Halifax Copyright Roundtable Attendee List and Podcast Posted |
| Print | |
|
Tuesday August 11, 2009
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
The government has posted the attendees and the podcast from the Halifax copyright roundtable hosted on Monday. The roundtable was by far the most one-sided of the consultation with no voices representing users, libraries, education, or consumer groups (Minister Clement described it as a "different mix"). Instead, AFM and SAC got their second invites of the series along with CMPDA, ACTRA, Microsoft, the CPCC, NRCC, and CRIA/CMPDA lobbyist Barry Sookman (the repeat invitations raises questions about why some groups get two opportunities but there was no space for groups like the CMCC or Appropriation Art along with experts like Howard Knopf). Given the attendees, there was unsurprisingly much said about WIPO implementation, payment, the "dangers" and "confusion" of fair use and not much about balance. The attendees were:
Comments (9)
forgottenCanadian
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Toronto. When and where is the Toronto roundtable. Im confused, I still have not received my invite. Oh thats right, my opinion isn't important but its assumed that these consumer groups share my views. From what I have heard so far consumer groups did present some valuable facts however they are missing the larger picture. I feel my opinion is being neglected by this government. For a "public copyright consultation" this is deeply concerning and instills little faith in this process. |
|
... So, why not invite Mitch Bainwol from the RIAA and Dan Glickman from the MPAA? Then we would save time from having to listen to their second best Canadian flunkies. Pretty pathetic. |
|
@Pathetic Agreed. There was nothing shown in the synopsis that was surprising (save perhaps SAC, although I thought that P2P was already legal). And yes, the idea of some groups having multiple invites is complete and utter crap. The only way that I could see it is if it was as a rebuttal of other arguments presented. |
|
... P2P for works that the copyright holder has given permission to distribute are _definitely_ legal. P2P for works that the copyright holder has not given permission to distribute being legal exploits a big loophole in the current copyright system that enables a person to make a private use copy of a work via a communication medium such as the internet even when the recipient can readily deduce that the provider is committing copyright infringement by distributing it, which by my reckoning goes quite contrary to the intent of copyright. Nevertheless, that interpretation is currently supported by court precedent, and until the law expressly says otherwise, is how things will remain. |
|
@Mark Is it a loophole? I'd suggest it is more a case of "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it", since wasn't that "loophole" a creation of the blank media levy that was demanded by those same copyright holders? |
|
4 more roundtables left There was a little gem at the end of that round table recording. There are 2 unannounced round tables before Quebec: Edmonton and Peterborough. Yes, that's right, I said Peterborough. |
|
Feeling less hopeful I was hopeful the consultations were going to actually represent meaningful input into the new legislation but this smacks of already having an agenda and paying lip service to the process of consultation with Canadians. There is absolutely no need for a second invite for these groups to state their position. Many, many Canadians will not even be able to participate in the roundtables and somehow these organizations get two chances? Sad, really sad. |
|
Maybe it's "too time consuming" ... In New Zealand, if the **AA's claim you've infringed you shouldn't have the right to appeal. Because they don't ever make mistakes, therefore accusation equals guilt and they should be allowed to disconnect your Internet without giving you a chance to defend yourself in court. Too time consuming, apparently justice must be on their terms or not at all. More about it here: http://linkthe.com/2009/08/12/...al-review/ Arrogance that boggles the mind, I only hope we can keep such insanity out of our country and come up with laws that make sense. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Cons up in Ottawa, I have extremely little faith that logic and fairness will prevail. |
|
... lol..so many in this round table are focusing on illegal downloading (which can't be stopped) and implementing DRM (which can't be enforced). When are these groups going to start understanding the digital paradigm, and start making money off of it, rather then trying to get government to give them a false sense of control over it. "Spookman" is right we should look at countries like Britain, who are still very much grappling with a massive amount of illegal downloading, and falling product sales. Yes, let's go the same route, and be driven deeper into an economic pit. The test of time indeed..we'll be right back here in a few years AGAIN! PPL we need to start making money off of progress, not beating it with a dog poop covered stick. |
We want to enhance competition and investment in this country, and this is why we adopted this policy back in 2008 for the AWS spectrum. Let me say that the price went down by an average of 11% since then, and we will continue this way with the 700 megahertz spectrum. We launched consultation with the industry to make sure that we enhance competition and provide better choice and better rates for our consumers.
Subscribe to this comment's feed