News

James Moore’s Attack on Fair Copyright

There was considerable attention yesterday on a media report stating that Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore warned against "radical extremists" opposing C-32.  A video of part of his remarks has now been posted online [full video here]. The comments, which come after the prepared speech, feature a no-holds-barred attack against those arguing for fair copyright.  According to Moore, some proposed amendments to C-32 are not genuine but rather part of an  attempt to oppose copyright and copyright reform, to drum up fear, and to mislead.  Moore encourages confrontation, urging the audience to confront on Facebook, Twitter, talk shows and in the media until "they are defeated."  

I'm under no illusion here. Yesterday, I asked in a post who Moore's "radical extremists" are. The video suggests that he thinks it is me and the thousands of other Canadians who have argued for fair copyright (a reporter at the event reached the same conclusion and CRIA lawyer Barry Sookman is happy to do the same). His comments met with applause from the audience and will be taken as a mandate to continue the astroturfing activities on Balanced Copyright for Canada.

To hear the Minister of Canadian Heritage both discredit the views of so many people and to encourage confrontation as the optimal plan of action is incredibly discouraging.  To use his own words, it is an attempt to mislead, misdirect, and undermine what has been more than a year-long effort for Canadians to speak out on copyright. For those that are interested, my actual take on C-32 is here and some proposed amendments here.  The comments are not dissimilar from many consumer, education, library, business, and creator groups. I see few people who are "absolutists" out there – most want a fair approach but may disagree on precisely where to strike the balance on issues such as digital locks or fair dealing.

Perhaps most troubling is the fact that this is part of a growing trend. Yesterday's comments targeted fair copyright, but we are not alone.  When consumer groups criticize the bill, Moore claims they don't represent consumers and cites support from the Chamber of Commerce instead.  When political opposition parties speak of the need for reform to digital locks provisions, he says they have not put forward amendments.  When creator groups such as ACTRA criticize his approach, he blocks them on Twitter.  When business and education groups express concern about digital locks, he selectively cites their supportive comments instead.  Moore is clearly ready to fight and has urged the few supporters of DMCA-style provisions to do the same.

Those absolutists out there, who are babyish in their approach to copyright legislation who think that any idea that copyright reform would be an attack on individual citizens are people who frankly don't get.  Let me amend what I said a minute ago.  Don't ignore those voices.  Those people who are out there who are saying that copyright legislation, copyright reform is not good, these are people who are dressing up the fact that they don't believe in copyright reform at all.  Right.  These people out there who don't believe in copyright at all.  They will say, well Bill C-61, the old copyright legislation, we disagreed with these specific provisions.  Well, Bill C-32 we have these specific amendments.

Don't fool yourself.  These voices that are out there, these people that are out there who pretend to be experts that the media cite all the time. They don't believe in any copyright reform whatsoever.  They will find any excuse to oppose this bill, to drum up fear, to mislead, to misdirect, and to push people in the wrong direction and to undermine what has been a meaningful comprehensive year-long effort to get something right.  This hasn't been done since 1997, three years after I graduated high school.  It's been a long time.  We need to amend our legislation. Those people out there who try to pretend that they are copyright experts and they want to amend copyright in a meaningful way, don't be fooled by some of these people. They don't believe in any copyright.  They don't believe in individuals' right to protect their own creations.

When they speak, they need to be confronted.  If it's on Facebook, if it's on Twitter, or if it's on a talk show or if it is a newspaper, confront them and tell they are wrong.  Canada, from the Hudson's Bay Company through FTA and NAFTA to the G8 and G20, Canada always has been and always will be a trading nation.  Our future and our past and our prosperity has always been dependent on investment into Canada, being in compliance with international standards, opening ourselves up to the world, welcoming investment and working with the world.  Not being an outlier in the world, disregarding international treaties like WIPO that we've signed, disregarding our obligations to protect foreign investment into Canada, Canadian investment into Canadian businesses, we need to protect those investments and protect those jobs.

Make sure that those voices who try to find technical, non-sensical, fear-mongering reasons to oppose copyright reform are confronted every step of the way and they are defeated.  When we do that this bill will pass and Canada will be better for it.

Tags: / /

61 Comments

  1. cndcitizen says:

    Amazing
    So where is the democracy if he ignores the wider population and the technical experts and relies on external information to “..disregarding our obligations to protect foreign investment into Canada”.

