as shown.

The question is, why is the media colluding and misleading the public on this if it’s not for money and to continue pushing their own agenda, which includes cover up for Trudeau.

So, is this ‘permission going to be selective and since when is the media responsible for deciding what we should see and not see.

[cybercoma]

We know what the proposal is. It was posted on days ago.

The point is that it's a terrible amendment to the law because it gives benefits to politicians that others don't have.

But I guess that's ok when that amendment is made by the politicians from your own party.

Edited October 21, 2014 by cybercoma

[ironstone]

"We don't know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society."

This is what Trudeau said about the Boston bombing.He is of course entitled to his opinion,just as we all are.I don't feel that he should have said right away,with absolute certainty,that it happened because someone "felt completely excluded".Sometimes,evil is just evil.His father did not have the same opinion of the FLQ back in the day,he recognized them for what they were.

His comments regarding China just indicate to me that he isn't very well informed in these matters.We should expect more from someone in his postion.

[waldo]

"We don't know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society."

This is what Trudeau said about the Boston bombing.He is of course entitled to his opinion,just as we all are.I don't feel that he should have said right away,with absolute certainty,that it happened because someone "felt completely excluded".Sometimes,evil is just evil.His father did not have the same opinion of the FLQ back in the day,he recognized them for what they were.

although this topic/point doesn't belong in this thread, for context reference, I'll link back to the post (my post) you're replying to - here:

[Michael Hardner]

The point is that it's a terrible amendment to the law because it gives benefits to politicians that others don't have.

I'm not sure if that's correct, or if it's a bad thing.

It gives benefits to political parties, yes, but they are more or less essential to governments, as is public dialogue. We do have laws that govern media, and that have made special provisions for political discourse such as limiting or mandating air time for political discourse.

I see your point, but I'm not sure that political dialogue doesn't deserve to be protected.

That said, this provision seems to lead to more negative advertising, and as you point out: why exactly can't we have 'fair use' for all dialogue ?

[Big Guy]

Nothing will change much. The Harper Conservatives already use ads and statements out of context in their attack ads.

The latest attack ad against Trudeau is a good example;

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/20/conservative-commercial-ad-trudeau-war_n_6016344.html

This will continue until the publications have the gonads to go after the political parties for this obfuscation of information.

[Keepitsimple]

Nothing will change much. The Harper Conservatives already use ads and statements out of context in their attack ads.

The latest attack ad against Trudeau is a good example;

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/20/conservative-commercial-ad-trudeau-war_n_6016344.html

Quite honestly - I can't really see how this ad is out of context - everything stated is factual. His position and statements have taken a lot of criticism from almost all fronts. Care to elaborate what exactly is wrong with it? Oh - and Waldo - please refrain from your usual deflection and annoyance - I'll wait for Big Guy.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Big Guy]

Quite honestly - I can't really see how this ad is out of context - everything stated is factual. His position and statements have taken a lot of criticism from almost all fronts. Care to elaborate what exactly is wrong with it? Oh - and Waldo - please refrain from your usual deflection and annoyance - I'll wait for Big Guy.

If you read the article that I referenced, read the examples of taking quotes out of context and believe that they were not taken out of context then I cannot add to what Michael Bolen has written. There is nothing I can add.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure if that's correct, or if it's a bad thing.It gives benefits to political parties, yes, but they are more or less essential to governments, as is public dialogue. We do have laws that govern media, and that have made special provisions for political discourse such as limiting or mandating air time for political discourse.I see your point, but I'm not sure that political dialogue doesn't deserve to be protected.That said, this provision seems to lead to more negative advertising, and as you point out: why exactly can't we have 'fair use' for all dialogue ?

Politicians public speeches, discussions, and debates should belong to the public and be freely available for the public to research, scrutinize, and discuss. This is necessary for the democratic functioning of the state and an informed electorate. I agree that it should be fair use to show what politicians say in the media. What I don't agree with is the stupid nonsense of only allowing other politicians access to frame, contextualize, and present those words with their own message to the public. If this is truly a matter of free political expression and free speech, then it ought to extend to everyone and not just politicians. Why should the politicians have rights to free speech and free political expression that the rest of us don't have?

