Skip to Content

copycon

Friday July 2, 2010
Balanced Copyright for Canada Board and Funding Revealed
After several weeks of delays, the Balanced Copyright for Canada site revealed its funding and advisory board late on Tuesday night, hours before the Canada Day holiday.  The primary source of funding is not a surprise - as I suggested in my first post on the site - this is a Canadian Recording Industry Association production.  As the public questions about the site mounted, the regular response was that this was an effort of "employees, unions, artists and creators" and that the all-Canadian Advisory Board would be announced soon.  The fact that the site was really a CRIA attempt to create "grassroots" support for C-32 was not acknowledged. The composition of the advisory board is interesting.  First, of the 13 members, more than half are either record company executives, former record company executives, or lawyers who represent record companies.  No surprise given the site's backing, but not exactly the promised "employees, unions, artists and creators."  In fact, it is notable that there are very few prominent creators and not many representatives from creator groups outside the music industry such as authors, performers, directors, or artists.  In fact, despite an earlier claim that Loreena McKennitt would be on the advisory board, those plans apparently changed. Why so few creators?  Quite simply, CRIA's interests are not closely aligned with many other creator groups.  ACTRA and AFM Canada quickly distanced themselves from the effort and most other musicians have been focused on the private copying levy, not digital locks.  Moreover, the site briefly hosted a "consumer letter" that fully supported extending fair dealing to education, a move strongly opposed by some copyright collectives and authors' groups.
The other notable aspect of the advisory board is the inclusion of lawyer Richard Owens.  Three months ago, Owens had the following to say about the use of form letters in the public policy process in an effort to call into question thousands of submissions from Canadians:

Form letters are useful to some degree, but they are hardly the outpourings of hearts and minds filled by circumspect contemplation of the minutiae of copyright law. The thought and effort required to send a form letter is minimal.  A form letter can be sent from a position of complete ignorance so long as it seems to further some vague objective for the sender, such as the desire for free stuff, or to feed a sense of belonging to a community. It simply cannot be argued that form letters should be given equal weight and space with original, thoughtful Submissions.  To do so would be to fail to make the most basic qualitative distinction amongst evidence at hand, and qualitative distinctions are far more important in areas of policy than mere quantity. It is ironic that so many people opted to make themselves heard about original works, with an appropriated “cut and paste” form letter.

What is really ironic is that Owens now finds himself on an advisory board of a site that not only requires sending a form letter to a local MP in order to fully participate in its activities, but will not even permit any edits to the letter itself (unlike the form letter service Owens criticized).  Moreover, Owens warned against "gaming" the copyright consultation and argued that "online social networks can damage, rather than enhance, Canadian participative democracy."  Yet here is a site that has accepted U.S. record company executives (who presumably were required to game the system by sending letters to MPs) and actively encourages using social networks to distort online discussions with suggested talking points on blog posts and other commentary.
After several weeks of delays, the Balanced Copyright for Canada site revealed its funding and advisory board late on Tuesday night, hours before the Canada Day holiday.  The primary source of funding is not a surprise - as I suggested in my first post on the site - this is a Canadian Recording Industry Association production.  As the public questions about the site mounted, the regular response was that this was an effort of "employees, unions, artists and creators" and that the all-Canadian Advisory Board would be announced soon.  The fact that the site was really a CRIA attempt to create "grassroots" support for C-32 was not acknowledged.

The composition of the advisory board is interesting.  First, of the 13 members, more than half are either record company executives, former record company executives, or lawyers who represent record companies.  No surprise given the site's backing, but not exactly the promised "employees, unions, artists and creators."  In fact, it is notable that there are very few prominent creators and not many representatives from creator groups outside the music industry such as authors, performers, directors, or artists.  In fact, despite an earlier claim that Loreena McKennitt would be on the advisory board, those plans apparently changed.

Why so few creators?  Quite simply, CRIA's interests are not closely aligned with many other creator groups.  ACTRA and AFM Canada quickly distanced themselves from the effort and most other musicians have been focused on the private copying levy, not digital locks.  Moreover, the site briefly hosted a "consumer letter" that fully supported extending fair dealing to education, a move strongly opposed by some copyright collectives and authors' groups.