    So basically from his own mouth he cites the real reason that they need digital locks. I guess he is taken Harpers model by trying to silence his oposition and creating FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). I guess that is a great way for dishonest or undemocratic politicians to get what they want. Most people sooner or later start seeing them for what they are and start ignoring them….just like Moore seems to be doing to his critics…by blocking them.

    I wonder, can someone sue him for unfair access to their elected representative…sorry not a lawyer but would be kind of funny, a lawsuit brought on because he blocks constituents from access to a public forum…maybe sensorship…

  2. Wow
    wow wow wow wow

    This guy is part of the GOVERNMENT? You see that kind of talk on MESSAGE BOARDS!

    Ye gods Canada’s government is going to be an international farce. Vote these people out, it is shameful that they represent us.

  3. cndcitizen says:

    Censorship ! sensorship…
    Sorry should have read my submission before posting.

  4. Please answer this question. There’s much discussion around “fixing” C-32. If we modify the language around TPMs, making it permissible to defeat digital locks for personal purposes (backups, format shifting, etc.), is C-32 acceptable legislation that deserves to be passed?

    Or, is what the minister suggests actually correct? Will we ever see modernized copyright legislation that will be loose enough to appease people who oppose C-32 in its current form, yet strong enough to appease rights holders, or are we doomed to have this discussion for an eternity?

    Unfortunately, if it’s the latter, I’d like to excuse myself from the debate now because I have other things to tend to and don’t particularly care for arguing.

  5. scMichael Geist says:

    @Jeff
    Yes. I’ve argued that fixing the TPM provisions (and I’ve posted how I think we could do that) would make this a bill that deserves broad support. I think the compromise positions on issues such as fair dealing, ISP liability and statutory damages were reasonable.

    MG

  6. Merger is needed for Libs/NDP to stop them.
    These Conservatives are insane. “Until they are defeated” isn’t talk you hear in a democracy; it’s what you hear in a facist regime. We’re either with them or against them; there is no reasoned middle ground for the Cons.

    The only good thing about things like this, foreign abortion funding being cut off, Fox News North, funds being cut off to women and gay groups etc is that it’s proving that our non-Conservative political leaders – Liberal, NDP, Green, Bloc alike – need to find a way to stand together to oppose these facists.

  7. Okay… on one front he has a point… people who are pretending to be experts and trying to spread disinformation about copyright reform for the purpose of halting it probably should be addressed.

    That’s still a *FAR* cry from saying that there’s no problems with C32.

    Anyways…

    @Jeff
    Modifying C32 in the way you propose would, IMO, go about 80 to 90% of the way towards fixing the bill. The only remaining thing I would ask for is that law not contain any wording that effectively bans the distribution of circumventing technologies, as these may be the only means, outside of explicit authorization by the copyright holder which may or may not be feasible, by which a consumer could actually engage in reasonable non-infringing activities such as private use copying or backups.

  8. @Jeff
    Jeff can you be specific about what you actually like in this Bill, and go beyond rhetoric? I agree with expanding fair dealing. The TPM measures can effectively circumvent the entire copyright scheme – if a “lock” is afforded protections which usurp other rights that is a dramatic change.

    MG – you know when you’re getting specious attacks like this you’re doing something right.

  9. Source quote
    So, where in the video does Moore use the term “radical extremist”?
    Can anyone find it?

  10. Michael Geist says:

    @Maniac
    Not in that video clip. Source of the quote is Sun Media

    http://money.canoe.ca/money/business/international/archives/2010/06/20100622-145853.html

  11. Matthew Skala says:

    If C-32 were modified in such a way that defeating DRM was legal except for an enumerated list of illegal purposes, then I’d have little remaining objection to the bill. However, it can’t be illegal except for an enumerated list, no matter how long that list becomes; the default case must be for defeating DRM to be allowed.

  12. Re: Source quote
    So Michael, are you still saying “labeling those that seek reforms to a copyright bill as “radical extremists” is an embarrassing slander that should be promptly retracted” ?

  13. from the 'awful-ruling' dept says:

    It will only get worse – US Court Says It’s Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright + sad news from NZ
    You may recall that last year, a district court made a very important ruling on what appeared to be a minor part of copyright law. The “Golan” case asked a simple question: once something is officially in the public domain, can Congress pull it out and put it back under copyright? [...] Getting a second crack at this, the district court got it right — and was the first court to point out that massively expanded copyright law can, in fact, violate the First Amendment.

    But, of course, it couldn’t last.

