Conservatives' copyright law changes could backfire

You've gotta hear the other side of this one though.

http://www.ezralevant.com/the-media-partys-secret-deal/

Basically, on this quote from the CBC article linked above:



Bullshit. What they're suggesting is something new has always been the law.

I think in Canadian law it's called "Fair Dealing", but we've all heard of "Fair Use", right? Without it, there is no YouTube. There is no, a lot of media we take for granted.

And what kind of gay Mousketeer still uses terms like "insouciance" anyway?

Fail. If it's already law, why are the Conservatvies busy passing a new law to allow it? Riddle me that, Einstein.

You mean the same copyright laws they are making more restrictive under C-8? (BTW, "Fair Use" and "Fair Dealing" are different. The latter is Canadian, the former is used in the US)

What's good for the goose. . .

They want the exceptions because under 'Fair Dealing' the entity that owns the copyright can deny it's use for any reason. That's the only thing holding back the Conservative attack ads, and I for one see no reason to encourage that. And I see no reason a Politician has a right that every other citizen does not.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/gove ... ts-public/

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.



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...



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.



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.

It's likely the gov't is shoring up legislation in anticipation of more media efforts to suppress usage.

There definitely has been a coverup as the media reports on this without telling the other side. To read left wing comments on other sites it's simply a nefarious act by the Harper gov't to give them an edge. Not sure how it would give the CPC an edge or any advantage as the proposals apply to all parties, but it's the way this is being played out.

IMO using actual videos would be be far better than the manipulation of words and intent, to me, it would ensure more accuracy in attack ads.

There's an excellent blog here on this issue
http://arielkatz.org/archives/3437

Attack Ads, Copyright, and Collusion: Have Canada�s Major Broadcasters Violated the Competition Act?

Read Giest's blog, he has a link to the proposed legislation in the link I posted. It's not a memo, it's a trial balloon.



You tightie righties are funny, you know? You bitch about 'bias' when the message doesn't fit your views, but when a news organization wants to maintain it's independence, you think it's all about Trudeau. The thing the Media (CBC, Global, CTV) want to prevent is the Conservatives using media interviews out of context. If Politicians know that anything they say can be twisted to fit any agenda, no one will talk to them ever again.

Take Harper. When was the last time he gave a candid interview to the media? 2007? Before he became PM. He hasn't had an unscripted interview since. He knows exactly where his political message is heading, and has preempted other parties from using his tactics.

He hasn't preempted anything and other parties do use the same tactics. It was the Liberal Party who won their S.C. case over the same issue. https://www.scribd.com/doc/242517364/Li ... anada-1988

The CBC in particular should not be part of a censorship consortium especially when they know there is legal precedence for fair use.

And there is the conundrum. How do they maintain journalistic integrity if they know their material can and will be used deceptively and out of context, beyond their control? Why should they spend taxpayers money to create the Conservatives next series of attack ads? Why should we allow the Conservatives to use taxpayer money to do that?

I just know that the CPC want this legislation so they can use Peter Mansbridges' interview with Justin Trudeau out of context and turn the next election campaign into 'Reefer Madness 2016' instead of having an actual policy to campaign on.

I can't see what your link says though. Was it about that 1988 Liberal decision in the Supreme court?

I think you are missing the point. This ensures accuracy because they will be using actual videos etc. rather than manipulated sound bites. This applies to all parties but I guess you think the Liberals don't do it, or what?

The link is the 1988 S.C. decision, a decision which the media is ignoring while admitting in their emails that they know they have shaky legal ground.

I think you are missing the point. If this legislation goes through as proposed, manipulation of video and sound bites into attack ads will be exactly the result. Right now, a copyright owner can revoke access if they so choose. The proposed legislation will mean politicians, and politicians only, will not be subject to that revocation.

Legislation as proposed is actually only a re-inforcement or clarification of the SC decision, it is the media which is breaking the law.

Manipulation is allready happening from all parties, IMO this should ensure more accuracy.

Mmm, no. The Supreme Court decision you are referring seems to allow political parties to air their ads free of charge, as the election act requires.

This new legislation would let political parties use copyrighted materials without the permission or objection of the copyright holder. The title of the proposed legislation is even "New Copyright Exception for Political Advertising". It can't be "re-enforcement" if it's also "new".



Pffffffffbwaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaa! "More accuracy" that's funny! It'll get much much worse. Every party will have to engage in the mud raking, and the media won't be able to do their jobs.

Actually Red Hat Mamma is correct. Other parties do already use clips the same way the Conservatives do. If you watch the video I offered you'll see Ezra shows examples.

Myself, I don't like the idea of a media consortium setting itself up as some sort of public arbitrator of cultural integrity. I didn't vote for them.

On the other hand I'm kind of with Doc and Michael Geist that it would be a bad idea to allow only political parties the protection of a new law. I think where me and Michael leave Doc though is we wouldn't mind seeing everybody get the protection of this new clarification - not just politicians.

Failing that though as Michael says there already are laws on the books to use. I read a bit more about the difference between Fair Dealing in Canada and Fair Use in America.

Fair Dealing does not seem to have the freedom of open law that Fair Use does, but it does appear to have more flexibility than Fair Use under the law now as a result of the copyright Modernization act of 2012. Apparently there are 5 criterion under which a claim is made for fair dealing. It becomes up to judges what is fair based on these five levelers.

Here's the thing on that though. Corporate copyright holders would love the sort of control over clips this new CBC organized media consortium is trying power in for themselves. If the corporates thought they could win in a Canadian court why haven't they tried yet?

The problem wiht this law is singles out politicains as a separate entity who are assigned special privileges that others don't have. That's why it's bogus. If it's a matter of freedom of expression, as the conservatives hold, then why wouldn't it apply to everyone?