Add Comment (0) Tags (6)
Tuesday June 29, 2010
Developing Country Opposition to ACTA Mounts
Just as the G8-G20 meetings conclude in Muskoka and Toronto, another round of negotiations on the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement resumes in Switzerland today. In the aftermath of the last round of discussions in New Zealand, a draft version of the ACTA text was publicly released, temporarily quieting criticism about the lack of transparency associated with an agreement that currently touches on all forms of intellectual property, including patents, trademark, and copyright. While the transparency concerns are no longer in the spotlight, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that mounting opposition to the agreement from the developing world, particularly powerhouse economies such as India, China, and Brazil, is attracting considerable attention.  The public opposition from those countries - India has threatened to establish a coalition of countries against the treaty - dramatically raise the political stakes and place Canada between a proverbial rock and hard place, given its close ties to the U.S. and ambition to increase economic ties with India and China.
India and China formally raised their complaints earlier this month at the World Trade Organization, where they identified five concerns with the agreement.  

First, they fear ACTA conflicts with international trade law and would create legal uncertainty.

Second, they believe ACTA undermines the balance of rights, obligations, and flexibilities that exist within international law.  This applies to both trade issues and intellectual property matters.  For example, both India and Canada are currently working to implement international intellectual property rules within their domestic laws (both countries have tabled draft copyright bills) and ACTA would create significant new restrictions that could have an immediate domestic impact.

Third, there is concern that ACTA could have a dangerous effect on access to medicines by disrupting shipment of goods such as pharmaceuticals.  Over the past few years, European countries have seized generic medicines traveling between India and Brazil.  Stopping delivery of crucial medicines while in transit creates potential health risks for countries anxious to import them for delivery to waiting patients.  

The prospect of seized generic medicines - ACTA calls for increased seizure powers by customs officials - could impact Canadian pharmaceutical companies as well, given the success of several generic pharmaceutical companies in serving a global marketplace.

Fourth, governments are uncomfortable with the prospect that ACTA could force them to allocate new resources toward intellectual property enforcement ahead of other important policy concerns. While safeguarding intellectual property is important, many developing countries can ill-afford to pull scarce law enforcement personnel away from investigating violent crime in order to track down purveyors of fake handbags or DVDs.

Fifth, there are real concerns that ACTA establishes a dangerous precedent by brushing aside United Nations-based international arenas that offer greater transparency and consensus-driven policies in favour of a closed, non-transparent negotiation process that intentionally excludes developing countries.  

These concerns should resonate strongly with Canadian officials hosting the G20, since just as Canada tries to broaden the scope of international economic discussions to include major developed and developing countries, ACTA represents a step in the opposite direction.

While some may suggest that the developing world opposition provides evidence that ACTA is actually on the right track, the reality is that it is designed to apply to the very countries that are now preparing to openly oppose it.  There is no mechanism to "force" these countries to abide by ACTA standards.   Just as Canada has sought to broaden participation through the G20, the best approach to gaining broader acceptance is to include developing countries in the ACTA talks, not leave them on the outside in the hope of later pressuring them to comply with an agreement from which they were deliberately excluded.
Just as the G8-G20 meetings conclude in Muskoka and Toronto, another round of negotiations on the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement resumes in Switzerland today. In the aftermath of the last round of discussions in New Zealand, a draft version of the ACTA text was publicly released, temporarily quieting criticism about the lack of transparency associated with an agreement that currently touches on all forms of intellectual property, including patents, trademark, and copyright.

While the transparency concerns are no longer in the spotlight, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that mounting opposition to the agreement from the developing world, particularly powerhouse economies such as India, China, and Brazil, is attracting considerable attention.  The public opposition from those countries - India has threatened to establish a coalition of countries against the treaty - dramatically raise the political stakes and place Canada between a proverbial rock and hard place, given its close ties to the U.S. and ambition to increase economic ties with India and China.

