News

More Media Coverage of Moore’s Radical Extremist Comment

The media picked up on Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's "radical extremists" comment yesterday with the following stories:

71 Comments

  1. Aaron Walkhouse says:

    He doesn’t even realize that he is the one who has been radicalized by foreign interests.
    That he uses such language shows that he fails to perceive the differences between
    rights, content and property and how the three relate to each other. This is why his
    personal version of the legislation and his viewpoints on the issues surrounding the bill
    differs so sharply from those of all the people and organizations who are discussing it
    in an intelligent and informed manner. He does not and will not understand that he has
    been influenced and manipulated by “Radical Extremists” and that his perceptions have
    become so distorted that he no longer represents Canadians and Canada, and instead
    has become quite literally an adversary to his own country and countrymen on behalf
    of foreign corporate interests.

    For this reason I believe he should stand down or face the real possibility of being fired
    by his own party or voted out of office by the same folks who put him there in the first
    place. He may have been a Canadian politician before but now that he has apparently
    swallowed american “Intellectual Property” extremist dogma whole and unfiltered by our
    well-respected brand of Canadian sensibility, he is no longer the man who decided to
    serve his country. It is time for him to go serve his new masters in the business world
    and return to an honest life by openly serving as a lobbyist for them instead of working
    from within our government as a hostile agent against Canadian consumers and artists.

  2. Mr. Moore is the only extremist here
    Mr. Moore wants to start the negotiations from an extreme position where he completely abolishes “fair use” through the locks/encryption provisions. At same time he holds us to a much higher standard as to start negotiations from a *balanced* point of view (which is exactly what Michael Geist is doing). Which means we will lose no matter what since in the give-and-take process, the final position will be somewhere between “balanced” and “extreme” in Moore’s favor.

    How about having Mr. Moore start from a balanced position too.

    Or, failing that, negotiations should start invoking the other extreme (“copyright should be abolished, people should be free to record and distribute whatever they see fit”). This way we might get to a balanced compromise in the end.

    Nap.

  3. I find it interesting that he said that the only ones who oppose the legislation are two types of people (“radical extremists”), and winds up claiming that NEITHER of them truly support any copyright reform in Canada, even if they may say that they do. (I’m not entirely sure how that ends up still counting as two types of people if they both apparently are doing the same things.)

    So, rather than actually address the concerns that are raised by *ANY* of these people, he chooses to instead discount their opinions by deciding, in his own mind, that the sorts of possibilities or compromises that he is being approached with don’t really represent what the person actually believes in, and that because the person supposedly actually desires no copyright reform whatsoever, I suspect he thinks that any apparent alternatives that such people might be proposing are somehow only going to further that agenda.

    But even *IF* this assessment were true, which it is most categorically and definitely not, that still does not explain why the proposed amendments to the legislation that still have anti-circumvention provisions that protect the interests of copyright holders, while making circumvention illegal if and only if one commits copyright infringement, are not actually considered…. they are simply dismissed as being “wrong”, without even the slightest indication as to why. Such provisions, by my understanding, would still be wholly compatible with the international treaties that Canada has obligation to, and most importantly would *NOT* create a situation where perfectly reasonable activities that there is a *ZERO* chance of preventing, such as removing a digital lock exclusively for private copying purposes, become illegal, making an absolutely enormous number of citizens into private lawbreakers. The proposed legislation in bill C32 will have next to zero impact on any piracy that would be desirable to actually curb, and will only prohibit people from legally doing things that they have every reason to expect to be able to do with property they have legally acquired (regardless of whether or not there are any digital locks on the work), such as format shift it, make backups, or privately copy it for their own personal use.

  4. Karl Stevens says:

    What’s really sad…
    What’s really sad is that none of the articles mentioned anything about Moore’s blatant lies and attempted coverup of these comments.

    I would have hoped that at least one would have mentioned the “official” video in which the comments were removed, and Moore’s “Not what I said, not even close.” comments.

  5. @ Karl Stevens

    Indeed… why is the media not showing the fact he has proven in public to be a liar and that he is unfit for office.

  6. @Glenn
    Why is the media not showing he’s lied? Who’s side to you think the media are on? The only way to make this known is through blogs, facebook and word of mouth. The CBC might cover something like this but buried so deep nobody will see. Tell your friends, family and co-workers.

