Digital Copyright Canada

Robert Smits wrote:
> That's true, because there are always "more important" issues for each of the 
> parties than copyright. The "more important" issues will vary from party to 
> party, and will vary based on how many votes each party thinks it can gain or 
> lose with the particular policy.

   I don't know if it is just me, but how candidates think about 
copyright is an indicator of their general understanding and viewpoints 
towards ongoing and fairly radical changes in the economy.  It tells me 
whether they are a hander-on to the old industrial economy 
(neo-luddites?), or whether they are interested in allowing (or even 
encouraging) humanity to move forward.

   I find that if I agree with someone on copyright related things, I am 
far more likely to agree with (or at least respect) their views on other 
policy issues as well as they are at least coming from a compatible 
mindset as to where we are in history.

   I also see this debate as incumbents vs. innovators, but far larger 
than just in an economic sense: we are talking about incumbent political 
philosophy vs. futurists.

> I haven' seen the blog, but I've been reviewing testimony before the Heritage 
> Committee and the way that Danielle Bouvet (Director, Copyright Policy 
> Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage) and the Minister, Bev Oda declined 
> to answer questions on fair use, on DRM, etc make me suspicious. 

Remember that Danielle Bouvet is a bureaucrat with a government 
department, not someone who has party-based partisan views.

   Ms. Oda declining to answer questions is also part of what all 
Ministers have always done.   The only reason we haven't seen federal 
Bloc and NDP ministers refusing to answer basic questions is because 
they have not formed the government (and in the case of the Bloc, are 
incapable of ever doing so).

   Probably one of the moments where I understood the non-partisan 
nature of Copyright was while being in the audience for a November 24, 
2004, meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (CHPC).  In 
this case it was a Liberal MP asking a question of the then Liberal 
Minister of Heritage, and getting an answer that had absolutely nothing 
to do with the question.

Letter to Scott Simms in reply to copyright questions from committee meeting
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/582

---cut---

     Mr. Scott Simms: I have a ten-year-old son who is able to get about 
a hundred songs by going click-click. You talk about protecting the 
artists, but it's a delicate balance here. We have thousands, if not 
millions, of people out there breaking the law, and unseemingly. I won't 
say all of them are completely innocent, but there's a lot of innocence 
out there.

     How are we going to deal with this? What stage are we at right now 
with the industry department? We do have free downloading, so how can we 
protect the artist while at the same time trying to be sensible? We're 
seeing examples in the United States where it's approaching the 
ludicrous. We're arresting young children for doing something they're 
unaware of. Are we going in that direction? Where are we at this stage?

     Hon. Liza Frulla: First of all, we'll answer that with the 
copyright law. We want to assess that within the copyright bill, to 
start off with. The industry association is talking about $425 million 
that they are losing due to des téléchargements. Of course, it is a 
complex issue that we will have to address when we look at the copyright 
bill, absolutely.

     Mr. Scott Simms: When will that be? Do you have a timeline?

     Hon. Liza Frulla: As I said, we are writing the bill now with the 
industry department. You'll have the vote. You're talking about 
equilibrium. You'll have the vote opinion, and that's why we have to put 
our differences aside. We are writing the bill now. Our schedule is to 
present it to members of cabinet before Christmas, and we're really 
trying hard. That means that if everything goes well, you'll be able to 
look at and study the bill next session.

[Translation]

     Mr. Scott Simms: Thank you. That's it for me.
---cut---

   I also like to note that Sarmite Sam Bulte walked over and whispered 
something into Mr. Simms ear.  I suspect that what she said is why Mr. 
Simms has not yet ever replied to anyone in our community about what was 
said, and why it is that he allowed the Minister to completely sidetrack 
his question.

   I even wrote letters during the election, and didn't hear anything 
back:  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/edid/10002

   If anyone knows constituents in the riding of 
Bonavista--Gander--Grand Falls--Windsor (Newfoundland and Labrador), it 
would be very helpful.

   Here is a map!
http://www.elections.ca/scripts/pss/Map.aspx?L=e&ED=10002&EV=99&EV_TYPE=6&PC=&Prov=NL&ProvID=10&MapID=&QID=-1&PageID=27&TPageID=

> Perhaps not, but it's the very industries that are in favour of most of the 
> stuff we oppose that have been giving her money. 

   The same industries have given money to anyone who was likely to 
become the Heritage Minister, so this is also not a partisan issue. 
During the last election they were hedging their bets, with mildly 
different incumbent intermediary groups funding Oda and Bulte.

