Canadian Copyright Dumbassedness
Not long ago I received a response to an email I sent to Nina Grewal regarding proposed changes to Canadian copyright law:
Firstly, Ms. Grewal's statement that "[t]his matter has attracted considerable public attention and has led to letter writing campaigns organized by organizations such as Digital Copyright Canada to influence public policy makers" is inane. I know this. I sent her the email. It seems to me that she's just lifted the paragraph from a briefing paper. This suggests she doesn't actually know what's going on, and moreover that she can't even plagiarize effectively.
(This would be a good time to point out how sketchy her husband's activities were when he was an MP. Given her intimate relationship with this obvious shyster, it boggles my mind that she got reelected. )
Secondly, that "[t}here is an expectation that Canadian legislation will mirror laws passed in the United States (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998) and the European Union (European Union Copyright Directive, 2001)" seems to confirm our worst fears. The DMCA, for example, is garbage: it criminalizes music fans, it restricts the ways in which legally acquired content can be used, it prevents hardware owners from using their hardware in the ways they want, and it prevents the development of new technology. As Cory Doctorow writes, "The US's approach to enforcing copyright in the digital age has resulted in 20,000 lawsuits against music fans, technology companies being sued out of existence for making new multi-purpose tools, and has not put one penny into the pocket of an artist or reduced downloading one bit. The USA stepped into uncharted territory in 1998 with the DMCA and fell off a cliff -- that was reckless, but following them off the cliff is insane."
Thirdly, there's nothing in Ms. Grewal's letter about consultation. It seems her party is too busy kowtowing to corporate lobbyists to even bother consulting with the electorate.
Anyway, we're now "early in the New Year..." I wonder how this is going to pan out. I guess we'll have to see how if the house can navigate a potential vote of non-confidence.
Dear Mr. Vernon:I'd like to go through a few points here...
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding possible amendments to the Copyright Act. This matter has attracted considerable public attention and has led to letter writing campaigns organized by organizations such as Digital Copyright Canada to influence public policy makers.
The development of digital media and digital communication technologies has fostered a revolution in the manner that we seek entertainment, communicate with others, and otherwise express ourselves. Because of the obvious problems created by the fact that digital content is easily reproduced and distributed, revisions to the law have become necessary to clarify the scope and substance of protection of intellectual property rights, particular the copyright, in the digital age.
The Government of Canada is in the process of considering revisions to the Copyright Act in order to ensure that Canada's copyright framework remains relevant in the rapidly changing digital environment.
There is an expectation that Canadian legislation will mirror laws passed in the United States (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998) and the European Union (European Union Copyright Directive, 2001). Both of these laws were put into place to ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms treaties adopted in December 1996. Canada signed these treaties in 1997, and is, therefore, like those jurisdictions also obliged to implement legislative changes demanded by the treaties.
The Government of Canada wants to protect the rights of creators and rights holders while at the same time striking the proper balance between their rights and those of consumers. In drafting new legislation, the government is taking into account the concerns of all interested parties and wants to ensure that every aspect of reforming the legislation will be properly analyzed. We are also looking at measures under taken by other countries and will determine if they are suitable for Canada. Once all of this is done the Industry Minister will introduce a bill in the House of Commons. This will likely occur early in the New Year.
Thank you again for writing on this important matter. Please rest assured that your opinions have been duly noted.
Sincerely yours,
Nina Grewal
Member of Parliament
Fleetwood-Port Kells
Firstly, Ms. Grewal's statement that "[t]his matter has attracted considerable public attention and has led to letter writing campaigns organized by organizations such as Digital Copyright Canada to influence public policy makers" is inane. I know this. I sent her the email. It seems to me that she's just lifted the paragraph from a briefing paper. This suggests she doesn't actually know what's going on, and moreover that she can't even plagiarize effectively.
(This would be a good time to point out how sketchy her husband's activities were when he was an MP. Given her intimate relationship with this obvious shyster, it boggles my mind that she got reelected. )
Secondly, that "[t}here is an expectation that Canadian legislation will mirror laws passed in the United States (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998) and the European Union (European Union Copyright Directive, 2001)" seems to confirm our worst fears. The DMCA, for example, is garbage: it criminalizes music fans, it restricts the ways in which legally acquired content can be used, it prevents hardware owners from using their hardware in the ways they want, and it prevents the development of new technology. As Cory Doctorow writes, "The US's approach to enforcing copyright in the digital age has resulted in 20,000 lawsuits against music fans, technology companies being sued out of existence for making new multi-purpose tools, and has not put one penny into the pocket of an artist or reduced downloading one bit. The USA stepped into uncharted territory in 1998 with the DMCA and fell off a cliff -- that was reckless, but following them off the cliff is insane."
Thirdly, there's nothing in Ms. Grewal's letter about consultation. It seems her party is too busy kowtowing to corporate lobbyists to even bother consulting with the electorate.
Anyway, we're now "early in the New Year..." I wonder how this is going to pan out. I guess we'll have to see how if the house can navigate a potential vote of non-confidence.
Labels: Copyright
posted by Samurai Librarian at 10:14 PM
0 comments