  7. @ Darren

    Fair enough.. and to some degree I agree.. But if we all call/write all of the same media asking such esp those stations/papers etc not in “moores pocket” that can cause some ruckus 🙂

    As for me… I am already spreading the word as much as I can.

  8. It’s because he hasn’t been busted lying.
    Those are just private messages with no context.

  9. …likewise
    Likewise, I’m also telling everyone I know. There is some hope on a wider scale, it was front page news on the cover of the June issue of the CAUT (Canadian Association of University Teachers) Bulletin. In fact it was the only story on the front page. I believe this gets distributed to every professionsal and academic staff member in every University in Canada…not an insignificant number of people.

  10. Napalm said:
    Radical extremists
    http://www.thestar.com/news/gt…u-arrested

    un f’ing believeable!!!!

  11. Styledriver says:

    Overton Window
    @Napalm

    You’re exactly right! MP Moore is manipulating public perception so that ideas previously thought of as radical (digital locks) become acceptable over time.

    With this in mind, Mr Geist is not the only one who needs to keep public perception where it is right now – we all should be fighting against Mr Moore’s radacalism!

    Remember: move the window and you change the debate. Change the debate and you change the country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

  12. I am dismayed but not shocked that the story of Mr. Moore’s lies and cover up is barley even making a imprint on the major news providers of this country. So I though maybe I could get this poem printed in the arts section?

    Artists would get paid a lot more if the media conglomerates were put out of the picture, and new distribution methods that are now available due to technology were used. It is their greed that is robbing artists, literally not paying them at all in some cases.

    I used to think (and still do for the most part) that there was a generation barrier between those in power and those who actually use and understand technology. But then I’m 44 and do not fall into that category and what is up with James Moore, he’s 32?

    Either he is technologically incompetent or well … let me put it in a limerick ..

    “There once was a heritage minister
    elected from New Westminster
    their concerns he would abide
    but misspoke and then he lied
    and proved himself most sinister”

  13. ACTA referal
    Wasn’t it awhile back that someone in parliament asked about the ACTA negotiations, and the conservatives told them to visit Professor Geist’s blog for a run down.

    If the conservatives suggested that official and accurate descriptions of that treaty could be found here, then wouldn’t it suggest that at the time they thought Professor Geist was an “expert”.

  14. @ Bob indeed.. but as we all know that is always at their convenience as they make crap up to suit themselves

  15. With that Hudson Bay historical rerference, Moore was practically calling all opposition: terrorists out to destroy the Canadian way of life.

  16. Alexey said:
    “With that Hudson Bay historical rerference, Moore was practically calling all opposition: terrorists out to destroy the Canadian way of life.”

    As if the “Radical Extremist” comment didn’t already imply that. LOL

    I think this is/was to be his infamy, his way in to the Canadian history books. “James Moore, the ‘visonary’ polititian that ‘fixed’ Canadian copywrite”. Unfortunately for him, the infamy may ultimately be of the type he doesn’t want. Depending how things go, it could work out that his infamy comes in the form of yet another “huge blunder in Canadian politics”.

    captcha: leagues out

  17. @ IamME

    Moore is heading straight for the Mulroney and Harris crowd.. as in despised for his arrogance and total complete stupidity.

  18. Check out my new blog
    FakeJamesMoore.blogspot.com

  19. In other words, he called anyone who disagrees with this draconian copyright legislation a “terrorist”. The term “radical extremist” is used as an analogy for terrorist on Fox News, and I am sure that is where he picked up the term. Next in line is “enemy of the state”. Remember Hannity had a segment with that name some years ago, naming Sean Penn as one of them until public outcry made him tone it down.

    The actual words he used are not terribly relevant, they are just there to gather attention, as much as the fact that he has no accountability for saying such vile things. He said it, there is a huge public outcry about it, but then nothing. He still holds the position as the Minister and the Bill is still being pushed forward.

    Where are NDP and Liberals to publicly attack him for this and get him demoted?

  20. @ Sam
    The NDP’s Charlie Angus spoke out. I think most other groups are basically waiting for Moore to self destruct. What I find interesting is that Harper is allowing Moore to hang himself without reeling him, but I guess Harper know when to distance himself from a timebomb.

  21. As for the comment posted under another thread, about “it does not matter, they cannot arrest the entire public” if the Bill goes through. If they manage to push this bill through, the police will have to enforce it and there is no discussion at that point (plus our tax dollars will pay for the enforcement). And then similar to what happened in the US, if you get charged under this Law, you could face bankruptcy, you could lose your job, and face other related difficulties. And if a new party comes into power, historically it is very unlikely they will do anything to reverse this law. If anything, they will make it stronger over time.