    On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling and said there’s no problem with the First Amendment because copyright law “addresses a substantial or important governmental interest.” This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. — http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/2320049908.shtml

    —–

    New Zealand Politicians Convinced By Lobbyists To Bring Back Software Patents

    There was widespread happiness among software developers a few months back, when it was announced that New Zealand had decided to explicitly ban software patents. Of course, it didn’t take long for a lobbying campaign to kick off from those opposed to this provision, and it appears the lobbying was effective, such that software patents will now be allowed — though, they will still be somewhat limited (as they are in Europe). — http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/0224529933.shtml

  14. “Make sure that those voices who try to find technical, non-sensical, fear-mongering reasons to oppose copyright reform are confronted every step of the way and they are defeated.” James Moore

    Mr Moore obviously isn’t aware that people have gotten away with murder because of “technical… reasons”. Perhaps if he spent more time worrying about those technical reasons before he tabled C-32, their would be less reason to address the people who disagree with it. I don’t think logic was ever part of this copyright plan.

    Good luck stigmatizing the majority Mr Moore. I’m sure it will win you many votes. Theirs an old saying: If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. Any faith I had in the validity of a fair copyright law is diminished.

  15. Wow Moore, wow
    His speech sounds like something you’d hear in an NRA meeting, or as someone mentioned earlier, a facist government. You could even put it in a 1984-style environment and it would fit.

    Sadly though, Moore’s speech isn’t inconsitent. Though you may not recall, Harper did a similar speech in a “secret” Conservative Party meeting about things like gun laws and other traditional right-wall “we must oppose this!” subjects (I think health care may have also been one of those subjects”.

    This is just another sign that the Conservative Party has lost control. They aren’t appeasing to anyone but themselves. Their mantra is “We must stay in power”. At least even the Mulroney government, for as bad as ‘old Brian was, was actually a CONSERVATIVE party practicing CONSERVATIVE policy. At least that party were united because they honestly supported their leader, and played as puppets as most of Harper’s MPs are. Again, I’m not saying the Mulroney government was good or I support what they did, and I’ve always been left-of-centre (I just joined the Pirate Party BTW), but it was leagues ahead of Harper and his minions. Harper just doesn’t know how to be a leader. Either that, or he confuses being a dominatrix with being a leader. So yeah, stupid copyright reform is just one piece of the shit pie of what I think is the worst Canadian government in history.

  16. If my company buys an e-book from Amazon, or i-book, use it and then wish to sell it, can I under the (proposed) new copyright law? If I cannot sell it, how is the purchase to be held on my books? Is it an expense or an asset. If you think this isn’t an issue, ask a law firm how much they spend on books and how the tax accounting works. If it is an expense, this is a definite benefit to corporations but may cause havoc with libraries and Universities as things change to electronic text

  17. Yikes, I wonder if this is just a polical trick, or if we should be concerned about poor Moore. This is not behavior I would expect from well balanced Canadian politicians.

  18. strunk&white says:

    Dr. Geist,

    I read your comments section regularly, and regularly see comments from copyright abolitionists and conspiracy theorists. I don’t see you doing anything to disabuse these commenters of their innaccuracies and misinformation, though you do dip in and out of the comments when you feel it can help you.

    Like it or not, your strategically moderated comments section, your own confrontational rhetoric, and the intimidation tactics and spamming of many members of your “fair” copyright movement define you for many in the debate. You have unchallenged commenters here regularly encouraging outright piracy and all sorts of other infringements of copyright.

    I think real Canadian consumers would be astonished and disturbed by the attitudes and comments that are both implicitly encouraged on this site and welcomed under your umbrella of “fairness.”

  19. @Jeff
    “There’s much discussion around “fixing” C-32. If we modify the language around TPMs, making it permissible to defeat digital locks for personal purposes (backups, format shifting, etc.), is C-32 acceptable legislation that deserves to be passed?”

    As others has stated, this is the main point of contention with this legislation and most would agree it’s “somewhat” acceptable if the protection of TMPs didn’t apply for fair dealing. ALSO, contrary to what Moore would have people believe, even without the anti-circumvention provisions this bill brings us in line with our international obligations such as WIPO. He’s only telling a part truth, which in my opinion, is worse than all-out lying.

    Another HUGE issue I see is the restrictions it applys to students, education institutions and libraries. It’s rediculous…all in the subtext of killing second-hand book sales. Anything that places limitations, within reason, on education, especially in the name of profit, is inherantly FLAWED!!

  20. Summer of George says:

    @strunk&white

    Funny you seem to have forgotten your own spamming, as well as other members of your neo-copyright lobby.