Add Comment (0) Tags (10)
Tuesday June 29, 2010
ACTA Workshop: China, Pakistan, Brazil Express Significant Concerns
I attended a workshop on ACTA in Geneva yesterday that included government attendees from China, India, Pakistan, and other leading developing countries. Some key takeaways: China expressed serious concerns with ACTA as upsetting the IP balance and harming the interests of the developing world.  It argued that this may provide an opportunity to reconsider and re-examine the protection of intellectual property more generally, with the root cause of infringement attributable to development differences.  The Chinese presentation concluded with a call for the WTO to lead on these issues.  The China official also interestingly referenced Industry Minister Tony Clement's admission that he infringed copyright by copying music onto his iPod.  The official said the story appeared on CNN. Pakistan expressed concern about ACTA's relationship with TRIPS, particularly whether ACTA norms would make their way into the WTO. Brazil is not sure how to react.  It has raised concerns at the WTO and is still examining ACTA as negotiations proceed.  It has no doubt that ACTA is an institution is in the making.
I attended a workshop on ACTA in Geneva yesterday that included government attendees from China, India, Pakistan, and other leading developing countries. Some key takeaways:
  • China expressed serious concerns with ACTA as upsetting the IP balance and harming the interests of the developing world.  It argued that this may provide an opportunity to reconsider and re-examine the protection of intellectual property more generally, with the root cause of infringement attributable to development differences.  The Chinese presentation concluded with a call for the WTO to lead on these issues.  The China official also interestingly referenced Industry Minister Tony Clement's admission that he infringed copyright by copying music onto his iPod.  The official said the story appeared on CNN.
  • Pakistan expressed concern about ACTA's relationship with TRIPS, particularly whether ACTA norms would make their way into the WTO.
  • Brazil is not sure how to react.  It has raised concerns at the WTO and is still examining ACTA as negotiations proceed.  It has no doubt that ACTA is an institution is in the making.
I attended a workshop on ACTA in Geneva yesterday that included government attendees from China, India, Pakistan, and other leading developing countries. Some key takeaways:
  • China expressed serious concerns with ACTA as upsetting the IP balance and harming the interests of the developing world.  It argued that this may provide an opportunity to reconsider and re-examine the protection of intellectual property more generally, with the root cause of infringement attributable to development differences.  The Chinese presentation concluded with a call for the WTO to lead on these issues.  The China official also interestingly referenced Industry Minister Tony Clement's admission that he infringed copyright by copying music onto his iPod.  The official said the story appeared on CNN.
  • Pakistan expressed concern about ACTA's relationship with TRIPS, particularly whether ACTA norms would make their way into the WTO.
  • Brazil is not sure how to react.  It has raised concerns at the WTO and is still examining ACTA as negotiations proceed.  It has no doubt that ACTA is an institution is in the making.
Add Comment (0) Tags (9)
Monday June 28, 2010
ACTA: The State of Play
Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement resume today in Lucerne, Switzerland with the ninth round of talks.   I'll have several ACTA posts this week, but start with a talk I gave earlier this month at a conference on ACTA at the American University, Washington College of Law.  The posted version includes a recording of the talk along with my slides (YouTube version here).  There is also a streamed version available from AU.

Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement resume today in Lucerne, Switzerland with the ninth round of talks.   I'll have several ACTA posts this week, but start with a talk I gave earlier this month at a conference on ACTA at the American University, Washington College of Law.  The posted version includes a recording of the talk along with my slides (YouTube version here).  There is also a streamed version available from AU.

Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement resume today in Lucerne, Switzerland with the ninth round of talks.   I'll have several ACTA posts this week, but start with a talk I gave earlier this month at a conference on ACTA at the American University, Washington College of Law.  The posted version includes a recording of the talk along with my slides (YouTube version here).  There is also a streamed version available from AU.

Add Comment (0) Tags (8)
Friday June 25, 2010
More Media Coverage of Moore's Radical Extremist Comment
The media picked up on Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's "radical extremists" comment yesterday with the following stories:
Add Comment (0) Tags (10)
Thursday June 24, 2010
What a Difference a Year Makes: James Moore in June '09 vs. June '10
Add Comment (0) Tags (7)
Wednesday June 23, 2010
NDP MP Charlie Angus Responds to Moore's Attacks
The House of Commons is shut down due to today's earthquake, but I have received a copy of a release from the office of NDP MP Charlie Angus which responds to Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's attack on fair copyright.  The NDP planned to issue the release today, but cannot due to the office closure.  I was given permission to post the release in its entirety. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJUNE 23, 2010 NEW DEMOCRATS CALL MOORE OFFSIDE FOR ATTACKING FAIR COPYRIGHT ADVOCATESMinister’s description of ‘radical extremists’ shows he’s in need of a time-out  
TIMMINS – Speaking at a G20 Chamber of Commerce event, Heritage Minister James Moore inexplicably lashed out at those who have raised concerns with his new copyright bill, C-32. Moore characterised fair copyright advocates as “babyish” and enemies of any copyright reform whatsoever. He called them “radical extremists” who must be “confronted every step of the way until they are defeated.” New Democrat Digital Affairs Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) said Moore’s comments are reminiscent of a war-time call-to-arms and are way out of line.