    Therefore, time to act on it is now and writing to our MPs, Premiers, Lawyers, etc must be done now before it is too late. I already suspect that some non-CPC MPs are ready to vote for this unless they fear public backlash and lost votes in the next election.

  22. @Sam
    “And then similar to what happened in the US, if you get charged under this Law, you could face bankruptcy, you could lose your job, and face other related difficulties.”

    The new law actually substantially lowers the punishment for private, non-commercial infringement to between $100 and $5000 for all offences combined…not per offence. This is one of the things they did right. However, the time to act is still now.

  23. @ IamME

    true on both accounts… regardless of the “fines” etc the whole idea of TPM having legal protection and making bypassing such criminal is pathetic.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Agreed, particularly when the underlying purpose is both perfectly reasonable and itself perfectly legal, such as format shifting a movie to your iPad or private use backups

  25. Now updated to current events
    http://www.fakejamesmoore.blogspot.com

    Be sure to read from the beginning.

  26. Question?
    What happens if all 3 opposition parties decide they will not support the bill? Does it die on the table, go to revision, what? Policy and law is one thing, but politics is really not my fortay.

  27. @IamME
    I am not certain on the exact requirements for the passage of the Bill either. I expect they need a simple majority to pass it. If it fails to pass, I think they can revise it and submit again. Someone with exact knowledge can possibly clarify.

  28. Reeve Wilkie says:

    Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore is either clueless about the issue of copyright or he is bought off by the content lobby. Either way, he is not the guy to be in that job.

    Ignorance and corruption – are those really the only “choices” Canadians have these days???

  29. @IamME:

    The bill has only been tabled. It will be sent to committee this fall, where (unless we have an election) the committee will review it and make its recommendations. Once it’s through committee it will be sent back to the House to be debated. If it passes in the House, it will be sent to the Senate to be debated. It will go through the Senate committees, who will make further amendments. At some point it will be passed, and then granted Royal Assent. It then becomes law.

    I would highly suggest reading the CHPC (Heritage) Committee’s report on Copyright, available here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/CHPC/Reports/RP4592140/403_CHPC_Rpt03_PDF/403_CHPC_Rpt03-e.pdf

    The section on TPM is highly educational in trying to understand where this bill is coming from. I would suggest that, if you’re in the letter writing mood, you send a note off to the members of the CHPC and express your concerns to them. Mention that you read this report. Make sure you copy your MP!

  30. @IamME
    It depends on whether or not it’s defeated in the HoC or the Senate. If it gets killed in the HoC, it could potentially be taken as a vote of no confidence and force an election. If it passes the House but somehow gets defeated in the Senate (unlikely), it would have to be reintroduced with amendments and go through the entire process all over again.

    Keep in mind that even all three opposition parties deciding not to support the bill doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t pass. Ever since Dion, the Liberals have had a bad habit of voting against government legislation, while making sure that enough MPs stay home to ensure the bill will pass anyway. To be blunt, they really, really aren’t ready for an election.

  31. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    They lump them together as “piracy” but bootlegging and personal use are two very different things
    @IamME People keep saying that $5,000 is reasonable. I disagree.

    Perhaps that doesn’t seem like much to a lawyer, but to many of us, that’s a huge whack of cash. Last year when I went to hear Cory Doctorow speak I heard University students talking about being cut off the Internet because they couldn’t afford to pay their bill (after all, even before UBB is implemented Canadians are being gouged) so I’m wondering how many university or college students can absorb that kind of a hit? How many of our best and brightest will C32 force into dropping out?

    Of course I’m a copyright radical who thinks copyright ought to work for the mutual good of society and creators.

    ————————————————————————————————————-
    captcha: the bosses

  32. $5000 may be the magic number?
    I wonder for a MAX $5000 payout if it would be economical for a law firm to bother trying a case? Would their court and time costs not be close to that? Especially having to have a burden of proof rather that just threat. Anyone out there in the law field care to comment on that (if you are allowed that is!)

    I’m curious if that amount was chosen to discourage the litigation craze south of the border running rampant here. If so I have to give kudos to it being included in the bill.

    Now if we can just get the simple ‘TPM may be bypassed for non infringing purposes’ clause added then I think this bill would actually be acceptable by all. Well maybe not by the media industry but it would be compliant with the WIPO treaties so they couldn’t complain.

