Jim Prentice sucks US corporate teat

June 16, 2008 |

Hunter S. Thompson, in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

...and sweet jesus there are a lot of them at four a.m. on a Sunday morning, still humping the American dream: that vision of the big winner somehow emerging from the last-minute pre-dawn chaos of a stale, vegas casino.

I am neither a believer nor a fan of procedural justice, but it seems that the converse is often true: something arrived at through unjust procedure usually produces an unjust result. This is the case with Bill C61, Jim Prentice's long-delayed pandering to Hollywood, first introduced as Bill C60 in June, 2005.

Michael Geist has a good summary of some of the immediate problems with the bill [also at BoingBoing and here] (e.g. you'll get fined $20000 for that copy of DeCSS on your compute even if you're using it for explicitly non-infringing purposes like putting a movie on your iPod or making a back-up of your expensive DVD). On the surface, some of the "consumer-oriented" provisions sound great -- but given that there's a blanket ban on "circumvention devices" (whether they're actually used to infringe copyright or not) means that there will be no way to exercise these supposed new "rights". Sure, you're allowed to make a backup of a DVD, theoretically, but since it's illegal to own, make or friggin' look at a DVD-decrypting device (e.g. DeCSS) you can't actually make a backup copy.

Anyway, back to the history: the first version of the bill generated about as much heat and vitriol from most "normal" people as the current version is currently generating. Back then, Prentice refused to hear comments from concerned citizens or, really, anyone except "industry" representatives.

Michael Geist

Faced with unrelenting U.S. pressure, the newly installed Industry Minister was presented with a mandate letter that required a copyright bill that would meet U.S. approval. The government promised copyright reform in the October 2007 Speech from the Throne and was set to follow through last December, only to pull back at the last hour in the face of mounting public concern.

In the months that followed, Prentice's next attempt to bring the copyright bill forward was stalled by internal cabinet concerns over how the bill would play out in public. The bill was then repackaged to include the new consumer-focused provisions such as the legalization of recording television shows and the new peer-to-peer download $500 damage award. The heart of the bill, however, remained largely unchanged since satisfying U.S. pressure remained priority number one.

MichaelGeist.ca

Combined with Canada's participation in the secret negotiation of ACTA [MichaelGeist.ca], the suggestion that this will turn Canada "into a police state" [CBC] isn't so outlandish (well, especially given that we're already a police state in many ways).

Write Jim Prentice now: Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca, Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca and tell him you don't like Bill C-61 (nor its predecessor Bill C-60). You may use my email as a model if you like:

From: Mike Warren
To: Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca, Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca
CC: Verner.J@parl.gc.ca, Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, dions1@parl.gc.ca, Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Bill C-61
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:54:26 -0600
Minister Prentice, Back in 2005, you tabled Bill C-60 "An Act to Amend the Copyright Act". At the time, considerable opposition from Citizen's groups and others was mounted. The subsequent non-confidence vote effectively killed that bill, but you have since introduced Bill C-61 which is nearly the same. In the intervening two years, how much public consultation was your office able to conduct? I am interested to see any documentation from any consultation at all. Who did you consult with over the legislation? All I can find are references to the US Trade Representative and "industry" groups (largely American). This is worrisome, as you are supposed to be representing MY interests not those of US corporations. Indeed, the so-called Canadian "copyright industry" is apparently not served by our continued extension and enforcement of copyrights since most Canadian copyrights are not held by Canadians at all. In the 1970's, a Senate Committee looked into this and other issues around so-called "intellectual property" and concluded that it might be better for Canada to look at forgoing Copyright entirely. Has your office looked at this inquiry? Even despite this, looking at the very similar "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA) experience from the US may be instructive; did your office do this comparison? Is the US getting more out of its copyright deal now than before this legislation (that is, are there more creative works entering the public domain, the stated goal of US copyrights)? Gross statistical analysis would easily answer this question with "no", even if one limits an inquiry to looking at record- and movie- industry profits, which continue to increase despite hand-wringing about the evil threat of "downloads". On average, people who download music buy MORE of it than their non-downloading counterparts, but presumably you knew this already. I vehemently oppose Bill C-61 (and its predecessor Bill C-60). As a constituent of yours, I expect an answer to my questions about your office's development of this legislation. Yours truly, Mike Warren mike@mike-warren.com #1419 18th Avenue NW Calgary, AB

name:
email:
URL:
Private mail only; don't publish anywhere.