“Attacking teachers, students, artists and consumers who have legitimate questions about this legislation is ridiculous,” said Angus. “Instead of understanding and appreciating the nuances of balanced copyright, the Minister is appearing hyper-defensive and bombastic. I think he needs a time out.”

In his speech to the conference, Moore claimed the government’s attack on consumer rights are necessitated by Canada’s international obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties.  Angus says Moore simply has his facts wrong.

“James Moore shouldn’t hide behind international treaties to excuse the significant stumbling blocks he has put into the bill. All the experts, including those civil servants who drafted the bill, agree that it could be WIPO-compliant without his push for American-style protection for digital locks,” said Angus. “The Tories are pushing this failed agenda that will criminalize perfectly reasonable behaviour and deny educators legal access to works which they should logically have.”

Angus says Moore needs to tone down the rhetoric and get down to the serious business of working with all stakeholders on amendments that will improve the legislation.

“A Minister shouldn’t resort to name calling or start a war with fair-copyright advocates just because he doesn’t like the feedback he’s getting on Twitter,” said Angus.  “If Moore spent more time listening to the educators, experts, academics and artists who have serious issues with this bill, maybe his public statements wouldn’t be so out of line with everyday Canadians who simply want balanced legislation.”

-30-

For more information please contact:

George Soule, Caucus Press Secretary: 613-850-3448 or souleg@parl.gc.ca

The House of Commons is shut down due to today's earthquake, but I have received a copy of a release from the office of NDP MP Charlie Angus which responds to Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's attack on fair copyright.  The NDP planned to issue the release today, but cannot due to the office closure.  I was given permission to post the release in its entirety.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 23, 2010

NEW DEMOCRATS CALL MOORE OFFSIDE FOR ATTACKING FAIR COPYRIGHT ADVOCATES
Minister’s description of ‘radical extremists’ shows he’s in need of a time-out

 

Add Comment (0) Tags (7)
Wednesday June 23, 2010
Video Surfaces of Moore's "Radical Extremists" Comment
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's "radical extremists" comment yesterday generated considerable attention, though he privately denied saying it in some correspondence (one DM: "Not what I said. Not even close").  New video has now been posted that confirms the comment and further attacks on those supporting fair copyright.  The latest comments:
With regard to the legislation, we really did try to strike a balance with this legislation. You'll notice, I think, we're now three weeks into the public consideration of the legislation that we tabled.  There is a lot of commentary out there on this online and I think the response that we're getting is that that generally is the case.  The only people who are opposed to this legislation are really two groups of radical extremists.  In the continuum of political ideaology, if you go really extreme to the right or really extreme to the left it actually swings back around.  That is sort of where we are.

There are those that pretend to be for copyright reform.  But they don't believe in actual copyright reform.  There are those that are cited as experts by the media endlessly who are not in favour of copyright reform.  They favour only weakening legislation, only in gutting tools that would allow those who are actually investing in jobs to have those jobs.  I think we give them far too much voice.  If you look at the balance, anyone who is truly objective, looks at this legislation will realize that everyone has a little water in their wine with this legislation because it requires that kind of balance. When we started off our copyright proposal, the Prime Minister said, he was a staffer back in the 1980s in Brian Mulroney's government, he said since then until now this has been an ongoing issue.  Good luck with that. Because there are people with such divergent interests.  With this legislation, if you do not have an absolutist view, if you are open minded, if you want to ensure that the whole of Canada and the greater economy can move forward you can strike the right balance and I think this legislation does that.