    I guess if you can base your opinions of an entire body of people on the comments of a few, then so can I. From this moment on I will assume all neo-copyright persons are as pathetic as Strunk @ white. All of them must troll blogs, websites, various medias in order to force their warped view of morality on the masses.

    What else am I missing?

  21. Captain Hook says:

    Oh geez whitey there you go again, sticking that hoof of yours in your pie hole. How you equate the occasional comment on his own blog criticising reader posts that directly misinterpret his own words, with a “moderated comment section”, strategic or otherwise, is totally beyond comprehension.


  22. I made an image for this.

    http://yfrog.com/2pmymasterp

    Liscence: WTFPL 2.0

  23. Anarchist Philanthropist says:

    @strunk&white

    I don’t think you get it. Everything here and said here has been of Canadian belief and origin. Everything Moore has done has been to the benefit of Americans and other countries. This bill has NOTHING to do with the wishes of Canadians and everything to do with the wishes of major american corporations. As Moore said

    “Our future and our past and our prosperity has always been dependent on investment into Canada, being in compliance with international standards, opening ourselves up to the world, welcoming investment and working with the world.”

    In that statement he pretty much says he’s doing what other countries want him to do, not doing what Canadian citizens want him to do.

    And when he continues and says “Not being an outlier in the world” he more directly means “we are doing what the americans are telling us to do, so we don’t piss them off”.

    The reality is, this person who calls people like Dr. Geist “absolutists and babyish” is really and truly disturbing. This moore is as much a radical if not more so than us. He talks about this with the dedication and fever you would expect of a tyrant, and I truly question the fairness of the committee he mentions when it’s people like him who are setting this up.

    This whole thing has to be stopped completely and rebuilt using people like myself from an IT perspective and people like Dr. Geist from a legal and copyright perspective, and all of use have HAVE to be Canadian with NO agenda for helping out other countries. ONLY helping Canada.

  24. Greg A. Woods says:

    unbelievable
    It’s hard to know what to say here.

    The problem is that the government we have elected and put into power does not believe that it is their job, their sole mandate, to work for the people and the future we want for our country. We seem to have elected both those who don’t truly understand that corporations will do anything and everything they can to improve their profits, even if it means working against the people and the society they exist within, and those who willfully collude with corporations to thwart the people.

    It is not the job of the government to protect the profits of corporations, no matter that we may give corporations some legal standing — they are still not sentient empathic beings even though they are created and run by people and it is abundantly clear that as entities they cannot be trusted to behave in civil society. They may be run by people they are not (usually) run as true democracies, and at the same time they wield many orders of magnitude more power than any individual ever can in a democratic society.

    We must work for a government which will protect the people and work for the people over and above corporations. It is the market, and the market alone, which must determine the success or failure of corporations. The government’s part must be to make sure that market forces and the singular mind of improving the bottom line doesn’t cause corporations to stray from, or prevent the creation of, the rules and regulations we need to keep them from harming the people in the course of their business (or even after they have concluded their business).

    How do we undo the corruption that has clearly invaded our political system? It seems no matter how determined any new government might be, my recollection of history shows that it is almost never the case that they are ultimately able to overturn an undesired law, no matter how many promises they may have made to do so. It seems that if we fail to prevent the creation of laws that favour only corporations then our only chance is if there comes some way for the courts to strike down a law, and even then it seems the odds are usually against the people (eg. if Monsanto vs. Schmeiser is any indication, and I’m sure there are many other similar examples).

  25. Well if the DRM, and TPM provisions go ahead as written, the members of all Chambers are about to get a rude awakening on just how much their IT budget will grow. It will be a lot more expensive to run businesses and adapt software to existing technologies, if that can be done at all under certain circumstances.

    I personally welcome those in the business communities to “confront” fair copyright. I think those clapping in the background need to do their own research especially around DRM, TPM and what that will mean to each individual business in each sector, and maybe they’ll learn why all 3 opposition parties have lined up against those provisions.

  26. @strunk&white
    I would truely love to hear your, and you cohort’s, justifications for the education provisions in this bill.

    **How does this help the academeic/researcher? Electronic, material may be printed but must be destroyed within, what is it, 2 or 3 days? That’s neither economically nor ecologically friendly and logistically makes no sense. A copy is a copy is a copy!!!

    **How does this help the educational institution?
    The cost of acquisition and copyright payments will become preventitive for many smaller institutions to expand their content past a small amout each year. Institution will ultimately turn to cheaper, possibly lower quality, materials.

