p2pnet - rss feed: Liberals and Conservatives on copyright
p2pnet news | Politics:- In an otherwise one-sided account of the Public Policy Forum copyright symposium, Embassy includes some noteworthy remarks from Liberal Industry critic Scott Brison on copyright reform. The article quotes Brison:
Our position is we would work to find the right balance between creators and users,’ Mr. Brison said. He said the Act to Amend the Copyright Act, or Bill C-60, which was introduced by the Liberal government in 2005 in response to the digital revolution, was a step in the right direction because it was developed through a process of ‘transparent public engagement. The Conservative approach has been anything but transparent,’ he said. ‘They’re developing a position behind closed doors, and Bill C-60 died on the order paper.
One week after Dan McTeague offered up comments seemingly derived directly from the copyright lobby speaking points, Brison - who as Industry critic presumably will play a key role in developing and articulating the Liberal position - points to two key areas of difference between the Liberals and Conservatives on copyright.
First, the Liberals may rightly argue that the Conservatives have developed their copyright bill without adequate consultation. Second, the party can use Bill C-60 as the basis for its policy position. While C-60 had its shortcomings, it did strike a balance between users and creators by establishing anti-circumvention legislation that preserved fair dealing rights.
If Industry Minister Jim Prentice continues to embrace a U.S. DMCA-style approach, there may be a deep divide in the House of Commons with both the NDP and Liberals seizing the opportunity by pointing to their more equitable alternatives that better address the concerns of education, the business community, and Canadian consumers.
Michael Geist
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist[at]uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.]
.
.Stumble It!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
hrm unless they add my ability to use for non commercial then go home to both liberals and CONservatives. Remember the gap between poor and rich affects me as im in that bottom.
Why should I being disabled not enjoy myself with dignity and you rich people sue us all over the place for enjoying some stuff. As long as one doesn’t sell it commercially and considering my income level id not be buying it anyways so in fact the true economic loss is NULL.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I happen to be conservative, so when I see the words “Liberal Bill”, I feel the need to take a close look at what it details, because I don’t always agree with (but don’t always disagree with either).
I would like to see a Bill drawn up by the people, detailing specific points about what “copyright” is defined by them. I’m willing to bet the most prolific Artists will hold the most conservative views, and the “connoisseur” will hold the most liberal view.
I personally see copyright as protecting artists in two points (a liberal view by my definition):
A) receiving credit for their work, and not having someone else take credit for it.
B) prohibiting unauthorized distributors from profiting off their work.
(This is in no way an accurate evaluation of actual copyright laws, just opinion)
I’m not sure that this specific Bill is what I’d like to see covering this issue, but it’s a start. The problem I see with it, is it’s paving the way for DRM. It’s my personal opinion that DRM is the equivalent of “Thought Police”, in the way it allows corporations to control how I listen to my music (example: not on my mp3 player).
The profound thing about this entire situation is the tons of money “not being made” by anyone, for the liberal sharing of data. This is what’s really bugging those that traditionally controlled the profits in the distribution market.
That type of world doesn’t exist anymore, so the last resort is making laws to force the market to operate in an emulated fashion. Because these artists don’t need large corporations to produce and distribute their work anymore, I feel that the market has to be redefined, not the laws on the books.