But don't let those some of them are out there, who as I say are cited endlessly by the media, who pretend to be experts on copyright reform, who put up a smiley, shiny, cute face on what is actually a pretty disingenuous campaign to undermine the rights, the property rights of individual citizens,  to invest in their creative goods.  That is what a lot of people do.  We can't listen to those voices. If they do speak up, we need to confront them.
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's "radical extremists" comment yesterday generated considerable attention, though he privately denied saying it in some correspondence (one DM: "Not what I said. Not even close").  New video has now been posted that confirms the comment and further attacks on those supporting fair copyright.  The latest comments:
Add Comment (0) Tags (7)
Wednesday June 23, 2010
James Moore's Attack on Fair Copyright
There was considerable attention yesterday on a media report stating that Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore warned against "radical extremists" opposing C-32.  A video of part of his remarks has now been posted online [full video here]. The comments, which come after the prepared speech, feature a no-holds-barred attack against those arguing for fair copyright.  According to Moore, some proposed amendments to C-32 are not genuine but rather part of an  attempt to oppose copyright and copyright reform, to drum up fear, and to mislead.  Moore encourages confrontation, urging the audience to confront on Facebook, Twitter, talk shows and in the media until "they are defeated."   I'm under no illusion here. Yesterday, I asked in a post who Moore's "radical extremists" are. The video suggests that he thinks it is me and the thousands of other Canadians who have argued for fair copyright (a reporter at the event reached the same conclusion and CRIA lawyer Barry Sookman is happy to do the same). His comments met with applause from the audience and will be taken as a mandate to continue the astroturfing activities on Balanced Copyright for Canada. To hear the Minister of Canadian Heritage both discredit the views of so many people and to encourage confrontation as the optimal plan of action is incredibly discouraging.  To use his own words, it is an attempt to mislead, misdirect, and undermine what has been more than a year-long effort for Canadians to speak out on copyright. For those that are interested, my actual take on C-32 is here and some proposed amendments here.  The comments are not dissimilar from many consumer, education, library, business, and creator groups. I see few people who are "absolutists" out there - most want a fair approach but may disagree on precisely where to strike the balance on issues such as digital locks or fair dealing. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that this is part of a growing trend. Yesterday's comments targeted fair copyright, but we are not alone.  When consumer groups criticize the bill, Moore claims they don't represent consumers and cites support from the Chamber of Commerce instead.  When political opposition parties speak of the need for reform to digital locks provisions, he says they have not put forward amendments.  When creator groups such as ACTRA criticize his approach, he blocks them on Twitter.  When business and education groups express concern about digital locks, he selectively cites their supportive comments instead.  Moore is clearly ready to fight and has urged the few supporters of DMCA-style provisions to do the same.
Those absolutists out there, who are babyish in their approach to copyright legislation who think that any idea that copyright reform would be an attack on individual citizens are people who frankly don't get.  Let me amend what I said a minute ago.  Don't ignore those voices.  Those people who are out there who are saying that copyright legislation, copyright reform is not good, these are people who are dressing up the fact that they don't believe in copyright reform at all.  Right.  These people out there who don't believe in copyright at all.  They will say, well Bill C-61, the old copyright legislation, we disagreed with these specific provisions.  Well, Bill C-32 we have these specific amendments.

Don't fool yourself.  These voices that are out there, these people that are out there who pretend to be experts that the media cite all the time. They don't believe in any copyright reform whatsoever.  They will find any excuse to oppose this bill, to drum up fear, to mislead, to misdirect, and to push people in the wrong direction and to undermine what has been a meaningful comprehensive year-long effort to get something right.  This hasn't been done since 1997, three years after I graduated high school.  It's been a long time.  We need to amend our legislation. Those people out there who try to pretend that they are copyright experts and they want to amend copyright in a meaningful way, don't be fooled by some of these people. They don't believe in any copyright.  They don't believe in individuals' right to protect their own creations.

When they speak, they need to be confronted.  If it's on Facebook, if it's on Twitter, or if it's on a talk show or if it is a newspaper, confront them and tell they are wrong.  Canada, from the Hudson's Bay Company through FTA and NAFTA to the G8 and G20, Canada always has been and always will be a trading nation.  Our future and our past and our prosperity has always been dependent on investment into Canada, being in compliance with international standards, opening ourselves up to the world, welcoming investment and working with the world.  Not being an outlier in the world, disregarding international treaties like WIPO that we've signed, disregarding our obligations to protect foreign investment into Canada, Canadian investment into Canadian businesses, we need to protect those investments and protect those jobs.

Make sure that those voices who try to find technical, non-sensical, fear-mongering reasons to oppose copyright reform are confronted every step of the way and they are defeated.  When we do that this bill will pass and Canada will be better for it.