    **How does this help libraries?
    Electronic materials checked out, must “self destruct” after 5 days? YES!!!! I’m expected to be a machine that can read War and Peace in 5 days AND still keep up with ALL my other courses!!! C’MON!!! Where’s the commen sense?

    **How does this help the author? Limiting circulation within education limits exposure and ultimately limits sales in the long run. This is especially true for courses which follow modern literature.

    **How does ANY this help the student? …especially when students must destroy lesson plans 30 days after completing the course or face libal?

    NONE of these provision help anyone other than the publisher!!! But please, I would love to hear your opinions.

  27. After the warning from CSIS last night on CBC as well, we need to be making sure that any economic policy reflects Canadian views and values, and not from international pressures. We want to make sure Canadian businesses remain competitive and that DRM and TPM’s don’t lock down the market to a few foreign businesses.

  28. Chris Bruner says:

    Radical Extremists?
    So in other words a radical extremist is anyone who disagrees with the government.
    Isn’t there a word for this, Nazism or something like that. Dictatorship maybe.
    I’m not pleased with my government.

  29. Don’t listen to CSIS with their technical, nonsensical fear mongering!

  30. scary
    wow that’s a scary clip…. sounds like a tyrant. If they don’t agree, Off with their HEADS!

  31. phillipsjk says:

    @Mark
    “Okay… on one front he has a point… people who are pretending to be experts and trying to spread disinformation about copyright reform for the purpose of halting it probably should be addressed.”

    Call me paranoid, but I think that may be a reference to me. In my copyright consultation submission I wrote:
    ‘I have a general interest in computers and electronics. Because I make a reasonable effort to read EULAs, I have become aware of how various “Intellectual Property,” including copyright is used in the computer industry.’

    I am currently unemployed and have no work experience servicing computers. I considered getting A+ certification is 2005, but decided against it because the CompTIA lobbies for the legal protection of TPMs. I did not want to fund a lobby group who’s only goal is to ensure continued inflated work for their members.

    With the arrival of Windows Vista/7 with the “protected path”, I am no longer interested in “computers” (meaning appliance running Microsoft Windows). I have removed references to computers from my resume. I am still interested in the more general field of electronics.

    The way DRM works, industry insiders have their hands tied in opposing this. The sales person can’t say anything bad about the dominant OS. Apple is even more restrictive when it comes to the Ipod/Iphone/Ipad. The people implementing these measures can’t say anything because they are under a Non-disclosure Agreement. I have personally decided to never sign a NDA covering the inner workings of a TPM. This obviously limits my employment opportunities. However, if this passes, I will have no shortage of work as a consultant.

  32. @strunk & white
    On the perspective of “strategically moderated” comments, I actually have to partially agree with you here (and this doesn’t happen that often). I too have had comments mysteriously disappear after posting, generally ones that are critical of some of Dr Geist’s points. Unfortunately, some of the posts that are not moderated out can tend to the “abolish copyright” side, so in that sense I can see where casual readers of the blog would get the impression of his support for the “copyright abolitionists” as you put it.

    Dr Geist. The Sun Media article does not directly quote him as saying “radical extremists”. The actual statement is: Moore warned against “radical extremists” seeking to oppose the legislation. So, did he actually say it, and if he did, in what context, or was it the editors who claimed he did? The press has, in the past misrepresented the statements of elected officials. This can be as a result of a number of causes, for instance, typos, poor paraphrasing, or intentional misrepresentation in order to further the aims of the journalist, the editor or the publisher. For instance, he may well have said it, but under what context? Was he being sincere, or was he attempting sarcasm or satire? Unfortunately, with the writeup that was provided, I can’t tell, since it does not provide a direct quote of the context. Until I actually see the text of the speech in which the comment was made, assumptions can be made that he was sincere, however assumptions could also be made that the quote misrepresents what he said.

    As far as the compromise positions are concerned, I do agree with the sentiment of the positions if not necessarily the details.

    @IamME: While I agree that destruction after 5 days is too short of a time, can you suggest an alternative that would make the text useful to you as a student, and yet respect the rights of the author and publisher? Remember, we are talking about a compromise here. Giving a student the right to copy a document and keep it forever, even AFTER they graduate, I don’t believe respects the rights of the author and publisher. At the very least, I see two problems with it. One is that it opens up the system to abuse; as I wrote here before, if, as a student, you could get a copy of a book on loan electronically for the semester or purchase a copy, which would you do? I suspect most students, living on a fixed and low income, would chose the former as it makes their funds go further. Secondly, it creates a special class of Canadian whereby a student can get a copy of the document while someone who is not a student has to pay. I could support a system whereby the electronic copy “self-destructs” in the same amount of time, after issue, as the term of a loan of a hard copy from the same library.

