I think I can answer you both by answering Zip's question "
If it's already law, why are the Conservatives busy passing a new law to allow it?"
First of all who said they were? There was an interdepartmental memo suggesting the implementation of such a bill might be considered.
So why would the Conservative Heritage Minister suggest such a thing?
Through an access to information request Sun media acquired a confidential series of emails from a CBC head who was attempting to organize a "consortium" of political friendlies in the media who would prevent Conservatives from using clips that might be embarrassing to the Shiny Pony (Trudeau). She didn't put it exactly like that, but Ezra did.
What she said was blah, blah, blah, we don't want anybody using the clips. She contacted her lawyers but they didn't think she had a legal case to prevent the conservatives from using media news clips. So her and her confederates in CTV, Global etc., devised a plan. They would simply agree amongst their little group of common political interest that they would not carry advertisements with clips they did not approve of. Apparently they were to be some sort of new regulatory body deciding what you peons are allowed to see.
Now were the CBC's lawyers' correct? Are there really no laws already on the books that would not allow the media leftists to simply sue the Conservatives to prevent them using their clips?
Ezra mentions that this issue has been fought and won in the past. There is legal precedent.
$1:
The Liberal Party, back in 1988, won an injunction forcing the broadcasters to carry campaign advertising that included relatively short clips from the federal debates.
http://www.citynews.ca/2014/10/09/conse ... tical-ads/Doc likes Michael Geist. Good to hear it. So do I. I have since my Zeropaid.com days. Michael says...
$1:
My criticism of the government here is not in seeking to protect political speech by ensuring that the law features sufficient flexibility to allow for appropriate uses without permission. Rather, it stems from the view that there are far better policy approaches available than an awkward self-interested exception.
As a starting point, I think the government should simply rely on existing law. With a robust fair dealing provision and a cap on liability for non-commercial infringement, the risk of an infringement claim is low. This proposal may be a solution in search of a problem and we would do better to test the boundaries of the current law rather than bury an exception in a budget bill.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/isnt ... vertising/Here's one from the Minister who sent the inter-departmental memo suggesting an enhancement of copyright law.
$1:
Glover suggested in the Commons Thursday that the copyright proposal was the government’s own shot across the bow.
“Major television networks should not have the ability to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians,” Glover said.
“We believe this has always been protected under the fair dealing provisions of the law, and if greater certainty is necessary, we will provide it.”
So you see, even she believes the law already exists. She wants to clarify it.
Why? We can guess.
Perhaps it would help in applying legal pressure to force the adds on the media "consortium" of favored by the Shiny Pony.
Perhaps it can be insinuated from what Doc suggests. I'm not sure DC 8 applies here, but there may be a general enhancing of restrictions coming to the general public and the Conservatives would like to be exempt.
At this point all we know is at the present time there is legal precedent. Even the lawyers for the CBC think so. Canadian Copyright expert Michael Geist thinks the law would already favor the Conservative position.
Incidentally Satire clips are specifically allowed as fair dealing in the Copyright Modernization Act of 2012.
http://fairduty.wordpress.com/resources ... -fair-use/That would be my solution. More satire.
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