  33. Hindgrinder says:

    I love you guys…..
    *group hug* for those of us who are paying attention to this non-mainstream stuff. This should be everywhere but “that certain kind of influence” is keeping it hush.

    HG
    http://www.pirateparty.ca – Geist for Order Of Canada? Easily Seconded.

  34. interesting piece by a yale law student
    http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/copyright-elephant-in-middle-of-glee.html

    love the direction ‘save the children’ takes in this:

    “Defenders of modern copyright law will argue Congress has struck “the right balance” between copyright holders’ interests and the public good. They’ll suggest the current law is an appropriate compromise among interest groups. But by claiming the law strikes “the right balance,” what they’re really saying is that the ‘Glee’ kids deserve to be on the losing side of a lawsuit. Does that sound like the right balance to you?”

  35. Crockett said:
    $5000 may be the magic number?
    I wonder for a MAX $5000 payout if it would be economical for a law firm to bother trying a case? Would their court and time costs not be close to that? Especially having to have a burden of proof rather that just threat. Anyone out there in the law field care to comment on that (if you are allowed that is!)

    I’m curious if that amount was chosen to discourage the litigation craze south of the border running rampant here. If so I have to give kudos to it being included in the bill.

    Now if we can just get the simple ‘TPM may be bypassed for non infringing purposes’ clause added then I think this bill would actually be acceptable by all. Well maybe not by the media industry but it would be compliant with the WIPO treaties so they couldn’t complain.

    @ Crockett

    Actually nothing is needed in C-32 at all in any way shape or form about TPM to be compliant with the WIPO treaties… the TPM crap is in there to try to kiss the US media labels asses etc (The Axis of evil… aka the **AA’s)

    @ Hindgrinder

    Geist for Order Of Canada? Easily Seconded – I’d agree w/that as well!

  36. Another blog entry
    It seems Mr. Fake James Moore has updated his blog with this post … check out the full blog at FakeJamesMoore.blogspot.com

    PARODY !?

    I can’t believe it, someone has posted a parody of me on YouTube. I know my bill says parody is OK but I don’t think against politicians, right? This crazy video has me sitting in a bunker with a bunch of people in suits, it doesn’t even look like me, I don’t have a mustache.

    OK, someone told me this is supposed to be Hitler. How dare they associate me with him? What do I have have in common with fascists (I had to look that word up on Wikipedia).

    It says, “Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.”

    Now, I’m not doing anything like that, if fact … oh … wait …….. damn.

  37. phillipsjk says:

    @Glenn
    Article 22 of the 1996 Wipo copyright treaty disagrees:
    “No reservation to this Treaty shall be admitted.”

  38. The message
    Dear Mr. Moore,

    After you erected 3 meters tall fences and arrested everyone coming close based on a “secret” law…. and you declared yourself “open to dialog” while calling “terrorists” those that don’t fully agreed with you… the plebes that you despise have found a way to make their message loud enough to pass those fences…. play the deaf and their message will get even louder….

    http://thestar.blogs.com/g20/

    Nap.

  39. Violence is no answer, or even a question
    While I don’t agree with Mr. Moore calling those opposed to Bill C-32 radical extremists. I personally nor anyone I know of on these message boards have ever suggested or condone violence (save for the one above, whom is not a regular contributor).

  40. a former conservative voter says:

    Harper and Moore should just leave the internet to the kids, and focus on what they do best- sending kids to get their heads blown off in illegal wars of choice.

  41. phillipsjk said:
    @Glenn
    Article 22 of the 1996 Wipo copyright treaty disagrees:
    “No reservation to this Treaty shall be admitted.”

    @ phillipsjk

    That does not mean there is any rule within it that demands we enact laws criminalizing TPM / DRM bypassing.

    Have you not read MG’s comments about that fact?

    captcha: amended one

  42. Moore
    Moore and the PM will be this generations Mulroney.

  43. phillipsjk says:

    @Glenn
    Article 11 requires the criminalization of bypassing “…effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under (copyright law)…”

    What MG was arguing was not that TPMs don’t need legal protection, but that they only need legal protection if you violate copyright in the process.

    Essentially, copyright infringement for a TPM-protected work would become a more serious offense than copyright infringement on a non-tpm-protected work. However, I believe MG was arguing that “fair dealing” should trump TPMs, not the other way around.

