Jim Prentice Wishes People Wouldn't Be So Specific In Their Questions Over Canadian Copyright Law

from the wouldn't-life-be-better-if-we-were-all-vague-in-our-criticisms? dept

It would be mildly amusing to watch how Canadian politician Jim Prentice was squirming away from any serious discussion around his new copyright bill, if it weren't such a serious issue. After Prentice was forced to delay the bill originally planned for late last year, he promised to consult with all parties before coming out with a better bill. He did not. Instead, he just kept waiting, making minor changes, and then announced the bill at a time where he hoped it wouldn't garner that much attention. However, it has received plenty of attention from people asking a bunch of questions, and Prentice's response has hardly been compelling. If anything, he's made it abundantly clear that he doesn't want to actually discuss the specifics.

Michael Geist discusses the various tactics Prentice has used to avoid actually dealing with the massive shortcomings of the bill, including hanging up on radio interviewers and now saying that he won't answer the questions being raised until it's debated in Parliamentary committee. But, perhaps the most ridiculous of all is that Prentice's chief of staff is complaining that the complaints and questions about the bill are "too specific." Apparently, they were hoping for vague questions that could be brushed off with vague answers. Unfortunately, an awful lot of people (not, apparently, including Prentice) understand the terrible impact this bill would have and would like him to respond to those concerns. Prentice, apparently, doesn't like that line of "specific" questions and will hide behind the Parliamentary committee (and his ability to hang up) rather than answer them.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, jim prentice

Canadian DMCA Introduced (Finally); Pretends US Lobbyists Had Nothing To Do With It

from the 51st-state dept

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Originally slated for the end of last year, an uproar from tens of thousands of concerned citizens in Canada, made Industry Minister Jim Prentice delay the bill. He insisted that he would listen to constituents and open the process up to make sure the bill achieved the right balance -- except that no open discussions were ever held. Instead, he apparently looked to add a few "consumer friendly" provisions to the bill, legalizing things that should be perfectly legal anyway (time-shifting, ability to move songs you purchased to an iPod) and then kept all the bad things. After trying to sneak it through last week, the bill was delayed briefly. However, with Prentice promising the entertainment industry that the bill would be released before summer, he was running out of time.

And, indeed, this morning the bill was finally introduced. It's pretty much as bad as you would expect. It includes a DMCA-like anti-circumvention clause and fines of $500 to $20,000 for any unauthorized content you may have. Existing law already had similar fines, but the new law basically expands what you may get fined for. The law also does provide safe harbors for service providers (a good thing) including a "notice-and-notice" provision, rather than an American-style "notice-and-takedown" system (i.e., when informed of infringement, the service providers just need to inform the user, rather than immediately take down the content). Those make sense, but are drowned out by other problems with the bill. Prentice is pushing the angle that this bill is a "made-in-Canada" law, which is pretty laughable, since everyone knows that it was pretty much written by US industry lobbyists.

Even the supposedly "pro-consumer" parts of the bill (which weren't in the original version) have a lot of questionable fine print. And, of course, it looks like Prentice is using some procedural tricks to try to get the bill fast-tracked with as few opportunities to change it as possible. Hopefully, the expectations by some that this bill will be left to die come true. While there may be elements of Canada's copyright law that need updating, creating a mini-DMCA is hardly a step in the right direction.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, canada, copyright, dmca, jim prentice

Canadian DMCA Hide And Seek -- With Bonus Wikipedia Edits

from the where'd-it-go--now dept

Despite the expectations that the new Canadian DMCA would be released Wednesday, it appears that the bill's introduction has been delayed as the guy behind it, Jim Prentice, figures out what to do. Some reports note that Prentice apparently promised the recording industry that the bill would be introduced before the summer, which seems fairly ridiculous. Why should he promise one industry anything -- especially when there's so much consumer and business opposition to the bill? In the meantime, though, while not introducing the bill, it does appear that folks in Prentice's office have been busy scrubbing Wikipedia to make sure this controversy isn't on Prentice's page.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, dmca, jim prentice, michael geist, wikipedia

It's Baaaaaack. Canadian DMCA On The Way

from the if-you-wait-long-enough,-maybe-people-will-forget dept

You may recall that last fall, Michael Geist notified the world that the Canadian government was about to announce a Canadian version of the DMCA, that was effectively a Hollywood wishlist of unnecessary copyright controls. The politician in charge of pushing this through, Jim Prentice, thought that he could get it approved quietly with no one noticing -- figuring that copyright is a boring subject that no one cares about. He was wrong. Thanks to Geist shining some sunlight on the bill, tens of thousands of individuals suddenly became quite vocal in opposition to the bill -- and even a bunch of big Canadian companies came out against the bill. Prentice delayed the bill, insisting that he would listen to consumer and business concerns... though there were never any open hearings or public discussions.

Instead, it looks like Prentice made a very minor change in the bill (allowing "time shifting") and then has waited for a convenient time to re-release the bill. It's expected that the bill will once again be introduced this coming Wednesday (just before Prentice is set to leave town). Once again, Michael Geist has all the details including what the likely talking points are in support of the bill... and why they're totally bogus. It sounds like Prentice is going to stick to the entirely false claim that Canada needs to approve this bill to meet its "international obligations" as found in various treaties it's signed. This is a common trick used by the entertainment industry and politicians to justify bad legislation. But, as Geist notes, Canada already is in compliance with the treaty in question. It's too bad Canada didn't follow the lead of other countries in standing up for the rights of its consumers.

In the meantime, as Geist notes, Prentice seems to think that this particular bill will sneak through again without much opposition. It's surprising that he thinks that, given what happened last time. But, if he's going to think people forget things that quickly, perhaps its time for Canadian citizens to make it clear that they don't forget, and they don't appreciate Prentice selling out their basic rights to folks in Hollywood who are too lazy to update their obsolete business models.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, dmca, jim prentice, michael geist

Canadian Politician Pushing For Canadian DMCA Caught Violating Copyright

from the irony? dept

As you may have heard, some Canadian politicians have been trying (despite great opposition) to introduce a Canadian version of the DMCA, claiming that it's necessary -- despite an awful lot of evidence to the contrary. In a fair bit of irony, it turns out that the guy in charge of introducing the legislation, Jim Prentice, also happens to have been caught infringing on the copyright of a song used at an event to mock an opposing politician. You might think this would get him to realize that the copyright issue isn't as black and white as he seems to assume it is. In the meantime, his opponents have pointed out that this is a pretty good reason he shouldn't be in charge of copyright laws, but were rebuffed. The whole thing, of course, is rather silly and a bit of "politics as usual." However, it should make it clear that this issue is a bit more complex than Prentice wants everyone to believe it is. And, with that, he should at least be willing to revisit the question of whether or not such a law would do more harm than good.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, dmca, jim prentice