There was considerable attention yesterday on a media report stating that Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore warned against "radical extremists" opposing C-32.  A video of part of his remarks has now been posted online [full video here]. The comments, which come after the prepared speech, feature a no-holds-barred attack against those arguing for fair copyright.  According to Moore, some proposed amendments to C-32 are not genuine but rather part of an  attempt to oppose copyright and copyright reform, to drum up fear, and to mislead.  Moore encourages confrontation, urging the audience to confront on Facebook, Twitter, talk shows and in the media until "they are defeated."  

I'm under no illusion here. Yesterday, I asked in a post who Moore's "radical extremists" are. The video suggests that he thinks it is me and the thousands of other Canadians who have argued for fair copyright (a reporter at the event reached the same conclusion and CRIA lawyer Barry Sookman is happy to do the same). His comments met with applause from the audience and will be taken as a mandate to continue the astroturfing activities on Balanced Copyright for Canada.

To hear the Minister of Canadian Heritage both discredit the views of so many people and to encourage confrontation as the optimal plan of action is incredibly discouraging.  To use his own words, it is an attempt to mislead, misdirect, and undermine what has been more than a year-long effort for Canadians to speak out on copyright. For those that are interested, my actual take on C-32 is here and some proposed amendments here.  The comments are not dissimilar from many consumer, education, library, business, and creator groups. I see few people who are "absolutists" out there - most want a fair approach but may disagree on precisely where to strike the balance on issues such as digital locks or fair dealing.

Perhaps most troubling is the fact that this is part of a growing trend. Yesterday's comments targeted fair copyright, but we are not alone.  When consumer groups criticize the bill, Moore claims they don't represent consumers and cites support from the Chamber of Commerce instead.  When political opposition parties speak of the need for reform to digital locks provisions, he says they have not put forward amendments.  When creator groups such as ACTRA criticize his approach, he blocks them on Twitter.  When business and education groups express concern about digital locks, he selectively cites their supportive comments instead.  Moore is clearly ready to fight and has urged the few supporters of DMCA-style provisions to do the same.




Add Comment (0) Tags (6)
Tuesday June 22, 2010
Who are James Moore's "Radical Extremists"?
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore delivered a keynote address at a conference sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce's IP Council today and according to media reports warned against "radical extremists" seeking to oppose Bill C-32.  It should be obvious to virtually everyone that labeling those that seek reforms to a copyright bill as "radical extremists" is an embarrassing slander that should be promptly retracted.  While there are undoubtedly some that oppose the bill altogether (just as there are some that want tougher reforms including three strikes), characterizing those concerned with a copyright bill in this manner is wholly inappropriate for a cabinet minister. So when Moore warns about radical extremists opposing C-32, who is he speaking of?  Who has criticized parts of the bill or called for reforms? A short list of those critical of the digital lock provisions in C-32 would include: Liberal MPs NDP MPs Bloc MPs Green Party Canadian Consumer Initiative Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Canadian Association of University Teachers Canadian Federation of Students Canadian Library Association Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright Retail Council of Canada Canadian Bookseller Association Documentary Organization of Canada

Of course, criticism of C-32 is not limited to the digital lock provisions with groups such as ACTRA, Writers' Union, Access Copyright, and the Canadian Conference of the Arts among those criticizing fair dealing or other elements of the bill.  Moreover, at the event Moore was speaking at, an entertainment industry representative from Vivendi criticized the notice-and-notice approach in C-32.

In other words, all opposition parties, consumers, universities, teachers, students, business, and many creator groups are all seeking changes to C-32.  Does Moore really believe that they are all radical extremists? Who is he referring to?

Update: With the release of the full video, there is an answer.  He is referring to me and the thousands of Canadians speaking out for fair copyright. My response here.

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore delivered a keynote address at a conference sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce's IP Council today and according to media reports warned against "radical extremists" seeking to oppose Bill C-32.  It should be obvious to virtually everyone that labeling those that seek reforms to a copyright bill as "radical extremists" is an embarrassing slander that should be promptly retracted.  While there are undoubtedly some that oppose the bill altogether (just as there are some that want tougher reforms including three strikes), characterizing those concerned with a copyright bill in this manner is wholly inappropriate for a cabinet minister.

So when Moore warns about radical extremists opposing C-32, who is he speaking of?  Who has criticized parts of the bill or called for reforms? A short list of those critical of the digital lock provisions in C-32 would include:
Add Comment (0) Tags (6)
Syndicate content