Industry Minister Jim Prentice responds to yesterday's copyright column with a letter to the editor in the Toronto Star.
Prentice Responds to Copyright Column
24 Comments
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law 
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
sigh
Not surprising, but disappointing. This ‘response’ does nothing but repeat the advertising spin that Prentice has put on the bill from the beginning, without addressing any of our concerns. It doesn’t even mention anti-circumvention (the most contentious bit) except to say that the fines will ‘only’ be $500 when material that *isn’t* locked is copied privately.
Some real dialogue would be nice!
Define “Made in Canada”
He keeps saying this bill was “Made in Canada” but won’t describe on *how* it was made it Canada. “Made in Canada” could simply mean that it was printed using printers on Canadian soil.
Just saying it was “Made in Canada” isn’t enough. I’d like him to tell us *how*.
Prentice’s letter to the editor is simply an attempt to discredit Geist through the usual spin tactics. Readers should note that Geist did indeed acknowledge the additional consumer rights granted in Bill C-61 in the previous Jun.13/08 installment of his column entitled “Copyright Bill’s Fine Print Makes For a Disturbing Read”. At the same time, Geist showed how many of these rights are effectively nullified by the anti-circumvention provisions of Bill C-61. On the topic of ISPs, Geist has acknowledged that the notice-and-notice system in Bill C-61, although not perfect, is indeed an improvement over the US notice-and-takedown system.
Re: Define “Made in Canada”
@phoomp,
Although they didn’t formally define it, I think the intended meaning of “Made in Canada” is clearly understood. Using this term, Prentice is trying to convince the Canadian public that Bill C-61 was a creation of the Canadian government, and was not defined by US influence. He does this by playing up the various fair use provisions of the bill (even though they are basically useless in the presence of digital locks), the limitation of statutory damages for downloading, and the improved ISP provisions. These items are largely superficial, as a closer look reveals strong similarities to the much criticized US DMCA, and in some aspects Bill C-61 is even worse. As Geist’s column explains, the US influence is very clear.
What annoys me the most is that Prentice can’t even be honest about his poor hack job of a bill. He can’t just stand up and tell it like it is, that he’s criminalizing the removal of DRM and that yes, DVDs and CDs use DRM. I know expecting a politician to be honest is lame, but if he was really proud of the bill he’d be telling the truth on it to everyone, rather than media spin. Instead he hides the bill’s dark undersides, twisting and turning to avoid the light being shone on them.
After reading his letter it is quite apparent he most likely doesn’t understand all the implications of the bill. He keeps pointing to this sugary icing on an otherwise poisonous cake. But what did you expect he just picked it up from the RIAA/MPAA bakery and got them to write “Made in Canada” on the top.
He’s scared right now. He realizes what he has done has created a huge uproar from the population and he’s trying to put out the fire with his Letter to the editor. Unfortunately his attempt to appease us is like throwing a bucket of water at a massive forest fire. It’s not going to change a thing!
You’d think that a man accusing you of neglecting substance would make an attempt to deal with the substance of your critique, but sadly no.
Propaganda
Wow, what an idiot. There is nothing positive about this Bill for consumers or artists. Only the Labels laugh all the way to the bank because they get 99% of the money from sales and according to this bill, repeatedly from one consumer. Artists don’t want their fan bases sued,criminalised and alienated, they want them to pay to come and see their shows and buy their merchandise.
Prentice just keeps spewing his propaganda, that it is “Made in Canada”, “balanced” and giving consumers rights where we had none before! What an idiot!
It is straight out of the Goebels handbook of “How To Promote Propaganda through Repetition until they Believe” and the Telco’s must have lent it to the Conservatives to use after all the throttling “necessary network management practices” bulls**t they been spewing!
I read this CBC article yesterday and was also shocked again at what this Conservative government is willing to allow by bending over backwards for corporations and industry instead of the health and welfare of their citizens. This minority government needs to go and I mean “FAST”, as they continue to prove themselves to be an exact carbon copy of the failing BUSH administration which is on it’s way out, yet they continue to copy and worship it! Idiots! Here’s a link to the CBC article and check out the number of comments on it. I believe that, that many comments and recomendations on a CBC article is a good indicator of overall public opinion. The Mining/Lake Dumping article only rivals that of the CBC article on Copyright a few days ago. My point is, the Conservatives must go!
[ link ]
Truth in Advertising
“Made In Canada” should be changed to “Assembled In Canada with parts from the USA”
Imported via diplomatic pouch, no doubt.
