The Canadian Consumer Initiative, which represents major consumer organizations from across Canada including the Consumers Council of Canada, Option consommateurs, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Union des consommateurs, has written to Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore to respond to his comment in the House of Commons asserting that the Chamber of Commerce acts in the best interests of consumers. The letter notes that the Chamber in no way represents consumer interests and that the CCI is united opposing the digital lock provisions found in C-32. Full text of the letter below:
Dear Minister Moore,
On Monday, June 14, 2010, Mme. LavalleÌe, the Honourable Member from Saint- Bruno—Saint-Hubert, questioned you in the House of Commons on the failure of Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act, to benefit either creators or consumers. Incredibly, you responded that “An organization that my colleague knows well, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, does act in consumers' best interests” and supports Bill C-32.
Minister Moore, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is a business lobby group that in no way represents consumer interests, and in fact opposes the position of consumer groups on copyright policy.
The member groups of the Canadian Consumer Initiative do, in fact, represent consumers. The Canadian Consumer Initiative includes four major Canadian consumer organisations: the Consumers Council of Canada, Option consommateurs, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Union des consommateurs. The CCI is united in opposing the digital lock provisions of Bill C- 32. On June 4, two days following the release of Bill C-32, the CCI issued a joint media release that – contrary to your position in the House and the position of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce – condemned Bill C-32’s anti-circumvention provisions:
We invite you to meet with any of our member groups to learn how Bill C-32’s digital lock provisions undermine Canadian consumer interests.
Update: Moore implausibly tells the CBC that consumers support Bill C-32 even if consumer groups say they don't.
Letter
I wrote a letter similar to this but a little more strongly worded. I have not gotten a response back. Needless to say I was not impressed at all.
“The CCI is united in opposing the digital lock provisions of Bill C- 32”
Shocking. Who could have predicted such a response, what with no prior evidence to show how canadians feel on this issue.
Does a cabinet minister really need to know the difference between businesses and consumers?
Surely, such subtleties escape the average talking-point-regurgitator in the Harper cabinet.
CCI Response
@Crade – Actually Canadians did speak out loudly around the digital lock provision. Not only in the copyright consultation, but prior when C-61 was introduced, I could start putting up all the articles, but suffice is to say that it was over 80% or respondents said they were NOT in favour of digital lock provisions.
Crade, I believe you might have been on one of those earlier threads debating those numbers (even though they come from the government themselves).
Oh *those* type of consumers! I thought you meant the ones that the ones that insist on government granted monopolies to prop up failing business models!
RE:cndcitizen
“@Crade – Actually Canadians did speak out loudly around the digital lock provision.”
Crade was being sarcastic. 😉
“Oh *those* type of consumers! I thought you meant the ones that the ones that insist on government granted monopolies to prop up failing business models!”
Or the “consumers” with “CRIA” as their signature.
@cndcitizen
I was being sarcastic. 🙂
ack, ninjaed!
@crade
Sorry, I thought you maybe you were flipping 🙂
I hear they are giving away free IPed’s if you sign up for the new grass roots copyright tweeter for CRIA employees and post 100 posts or tweets a day supporting C-32…or maybe you have to be a CRIA employee to receive a free iPed.
🙂
All this does is pit artists vs the customer,yet Moore the denier continues to deny the bill is evil…
While the RIAA and MPAA laugh all the way to the bank with their 75% cut of the record sales.
The DRM / TPM part of the bill needs tons of work.
I find TPM’s and DRM are bad period.
Any CD with DRM on it is not a red book standard CD and cannot call its self a Compact Disk
There needs to be the following.
Any CD DVD etc that has a TPM or DRM on it needs to be put on the cover to let the consumer be aware of what is on the disk.
At the same time if a CD is put in a computer it does not load with out the user of said PC say yes or no to install.
To do so is just the same as a virus writer. Jail them.
A means of the producer held responsible for badly written DRM or TPM… IE Sony Rootkit for one or any that will cause loss of data on a users PC or other device or any other damage.
A TPM or DRM is not applied with out the consent of the artist.
Any device cannot lock a artists own songs or music.
That he and she has performed and recorded on a device.
the Ipod does this and so does the MS Zune and the Sony software for the Mini disk players and there are probably more out there or the devices mentioned may have changed the TPM/DRM settings not sure but I am sure you get the point.
Any DRM or TPM updates on a device has to be known to the owner of the hardware and cannot change the way a device operates (deleating features etc)
No manufacture can lock out third party devices or ink cartrages etc.
Plus if a company goes bankrupt or shuts down any locked down content that the consumer owns will have all locks removed or the code released so those who bought the Video game are not stuck with a coster.
This should apply to any place a DRM or TPM is used
The fact is that bill C-32 does nothing to protect the end user of bad DRM’s or TPM’s supplied by the industry any recourse of action to protect them selves as well as stop shoddy code in DRM’s or TPM’s
This has to be looked into.
PS. Is turning off auto start on a computer CD/DVD rom drive circumnavigating a auto loading DRM or TPM.
I have been doing this since the first audio CD’s started using DRM or TPM’s after I heard of a few peoples computers crashing and not working again.
Should just scrap anything to do with TPM or DRM’s in the bill better yet scrap the whole steaming pile.
My 2 Kw’s
The Truth .. all posturing aside.
Ok, here is the reality of the big media conglomerates (MC) world view in five easy steps …
1) The MC don’t really care about stopping copyright infringement because they know they can’t.
2) The MC use the excuse (and misrepresentation) of losses to copyright infringement to push for laws with digital locks.
3) Digital locks do not stop copyright infringement, only inconvenience the legit consumer.
4) The real reason for digital locks is to impede fair use so as to monetize extra revenue streams for the same digital content in mutiple formats.
5) The MC won’t admit to this because …
a) it makes them look bad
b) they believe the general public does not have the ability to see through their deceit.
So there it is, plain and simple. The money has been good, and hey, who would want that to end? But the continual tick of technological advancement has put many an industry on the ropes or out altogether. Did they all have the ability or the balls to philander politicians into legislating their out of date business practices into law? Obviously not. Change or die is the awkward reality that is dawning on the minds of those who have had it so good for so long. Some are grasping that, others are having their private tantrums. In the end, as in the laws of evolution, only those who can adapt will survive.
cheerleaders, anyone?
to be so clueless as to believe the news…
iceland has SOME of the right approach going here..
free market anarchy would wipe the companies off the earth, but how do we contain these mccarthy-like hate campains?
What moore should be saying is not
“An organization that my colleague knows well, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, does act in consumers’ best interests†and supports Bill C-32”
but
“An organization that my colleague knows well, the Recording industry association of america, doesn’t act in consumers’ best interests†and supports Bill C-32”