   Mr. Angus is unusually immune to being bought off by these same folks 
because he has personal experience as an independent creator in Canada. 
  Most MPs lack that type of experience, and in the case of Oda come 
from a broadcaster (intermediary) perspective.  Whenever you hear the 
word "independent" you should always ask, "independent of what"?  The 
answer is: independent of the incumbent intermediaries, which is the 
community Oda comes from and who financially support her.

   I'm an independent creator, and I donated to Mr. Angus's campaign as 
I wanted to ensure that "one of us" made it into the house.  It wasn't 
relevant to me which political party he was from. Is that situation all 
that different?

   I'm glad it looks bad to the general public to have Ms. Oda receiving 
money from the very people she is mandated to be regulating, but the 
entire Department of Canadian Heritage is in the same form of regulatory 
capture.

   Heritage Canada funds many arts groups, but these are largely groups 
with the incumbent way of thinking of the creation, distribution and 
funding of creativity.   Those who are truly part of new-media using 
zero marginal cost methods of production, distribution and funding tend 
not to receive any of this money from Heritage.

   Heritage is naturally going to be more helpful to those very groups 
that they interact with on a daily basis, and be largely oblivious (or 
consider to be competition, and thus something to stifle) innovators.

   The same thing can be said about parts of Industry Canada with the 
telecom industry, but Industry is a much broader department with 
everything from telecommunications regulation to the Competition Bureau, 
ICT branch, e-Commerce Branch, and Consumer Affairs.  They even have 
(gasp) economists working for the department, some of who are very 
forward thinking people.  This diversity is why the copyright policy 
views we see from Industry Canada seem to themselves be far more 
balanced than what we see coming out of Heritage Canada.

>>    I'm curious if you watched Even Moglen's talk.  Extremely
>> inspirational on the importance of moving away from marginal-cost based
>> business models for creativity.  It is this broader new-economy
>> economic, social justice, globalist, etc approach that inspires me to do
>> the volunteer policy work I do. http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2813
> 
> No. I've heard of him but that's it.

   Please listen to the talk.  It is very inspirational.  Even if you 
aren't a supporter of Free Software he puts much of the work we are 
doing here in a larger historical and global context.

   The video is on both YouTube and Archive.org.

   You might even want to download it and make copies on CDs to give to 
people.

   For a more narrow talk on the background of a future Free Software 
license upgrade, check out:

FLOSS Weekly 13: Eben Moglen on GPL 3.0
http://www.twit.tv/floss13

>>    The important thing to remember is that it is individuals that make
>> this difference, and that there isn't party policy from any of the
>> parties with seats that speak to this issue better than others.  This
>> may change over time if the grassroots of the parties push, but thus far
>> I haven't seen this change.
> 
> Not yet.

   Mind if we get partisan for a moment?   As someone associated with 
the NDP, how do you see the party able to move forward on 
post-industrial economic policy when the party was formed partly with a 
merger with interests of the industrial-era labour movement?

   The other parties don't have as strong tie with something that is 
unique to the Industrial era.  What strategies do you think will need to 
be deployed within the NDP to move forward?  Are there social justice 
values from the labour movement that can be extracted from the 
industrial-era ties that movement has, and allow these structures to 
look past their historical reason for being?

   Much of the industrial era struggle over the means of production and 
distribution are changing as we move to an "information" economy where 
we have production, distribution and access.  Many of the centralized 
control issues are solved by embracing and harnessing the zero marginal 
cost of knowledge.  This zero marginal cost is seen as the greatest 
threat to these groups such as the "Writers Union" and the majority of 
other creator groups with strong labour movement ties.

>>    It would be interesting if there were petitions signed that weren't
>> about what riding someone was in, but were collected at party events and
>> were tabled by a party MP as "being from members of our party from
>> across Canada".
> 
> That's more difficult to organize, but may be doable.

   Is it?  Which part?  Finding an MP to speak to the issue when they 
table the signatures, or keeping signatures sorted such that a batch can 
be known to be from members of a specific party?   Or is the issue 
talking about policy at party events (constituency association meetings, 
policy conferences, etc)?  Why would policy be hard to discuss at party 
functions?

(I don't just mean any specific party, but parties in general.  Although 
I think the NDP will have an easier time as far as having an ally who is 
currently in the house.)

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Digital Copyright Canada

Re: [d@DCC] Mr. Angus in the House.

All Canadian Citizens are "Rights Holders"!