Response sent to Toronto Star Editorial
Jim Prentice, Federal Minister of Industry wrote:
“For consumers, it (the Canadian DMCA) allows the recording of webcasts and TV and radio programs to be enjoyed at different times; music to be copied on devices such as MP3 players; and the copying of books, newspapers, videos and photos into different formats. It also limits statutory damages at $500 for individuals if they infringe copyright for private use, provided the material is not protected by a digital lock. (Currently, statutory damages could be as high as $20,000 for a single infringement.)”
Mr. Prentice,
What media these days is not protected by a digital lock? Almost all DVDs produced by Hollywood and most music CDs produced by the major labels are currently protected by digital locks. Even digitally broadcast television (which all television soon will be) can be digitally locked with the flip of a switch.
What good is giving us the right to back-up the media we purchased the right to watch, use it on multiple devices or record television to be watched later, when you give the content owners the greater right to be able to remove our rights at their discretion? Perhaps you don’t remember, but television producers have been trying to get rid of VCRs since the day they were invented.
even worst
Without any fair dealing provision this made in Canada DMCA is worst then the made in America one which until now was considered the worst copyright law ever done even from the guy who designed it.
Prentice – Care to Debate?
Dear Minister Prentice:
I hope you or your department are reading this (yes, I’m sure they are).
If you really believe in your convictions, do a live debate. I’m sure CBC would cover it, and I’m sure Michael Geist would be willing to debate the issue (and if not Michael, I’m sure there are MANY who could step into his shoes).
The issue Minister Prentice is that this Bill purports to offer something to consumers, but the reality is that the TPM measures renders anything offered as meaningless.
If you truly believe what you are saying, stand up and say it in a public forum that provides an opportunity for response.
How does one respond to his response?
Does anyone see a way on the Star’s site to respond to Minister Prentice’s letter? It would seem he’d like to dialog about this and it would be a shame to let him down.
DRM vs Canada
I think DRM itself should be looked before even attempting such as bill. It\\\\\\\’s easy enough to Google a popular PC game and find tens of thousands of posts regarding content protection devices/formats. There is a clear disagreement between publishers/developers and customers.
There are two DRM schemes that are very contested, SecuROM (Sony) and Star-Force (Protection Technology). Numerous concerns have been brought up including; privacy, ad-serving, optical drive damage, backdoor invites for Trojans, etc., etc. Please, do us all a favour and read through one of these games\\\\\\\’ EULA(s). Take note at how much control of your computer you hand over to the publisher; it\\\\\\\’s astonishing.
Also, in regards to Star-Force DRM. This company has moved all of their offices out of the western world to countries where we have no legal recourse. Think about this before making such an important decision.
Bill c-61 is putting the cart before the horse.
Kevin
$500 is certainly less than $20,000. However, because of the CPCC levy, the current downloading fine is $0, not $20,000.
Huh?
Actually CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) levy is to compensate artists from format shifting and private CD copies. Nothing to do with downloading. Downloading it was and is still illegal.
Downloading is NOT illegal in Canada as long as it is for personal use. As a matter of fact, copying anything right now is legal as long as it is for personal use, and not distribution. Copyright does not take into consideration what the source is (store-bought CD or P2P downloads).
Letters to The Star
lettertoed@thestar.ca
I am seriously doubting that Prentice has even read the bill. If he has, he obviously does not understand it, or is simply purposefully ignorant of the consequences what has been written in it and the current state of digital media, 99% of which is in fact protected by TPM and 100% is protected by unrealistic EULAs both of which put 100% of it’s users in the $20k damages range.
To clear up some misinformation, downloading of MUSIC is legal as a result of the copying levy. Music, not videos, software, etc.
You’re right, downloading music is pseudo legal in Canada, ‘for the moment’ Prentice does want to ‘revisit’ the levy this fall and I’m certain that revisit is simply to say, we have new laws, we don’t need this anymore.
CPCC levy revist
I wouldn’t mind them dropping the levy, just don’t keep it in place and make copying illegal… make a choice. It at least would mean that when I burn a copy of the latest Linux distribution or photos I’ve taken that the CPCC doesn’t get a cut of the cost of the CDs.
I believe what criminal was referring to is uploading, not downloading. Uploading still is illegal. The problem with making downloading illegal is how does the person rummaging through my computer, etc, know that what I downloaded was illegal. I have copies of videos by my favourite artist. Is that illegal? I downloaded them from her website.
Unconstitutionnal
That bill is unconstitutional M. Prentice.
IT neglect my right to own things.
It neglect my fair uses of my own things (computer uses, electronics uses).
It permit a breach of my privacy. Because with it, it\’s not illegal to \”sniff\” my connection, or access to my private activities throught ISP.
M. Prentice you are a freaking moron, protecting corporations is not your role, but protecting citizens about their Rights!
Jourdelune