  33. technical, non-sensical, fear-mongering reasons says:

    technical, non-sensical, fear-mongering reasons
    “technical, non-sensical, fear-mongering reasons”

    This means ignore all programmers, ignore all technologists, ignore anyone who can program. Ignore anyone who understands computers, ignore anyone who understands programming. If they have any computer knowledge ignore them.

    Why? Because it is technical nonsense!

    Now support my bill for TECHNICAL PROTECTION MECHANISMS

  34. What did you think?
    Michael,
    Look, I’m mostly on your side, although I don’t think we agree on every point, however, I’m always surprised by your reaction when you are targeted by the other side in this issue. You are likely the most vocal opponent of most suggested amendments to IP laws in Canada, what did you think would happen?

  35. Anarchist Philanthropist says:

    @Crade

    “…
    Don’t listen to CSIS with their technical, nonsensical fear mongering!”

    You make call it fear mongering but lets face the truth shall we? This isn’t a surprise, even in the slightest. I’ve believe the americans have been paying off politicians in one form or another for a very long time.

    How else do you explain things like this or the avro arrow back in the 50′s. Things that would hurt the american economy get stopped or destroyed. We need to make Canada independent from the american regiem.

    WE ARE NOT THE 51ST STATE!!!

  36. Democracy or Fascism?
    @Strunk&white “I think real Canadian consumers would be astonished and disturbed by the attitudes and comments that are both implicitly encouraged on this site and welcomed under your umbrella of “fairness.”

    A forum where open discussion is allowed, and many positive and reasonable suggestions are made, must be inferior to an uneditable form letter that tells your peers what to say and believe. 0_o

  37. @Anon-K
    After you watch the video of his speech, it hardly makes much difference whether the words “radical extremists” are an exact quote or not.

  38. @Anarchist Philanthropist
    Sorry I was being sarcastic again, I’m bad for that :)

  39. Statements like this don’t really surprise me form our current government since they’ve said that about everyone who doesn’t agree with their image of the way things go.

    that said, I’ll continue to oppose the bill until a more reasonable TPM protection clause is put in.

  40. Problem is the US doesn’t have anything to offer the world anymore and the US Gov and Corporations need to introduce laws that keep their strong hold on “Intellectual Property”. This is all they have left and they are fighting tooth and hail to keep it from slipping away.

    There is something really wrong here with this Moore character when he refuses to listen to everyday Canadian citizens and ONLY seems to be catering to the Business/Corporate sector.

  41. Moore has lost it
    I am concerned for Mr. Moore, and I am not being factitious. Both the tone and the substance of his speech reeks of desperation. Professionally this is an embarrassment and mentally could be signs of excessive stress. I wonder if the story on CBC yesterday about CSIS investigating foreign influence peddling on Canadian politicians had some effect on him?

    Many of the things he has been saying are inaccurate, now that people are pointing that out he has moved onto venomous rhetoric. His clumsy demeanor is going to do nothing to promote his cause. Tactics like blocking out differing viewpoints, ignoring consultation might win back slaps from his posse but will not fly with the general public. If anything it will work against him.

    There are times when you respect your “opponent” and there are times when you just stop and say, wow get some help man. After watching that video I think that would be good advice.

  42. end user said:

    “Problem is the US doesn’t have anything to offer the world anymore and the US Gov and Corporations need to introduce laws that keep their strong hold on “Intellectual Property”. This is all they have left and they are fighting tooth and hail to keep it from slipping away.

    There is something really wrong here with this Moore character when he refuses to listen to everyday Canadian citizens and ONLY seems to be catering to the Business/Corporate sector. ”

    Agreed! The US needs a good punch in it’s nose.. the same as they got with the Helms Burton BS.

  43. Anonymous says:

    If you read what he said carefully, you’ll see that, at least by his literal wording, he does not speak against all groups who oppose this bill, only the ones that don’t have any real credibility that also oppose it. It’s not a far stretch to infer that he might suggesting that anyone who opposes this bill has no credibility, but that is not what he actually said.

  44. When they speak, they need to be confronted.
    Yeah right.. In any honest confrontation, it quickly becomes obvious to any and all observers who is the “radical extremist” and who has thought things though.