  44. ‘extremist’ ??

    No, it’s extremist when a government pays cops to dress up and commit crimes.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUR20100627&articleId=19928

  45. phillipsjk said:
    @Glenn
    Article 11 requires the criminalization of bypassing “…effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under (copyright law)…”

    What MG was arguing was not that TPMs don’t need legal protection, but that they only need legal protection if you violate copyright in the process.

    Essentially, copyright infringement for a TPM-protected work would become a more serious offense than copyright infringement on a non-tpm-protected work. However, I believe MG was arguing that “fair dealing” should trump TPMs, not the other way around.

    @ phillipsjk

    I’d agree overall.. though the exact language is not quite stated that way. However don’t mistake me we are on the same side of this fight 🙂

  46. A behind the scenes look into the workings of the Heritage dept.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjCNErd0gao

  47. phillipsjk says:

    @Glenn
    The reason I am being nit-picky is that bill C32 DOES include a lot of suggestions from the consultation.

    The interoperability exemption may be tailor-made for playing optical disks under Alternative OS’s like GNU/Linux for example.

    So when people like me say “that’s not good enough, scrap the parts referring to TPMs” (not those exact words); you can understand why The Hon. James Moore may jump to the conclusion that the opposition is interested only in continually moving the goal-posts.

    There are two issues: any large political group will have some extremists. They are often the most vocal. The minister probably did get letters calling for the abolition of Copyright. The problem is he seems to be assuming EVERYBODY who opposes the the bill shares the same view….

    … Because (speculation time): The minister does not understand why TPMs are not an improvement to Copyright law. There seems to be a view that if something can be freely copied, copyright is pointless. Complicating matters is the fact that the general public does not understand how TPMs work; then eventually fail.

    For example I asked at a local gaming cafe what problems they have with DRM. I was told: ~”We don’t have problems with DRM because we use only legal copies.” Of course, I found this hard to believe, since they run more games than the average gamer. When pressed, I was told, ~”We don’t have some games because of other problems (not related to DRM).” My view is they have no way of knowing if their problems are related to DRM or not (short of tracking down a specific hardware fault or reverse-engineering the code).

    The problem is that the goal of any DRM system is to stay invisible until a “filthy pirate” is detected. After that, the goal is to make the device in question non-functional. For most people (I’m guessing over 90%), DRM causes no problems. The problem with the legal protection of TPMs is the false positive rate. If the false-positive rate is 0.01%, and 20 million copies are sold, you are going to have 2000 irate customers who the paid a premium for software they are not allowed to return or troubleshoot.

    I think we have articulate why the “compromise” measures in the bill are not good enough, or don’t really do what would be expected. The problem with that strategy is that technical reasons are not valid from the minister’s point of view.

  48. “The problem with that strategy is that technical reasons are not valid from the minister’s point of view.”

    While what you say makes sense generically, what would you suggest be done about the above statement?

    The facts and reality of the matter are that these “technical reasons” are valid, and very important, to understanding and actually addressing the issues. What we seem to have, is a minister, and his trusted industry advisers, hiding under a rock saying “it can’t be, I won’t believe it, I refuse to believe it”.

    What you are pointing out is disturbing and disheartening. You are saying we have government officials formulating laws based on fallacy and personal belief rather than reality. Laws that are that disconnected from reality will never be respected, or obeyed, by the majority of people.

    With this kind of approach and attitude from our elected officials, the “problem” can only get worse, not better.

  49. oldguy said:


    phillipsjk said:

    “The problem with that strategy is that technical reasons are not valid from the minister’s point of view.”

    Exactly OG… Moore is out of touch with reality and is too damn stupid to listen to technical experts. All the while listening to the “media” producers.

    Once again the TPM does not belong at all due to the far reaching consequences of it. DRM on games etc is not about “anti-piracy” at all.. It’s about control and monetizing things they can’t yet do. ie: Used Game sales.. if you cannot legally break the lock even on something you own w/o their permission you are at their mercy. And we already know they want to kill that market (effectively killing first sale as well)

    Much the same in other ways for “DVDs” etc… not only would this in effect extend their soon to be expired patent but it would again allow more control of the consumer.

    We all know DRM is pointless when it comes to “piracy”… but that is the flag the media producers love to use along with tons of bad statistics.

    Never mind the fact that c-32’s TPM would effectively criminalize bypassing of DRM… making enforcement in all ways put straight onto everyone’s tax bill. Something the “labels” would dearly love.