Harper shot himself in the foot making this about rights. If the courts agree, they'll open up fair use to everyone and not just the parties.

[Bryan]

It isn't what?

It isn't extending fair use and free speech only to political parties, candidates, and politicians. We all already have those same rights of fair dealings. The media conglomerate is colluding to try to do an end run around the law to try to specifically revoke those rights from political parties, so the government is considering amending the law to specifically address this.

[Keepitsimple]

If you read the article that I referenced, read the examples of taking quotes out of context and believe that they were not taken out of context then I cannot add to what Michael Bolen has written. There is nothing I can add.

I did read the article and it's clear to me that Bolen is clutching at little straws that really do not detract from the core intention of all the quotes. Trudeau made statements and holds positions that have garnered criticism - of that there is no doubt. He is accountable for them - and to think that his opponents' ads should be "sanitized" is ludicrous.

[Big Guy]

I did read the article and it's clear to me that Bolen is clutching at little straws that really do not detract from the core intention of all the quotes. Trudeau made statements and holds positions that have garnered criticism - of that there is no doubt. He is accountable for them - and to think that his opponents' ads should be "sanitized" is ludicrous.

Unfortunately what are "little straws" to one individual are gross misquotes to others - depending on their political bent and passion What is being "sanitized" to one is "accuracy" to another.

For example; Keepitsimple is on record as stating that Trudeau "is accountable". Others feel that Harper is not accountable for his actions and should be taken to task!

[cybercoma]

It isn't extending fair use and free speech only to political parties, candidates, and politicians.

It literally says that it is word-for-word in the amendment.

2 + 2 = 5, much?

[On Guard for Thee]

It literally says that it is word-for-word in the amendment.

2 + 2 = 5, much?

Keep in mind Harper has gutted science so all that mathematical stuff doesn't mean much anymore.

[Big Guy]

The RCMP has just released some video tape of that shooter in Ottawa as he made his way towards the parliament buildings. The RCMP has received criticism from some quarters that they should not have done so because ISIS might use that video for their own purposes.

Imagine, somebody taking somebody else's video and edit it to their own purposes and agenda?

Maybe the Conservatives should include this possibility in their new legislation?

[Bryan]

It literally says that it is word-for-word in the amendment.

2 + 2 = 5, much?

Bullshit. Fair dealings, that gives you EXACTLY those rights, is already part of Canada's copyright laws.

[waldo]

Bullshit. Fair dealings, that gives you EXACTLY those rights, is already part of Canada's copyright laws.

so what's different then... just how do you interpret the newly proposed Harper Conservative 'exception' legislation to be different? Different in what way(s)?

[Bryan]

so what's different then... just how do you interpret the newly proposed Harper Conservative 'exception' legislation to be different? Different in what way(s)?

I already answered that in post #211 of this thread.

[waldo]

I already answered that in post #211 of this thread.

I had read your post; this post:

It isn't extending fair use and free speech only to political parties, candidates, and politicians. We all already have those same rights of fair dealings. The media conglomerate is colluding to try to do an end run around the law to try to specifically revoke those rights from political parties, so the government is considering amending the law to specifically address this.

exactly how is the new proposed legislation different from what exists today? And if it is different, why have Harper Conservatives crafted changes that uniquely target political parties... only?

[Bryan]

I had read your post; this post:

exactly how is the new proposed legislation different from what exists today? And if it is different, why have Harper Conservatives crafted changes that uniquely target political parties... only?

Asked and answered.

[waldo]

Asked and answered.

yes! I did ask... still waiting on the answer(s).

[Bryan]

yes! I did ask... still waiting on the answer(s).

Don't be such a troll. I gave you my answer. You even quoted it.

[cybercoma]

Don't be such a troll. I gave you my answer. You even quoted it.

Your answer is circular logic. If the parties already had the rights to the footage, then the media conglomerate couldn't block them from using it. The parties already had a legal right to it. Why do they need to change any law then, if fair dealings already exists for that content?

[Bryan]

Your answer is circular logic. If the parties already had the rights to the footage, then the media conglomerate couldn't block them from using it. The parties already had a legal right to it. Why do they need to change any law then, if fair dealings already exists for that content?

Now you're trolling.