  45. @Anonymous “If you read what he said carefully, you’ll see that, at least by his literal wording, he does not speak against all groups who oppose this bill, only the ones that don’t have any real credibility that also oppose it.

    @Mr. Moore “Those people out there who pretend to be experts that media cite all the time, they don’t believe in any copyright reform whatsoever.”

    OK, who does the media cite all the time? I have not seen media regularly citing anyone who ‘does not believe in reform whatsoever’. What I do see is citations from people concerned about fair use and the impact of digital to that override it.

    If he is referring to Mr. Geist, who is probably the most sited and as reporters who were at the talk have suggested, then to say he does not believe in copyright reform at all has obviously never read his positions.

    You can try to defend Mr. Moore’s speech but it will not change the obvious world view he seems to hold to. It is not proper for a government minister of such high rank to be using such a broad and inaccurate brush.

  46. I see a few people going on about how this is a fault with the Conservatives. While I’m not in agreement with many things they’re doing (and did vote for them, but won’t again) I have to wonder if things would be any different with the Liberals.

    They’re both parties who are going to kowtow to private interests, media lobbies, etc. I don’t even imagine the Liberals having a problem with this bill — and wouldn’t at all be surprised if they tried to pass something similar if they were in power.

    Having said that, James Moore is right about one thing: there are extremists. I’m one of them. At this point, I’ve basically come to the conclusion that this whole situation should be approached in the same manner as a business negotiation. The media lobby is intractable in their belief that they should have even greater protection than they do now, despite lacking any credible evidence that they are suffering any sort of harm. Very well. My view, working from a negotiation point-of-view is equally radical in nature. I believe they should have no protection whatsoever under copyright law as they have proved themselves incapable of obeying the laws they claim are necessary (remember them find ways to not pay other companies royalties for songs used in compilations?). If we all adopt this approach, perhaps there is room to find middle ground.

    As it stands now, there is no middle ground. There is the media lobby’s extremist stance on the subject, followed by people like James Moore’s abundant willingness to concede to their every whim. He claims this was a year-long process, but was it? Did he work on this solid for a year, or did he merely spend a couple of days here and there pouring over big media’s propagandized numbers whilst weighing it against campaign contributions?

    I’m all for copyright reform as long as it doesn’t reduce any of our current rights as they apply to fair use. I fully support Justice von Finkenstein’s 2004 decision (in the BMG Canada vs. John Doe case) that P2P downloading is not illegal. As long as copyright reform doesn’t impinge on these rights, and doesn’t introduce DMCA-style anti-DRM laws — I’m fine with it.

  47. Chris Brand says:

    He’s right about one thing
    I’d certainly prefer that the Act stay unchanged than that it get the TPM amendments of C32.

  48. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    Moore’s Way or the Highway
    It would appear that anything that doesn’t agree with Heritage Minister James Moore’s ideas is painted as all out opposition.

    As a mom, I am very unhappy to see the Government Minister charged with Canadian Heritage catering so blatantly to corporate foreign interests at the expense of citizens and the heritage Canadians create for future generations. The fact that James Moore references “Hudson’s Bay Company through FTA and NAFTA to the G8 and G20″ is especially disturbing.

    For those Canadians who are unaware of the fact, The Hudson’s Bay Company is no longer even Canadian owned:

    “The company is owned by Hudson’s Bay Trading Company, the retail arm of the United States private equity firm NRDC Equity Partners, which also owned Lord & Taylor, a high-end department store chain in the U.S. (since acquired by Macy’s.)”
    –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudsons_bay_company

    Many Canadians have been less than impressed with the FTA, NAFTA and a great many Canadians are less than impressed that however much– what is it a billion dollars or more now — of taxpayer money is being spent on the G8 and G20 boondoggle. Minister Moore’s agenda seems primarily concerned with making foreign corporations happy.

    What about Canadian culture and heritage?

    I am also both a consumer and a creator. I do not agree with Bill C-32.

  49. James Moore must go!
    Enough is enough.

  50. mckracken says:

    hmmmm, what rhymes with radical extremist…..
    religious fundalmentalist….followed shortly by terrorist.

    /s. it’s interesting to see the word association games played in politics to bring people together so they can communicate more effectively. /s

    next up, how copyright infring…i mean pirates, expose you to terrorism in your neighborhood. next on fox…

  51. If opposing C-32 makes me one of the “radical extremists”
    Then call me Ahmed al-Download!

  52. @mcracken: We’re already there. The US government claims that most of the profits of criminals who sell pirated DVD’s is going to terrorists. Next thing you know, they’ll tell us that the opium trade is nothing but a funding source for Greenpeace.