    Reality is Moore is unfit for the position in so many ways I do not even care to try to count them. C-32 is in effect written by the americans to kiss the US’s ass and is not for the good of the avg Canadian. It’s as many others have put it BAD LAW..

    TPM needs to be eliminated from the bill since it does not serve any good purpose at all and Moore needs to be booted from office permanently.

    Oh and as for DRM with games… don’t even get me started on how flawed the structure used is… and invasive way beyond what it should be which causes all sorts of problems. (Trying to ban use of image software for example)

  50. @Glenn
    It occurs to me.. isn’t the used game market (for PC games) dead already? I don’t think anyone allows resale of PC games anymore/ever did (because the serial key is what counts…)

    I wouldn’t exactly say the DRM itself is the reason for that… in fact it would be even worse if they didn’t put DRM (there’d be NO chance of resale) because the original owner could keep a copy installed and then resell it…

  51. … said:
    @Glenn
    It occurs to me.. isn’t the used game market (for PC games) dead already? I don’t think anyone allows resale of PC games anymore/ever did (because the serial key is what counts…)

    I wouldn’t exactly say the DRM itself is the reason for that… in fact it would be even worse if they didn’t put DRM (there’d be NO chance of resale) because the original owner could keep a copy installed and then resell it…

    @ …

    On the contrary the used game market is alive and well. Though morons like EA are trying very hard to kill it… or make anyone buying a used game pay them as well. Check out these links for more info:

    http://www.techspot.com/news/38934-game-developer-preowned-games-are-worse-than-piracy.html

    http://www.techspot.com/news/39045-ubisoft-could-follow-eas-used-games-fee-model.html

    http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/05/gamestops-used-game-sales-data-in-beautiful-chart-form/

    As for it they did not put DRM at all it would be far better for the actual customers whom paid for the product. The $ wasted on could be used to make a better product.. and w/o DRM it would cause far less BS hassles for the consumer.

    DRM once again does not stop piracy at all.. therefore anyone claiming such is full of crap and/or has another agenda with DRM.. ie: taking away rights from the consumer and/or gouging for more cash.

  52. Glenn said:

    @ …

    post coming soon.. for some dumb reason the system decided my reply needed to be reviewed first ~_~

  53. @Glenn
    Where do they sell used PC games? I want in on that 😛 I honestly haven’t seen any of the usual outlets selling or buying them for the abovementionned reasons (only console games are sold/bought)

  54. Oh and: http://www.techspot.com/news/38916-ea-to-fend-off-used-game-sales-with-online-pass.html

    Gamespot is one of the biggest but I have seen alot of other places that deal with them as well.

    Fact is though consumers have ‘first sale’ rights.. and EA etc wants to use DRM to take that right away from them.

    That would be the equivalent of say you buy a GM car.. and a yr later you decide you want a new car… but GM can legally say no.. you can’t sell it unless you give us $$$ first.

  55. Hmm
    Certainly an interesting problem >< Agreed, we have the first sale right But it's inherently wrong to be able to buy a game, install it, then sell it back (but keep the game the installed)... which is why most outlets do not deal in used PC games - it's far too easy to do this It's a pickle.. and some DRM would actually ALLOW for resale rights (provided the key is tied to an account and the account is transfered over to the new owner) One thing that really bugs me is when there can be only one legitimate user of the copy though (what about the rest of the family? Reminds me of the time my brother wanted to check out my copy of Lineage 2 before I got around to it and I got stuck using the account he created forevermore! - but at least they allow multiple characters / account)

  56. … said:
    Hmm
    Certainly an interesting problem >< Agreed, we have the first sale right But it's inherently wrong to be able to buy a game, install it, then sell it back (but keep the game the installed)... which is why most outlets do not deal in used PC games - it's far too easy to do this @ ... if someone is going to pirate the game DRM won't stop them.. and most pirates will not go out and buy it.. install it and then resell it.. they'll nab a copy online etc. As for outlets not dealing in games due to that I don't buy it.. I've seen alot of places dealing with such since there is a market for it. Both PC and console (both of which can be easily pirated as a rule) The idea of legal protection for DRM making bypassing it a criminal offense though is a HUGE open door for that to be massively abused. What about the ECU in your car.. it has "TPM"... if C-32 passes as is it would be extremely simple for a MFR to forbid anyone but 'dealers' that pay them a fee to repair your car.. Of what about the infamous case of the generic garage door openers made in Canada and the OEM company in the US tried desperately to stop them using the DMCA. TPM in law is a massive mistake and will do nothing except creation of artificial monopolies and abuses of the avg consumer all in the name of "piracy" C-32's TPM needs to be eliminated entirely IMO... or if not it needs to be 100% reversed... instead of "exceptions" it should only be "X" that gets the explicit protection and if it is not explicitly spelled out then "X" does not get any legal protection of TPM. Otherwise it will not only punish the consumer but will stifle innovation, creation and if anything help promote piracy. A typical "pirate" video game for example runs better and w/far far less hassle than the "official" version. Hence why every game I buy never gets installed w/the original installer.. I immediately bypass that and remove any/all DRM from it. (including writing the "crack" myself if necessary) I PAID for it.. and I refuse to be punished for that.. as for EA's crap w/USED games I 10000% refuse to support them in any way at all until they clue into reality. Same w/UBIsoft's latest crap.

  57. phillipsjk says:

    Old Guy said:
    “The problem with that strategy is that technical reasons are not valid from the minister’s point of view.”

    While what you say makes sense generically, what would you suggest be done about the above statement?
    —–
    Well, he also doesn’t like fear mongering, so about the only thing we can do is replace the Minister with somebody willing to do their job properly.

    BTW, I agree the purpose of DRM is not to stop piracy. For example, how would disabling buttons (during unskippable ADs)( on the DVD player prevent pirating? I was giving them the benefit of the doubt when I said the goal of DRM is to shut-down the device when an “filthy pirate” is detected.

    Saying it is about censorship and control won’t get you far, IMO.

  58. phillipsjk says:

    @…
    We could always do that with older formats as well. It is just easier with media in machine-readable form. The response is copyright law: for a limited time, only the author or licensed agents are allowed to reproduce a work.

    IMO, the reason the respect for copyright is declining is that “limited time” now seems endless. When Disney re-released their classic Videos (about 20 years old or more), they re-touched them, and changed some scenes. They claim the result is a beautiful restoration, however such an act likely pushes the date for entering into the public domain back another 20 years.

    DRM can’t be used to facilitate resale rights because as we have said, it doesn’t work. If it can be viewed or played, it can be copied. Even if you had a hypothetical “perfect” DRM system, it still won’t work. Programmers are not lawyers, it is not their job to interpret and enforce the law. For example, traffic lights only make suggestions. Do we throw up our hands and say: “traffic signals are pointless because they can’t physically stop the cars”?

  59. Something occured to me. Moore said that Canada has to follow international law, because it is fundamentally a trading nation. However, the reality is that we have a $40B deficit in trade with countries other than the US. Could it be any clearer who he is catering to?

  60. “Do we throw up our hands and say: “traffic signals are pointless because they can’t physically stop the cars”? ”

    No, but we don’t allow anybody to put up a red light just anywhere they want. The analogy breaks down even further when you realize that the roads legally “controlled” by these red lights are part of our public commons, paid for from our common tax dollars. Throw in a drivers license that requires you know the details of these “rules of the road”, and the analogy breaks down even further. Lastly, the analogy of a “red light” to TPM is only comparable if the light is *always* red.

    The technology must not only serve it’s stated purpose, but it must also be fairly applied. If the purpose of TPM is to stop pirates, it never will do so. Just as a red light won’t stop someone determined to drive through. If that light is permanently red, and it controls the only through-way to a destination that is perfectly legal to reach, the permanent red light is simply stupid, and will be ignored by everyone.

  61. phillipsjk says:

    Actually, only a defective TPM would be always red. If a traffic signal displays red all the time, it is defective and treated as a 4-way stop. Remember, by some interpretations of the bill, the copyright page in a book can be considered a TPM (specifically the part that says no storing in an information retrieval system such as a library).

    Copyrighted works are part of the public commons: there is just a limitation on copying for a limited period of time. Don’t have a response to the part where traffic lights are government controlled though 😛

  62. phillipsjk says:

    analogy correction:
    Ok, got it:
    Not anybody can put a traffic light on a road, only the road owner. That corresponds to how only the copyright holder should be allowed to apply TPMs, but it is usually the publisher that applies them.

  63. Violence
    No I don’t condone violence. I’ve just posted links to what it looks like when it’s practiced. As for practice, it is Mr. Moore that escalated to the use of violent language.

    Nap.