  53. @Anon-K
    “While I agree that destruction after 5 days is too short of a time, can you suggest an alternative that would make the text useful to you as a student, and yet respect the rights of the author and publisher?”

    I’m not arguing against this, but perhaps a month might be more reasonable…or at the very least, the current term of library loan. The short timeframe is intended to be prohibitively inconvenient, nothing more. If a student can check out an eBook for the entire semester, then there’s no need to buy it, and this doesn’t make the publisher bigwigs rich.

    “Remember, we are talking about a compromise here. Giving a student the right to copy a document and keep it forever, even AFTER they graduate, I don’t believe respects the rights of the author and publisher. At the very least, I see two problems with it. One is that it opens up the system to abuse; as I wrote here before, if, as a student, you could get a copy of a book on loan electronically for the semester or purchase a copy, which would you do? I suspect most students, living on a fixed and low income, would chose the former as it makes their funds go further. Secondly, it creates a special class of Canadian whereby a student can get a copy of the document while someone who is not a student has to pay. I could support a system whereby the electronic copy “self-destructs” in the same amount of time, after issue, as the term of a loan of a hard copy from the same library. ”

    If a student gets to keep a hardcopy book they purchase, but not the electronic copy, then the electronic copy should be as free as a library loan. If a student is “forced” to “buy” an electronic copy, as some institutions are starting, then they should get to keep it forever since they’ve already forfeited the option to buy second-hand and right of first sale. On top of that, eTextbooks are rarely cheaper than the hardcopy and I know I sure would be angry if I spent $100 on a book only to have it self-destruct a month after the end of my course…especially if it’s something required by another course…THEN I have to re-buy it and that makes no sense. I shouldn’t have to kill trees printing out a 1000 page text book just to satisfy some perverse sense of right. This is the 21st century.

  54. Dismissal
    If there are any other Canadians who do not like being insulted and silenced by their government, I suggest you write Stephen Harper tomorrow to request his dismissal. He’s obviously not representing the Canadian people, and that’s his only job.

  55. cndcitizen says:

    NB tried to railroad citizens, PMO is trying also.
    Shawn Graham from NB tried to sell out the power company to Quebec most likely for a job when he gets kicked out of office next election. It looks like possibly Harper and his Con Men are doing the same thing….just looking for jobs by pandering to lobbyist to pass some bills before they get kicked out….oh well, they must be able to get full pension now (maybe not moore as he is only been there a term).

    Fix this bill so it is actually balanced, get rid of digital locks.

  56. Anonymous says:

    Draw attention to the change from Moore’s previous position
    Dr. Geist,

    Moore’ worst enemies are his previously recorded speeches, tweets, and comments to the media.

    I think you should point to the tweet in which he thanks you for thoughtful suggestions, the CBC article in which he points out that he’s breaking copyright law by copying DRMed files to his iPod, and the videos from 2009 (which you have already done).

  57. Getting labeled.
    I’d rather be labeled a radical extremist than allow the terror campaign that the media industries are trying to get cleared by the government with the act that Moore is trying to push through.

  58. Coyright may be good but not everything should be copyright protected
    Regardless of Moore’s beliefs and statements about how we are and have been a trading nation that plays by the rules, this nimrod needs to understand that it is the people who ultimately should but don’t call the shots. If they want copyright they will ring his bell and, if he belives that others should walk in his shadow, then he needs to be educated that it takes more than a shirt and tie and a music industry to lead a band.

  59. Made in the US OF A! says:

    I liked the reference to HBC.

    Like Bill C-62, Strunk & White, and Barry Sookman. All owned by the US.

    Strunk & White. Most people being shocked? You have no clue who most people are or what they think. You’re far into yourself to notice another human being. The narcissist seldom has a clue of those around them. Stick to your copyright pontificating.

  60. Copyright should be about respect
    I believe that copyright certainly shouldn’t be so restrictive that it impedes our free speech. So in certain instances, I see the justified argument for fair use in copyright. The problem with having to seek permission for every single thing is it would drastically slow down the working world.

    Someone within our blog community has just posted a great article on copyright, and the origins and evolution of our attitudes to copyright law and generally why the defualt attitude is generally dismissive.

    http://www.globalgridforlearning.com/proper-tea-is-theft

    I’m of a similar conclusion in that copyright is largely an issue of respect as much as anything else. Respect for other individuals who have put effort and time into producting/creating/making something that is rightly their own.

    Jason