  64. I see this all as one who over the last fifteen years has watched the outrage amongst commercial closed software vendors over the rise of Open Source software. Open Source software uses copyright, but it upset the apple cart in terms of the business model of the traditional software vendors. Steve Ballmer of Microsoft called Open Source software a cancer, a virus, and communist. Microsoft also spent years dreaming and scheming about how they could team up with music producers to force people to buy DRM’d music, playing it only on MS software. Apple won that one handily by using a much less intrusive form of DRM then dropping it entirely for music. Stragely Apple has not ruined the music sales industry but instead has dragged them kicking and screaming into a very lucrative digital age.

    I bought a Kobo book reader the other day. It came with lots of epub books that have expired copyrights. I can clean them up and do what I want with them. Then I bought The Hobbit and found that I am supposed to use Adobe software to get permission to load the book I have paid for onto the hardware I have paid for. I don’t need software to babysit me and my legitimate and fair and legal use of the copyrighted work I have paid for. So, I stripped out the DRM and fixed up the table of contents and worked around a font sizing bug that the Kobo has.

    Book sellers have not “gotten” it yet. They are among those terrified that people with “steal” their products in what they have traditionally run as a very managed production and distribution business. They don’t have to worry about distribution or printing or bookstores sending back copies. They can make more money. Yet, they are still control freaks just like the music industry used to be. They are among the crowd asking the Canadian government to help them stay in their comfort zone and avoid changing. They want the government to protect their business model by cramming it down the throats of Canadians in the form of DRM, trying to make digital files even less copyable and handy than tangible physical books. It is not the government’s job to hold the hands of industries who are afraid of change. If they can’t handle making lots of money by charging a fair price for their products someone else should step in and do it. I am not interested in publishers trying to strongarm me as a reader into paying whatever price they pull out of the air for a book. That is what they want along with lots of other controls. The truth is they are risking getting bypassed by authors who will start to go to publishers who can handle the digital age, providing books readers can read without paternalistic babysitting software and stern warnings that if I balk at this I am a bad pirate and a thief. I am not radical, only tired of it all and ticked off.

  65. Source of James Moore’s speech material
    It looks like Moore isn’t the only one spouting his line. There is an eerie similarity between his words and phrases, and the words of the ASCAP and NMPA towards Open Source and Creative Commons. See:

    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89600/copyright-war-escalates-with-nmpa-joining-ascaps-attack-on-free-culture

  66. Where Moore got his talking points
    I think we can see who wrote Moores speech for him.

    I found this

    “These four groups have an extremist,” Israelite added, “radical anti-copyright agenda. They all have an economic interest in the theft of our music or paying little to nothing for it. [And] they are intellectually dishonest in how they approach these fights.”

    In this story.

    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89600/copyright-war-escalates-with-nmpa-joining-ascaps-attack-on-free-culture/

    This is step two of the war that has started in the US against open copyleft style licenses like the GPL and The Creative Commons. In other words not only should a few companies have full control over content. But people should be forbidden from giving their original self created content away for free.

  67. phillipsjk says:

    @oldguy
    Nice catch.

  68. phillipsjk says:

    @VP, don’t jump to conclusions
    The Hon. James Moor made his speech on June 22, 2010. David Isrealite made his speech 4 days later on June 26, 2010. The cause and effect could very well go the other way since the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official languages was speaking at an International conference on piracy and counterfeiting.

    The other linked source, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers’ letter, was posted online June 23, 2010. The closer date makes the point of origin harder to determine. The letter looks liek a scan, but it could be a screen capture from a PDF file as well. If it was sent by letter mail, ASCAP is probably the source. If if it was sent by e-mail, our very own minister is likely the source of the idea.

    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89494/ascap-declares-war-on-free-culture/

    Because the image is broken in two, I think a pdf screen capture is more likely. That means that Hon. James Moor’s comments are having real international consequences.

  69. jump to conclusions
    Although the public “source” could go either way, any of these comments could have derived from a common “private” source that predates all of them.

    In any event the similarity in phraseology is unsettling. The common perception that these comments imply is even more so. If you combine the above with the opening comments from the USA new “anti-filesharing” initiative, there is a common thread of using emotionally loaded terms to associate all file sharing and copyright infringement with organized crime and terrorism.

    It really does look like the copyright industry may have started to “declare war” on modern society. No compromises. I really hope I am wrong here, but this is too big a coincidence to ignore. At the very least we should take note.